Warren Buffett supports Hillary

"As I said I have no idea of all the variables involved, but the evidence is there."

No it is not. THAT is the point.

I understand that not everyone has an economics background. But everyone on a political site should understand this simple point...

The President cannot implement policies that effect the market... WITHOUT Congress.

Or does someone disagree with that?

If you do not disagree with that, then you have to realize that looking at the market performance based on who is in the White House is pointless.... because you have to include the makeup of Congress in conjunction with who is in the White House if you want a true assessment of how policies affect the market.

If you do that... then you realize that the BEST years for the market came at times when one party controlled both houses of Congress and the other controlled the White House.

But even that is simplistic as it does not account for what is happening outside of government.

The numbers over the last decade may show a correlation... but most definitely do not show causation.
 
Superfreak said:
"As I said I have no idea of all the variables involved, but the evidence is there."

No it is not. THAT is the point.

I understand that not everyone has an economics background. But everyone on a political site should understand this simple point...

The President cannot implement policies that effect the market... WITHOUT Congress.

Or does someone disagree with that?

If you do not disagree with that, then you have to realize that looking at the market performance based on who is in the White House is pointless.... because you have to include the makeup of Congress in conjunction with who is in the White House if you want a true assessment of how policies affect the market.

If you do that... then you realize that the BEST years for the market came at times when one party controlled both houses of Congress and the other controlled the White House.

But even that is simplistic as it does not account for what is happening outside of government.

The numbers over the last decade may show a correlation... but most definitely do not show causation.
Click to expand...


I do realize that. I also realize that the President sends HIS budget to Congress. I also realize, that with the exception of most of the Clinton Presidency, we have had a Democratic Congress. I also realize that, the President, most especially in his first term, will usually get his policies through congress.
 
SF,

Are you seriously suggesting that for the past 70-100 years, the fact that stock markets, GDP, unemployment, real income, inflation, and goverment spending, are better traditionally under Democratic adminstration, is due to mere randomness, luck, and statistical anomaly?

I'm not buying it. That is a LOT of data, over a LONG period of time.

As for your assertion about congress and divided goverment, two points:

1) data show that markets perform better under Dem Senate and House, than under GOP Senate and House.


2) Since Dems have controlled congress for most of the last 80 years, there isn't enough data to say how a one-party GOP control of congress and presidency performs. Although 2001-2006 was relatively lackluster, and was indeed the weakest post-recession economic recovey on record.

3) with that in mind, the 1990s definetly was an example of great economic performance, with divided government. But, over a longer time frame, congress (dominated by Dems for most of 80 years) and Dem presidents, outperfomed GOP adminstrations.

Real Disposable Income Growth (annual):

Dems: 3.65%
GOP: 3.08%

Employment Gains, per year:

Dems: 1.684/year
GOP: 1.279/year

Unemployment (average annual):

Dems: 5.1%
GOP: 6.75%

GDP Growth (annual):

Dems: 3.9%
GOP: 2.9%

Inflation

Dems: 4.26%
GOP: 4.96%

Growth in Federal Spending:

Dems: 6.96%
GOP: 7.57%

http://www.eriposte.com/economy/other/demovsrep.htm
Click to expand...
 
Cypress said:
SF,

Are you seriously suggesting that for the past 70-100 years, the fact that stock markets, GDP, unemployment, real income, inflation, and goverment spending, are better traditionally under Democratic adminstration, is due to mere randomness, luck, and statistical anomaly?

I'm not buying it. That is a LOT of data, over a LONG period of time.

As for your assertion about congress and divided goverment, two points:

1) data show that markets perform better under Dem Senate and House, than under GOP Senate and House.


2) Since Dems have controlled congress for most of the last 80 years, there isn't enough data to say how a one-party GOP control of congress and presidency performs. Although 2001-2006 was relatively lackluster, and was indeed the weakest post-recession economic recovey on record.

3) with that in mind, the 1990s definetly was an example of great economic performance, with divided government. But, over a longer time frame, congress (dominated by Dems for most of 80 years) and Dem presidents, outperfomed GOP adminstrations.
Click to expand...


What numbers are you using when stating our economic recovery in weakest post recession?
 
"Are you seriously suggesting that for the past 70-100 years, the fact that stock markets, GDP, unemployment, real income, inflation, and goverment spending, are better traditionally under Democratic adminstration, is due to mere randomness, luck, and statistical anomaly?"

without question..... yes... that is what I am saying. Because again... you are looking at correlation and trying to presume some type of causation that does not exist.
 
Superfreak said:
"Are you seriously suggesting that for the past 70-100 years, the fact that stock markets, GDP, unemployment, real income, inflation, and goverment spending, are better traditionally under Democratic adminstration, is due to mere randomness, luck, and statistical anomaly?"

without question..... yes... that is what I am saying. Because again... you are looking at correlation and trying to presume some type of causation that does not exist.
Click to expand...


right. That's what I concluded thirty posts ago: that you dismissed 70-100 years of economic data, showing Dems performing better on virtually all market and economic metrics, as either pure luck or pure randomness.

Whatever you need to do to convince yourself the GOP and conservative economic policies are superior - even if the data don't support it. ;) I had a hard time letting go of being a republican too. It took me about 4 years, from 1985-89: I kept noticing that actual facts weren't supporting my fledgling republican ideology. ;)

BTW: We haven't had hardly any GOP congress's since the 1930s, with the exception of 1995-2006.
 
Last edited:
BTW: We haven't had hardly and GOP congress's since the 1930s, with the exception of 1995-2006.
//

And now we all know why :D
 
"I do realize that. I also realize that the President sends HIS budget to Congress."

Thank you for that. But how many times does the President get HIS budget through as he wants it? Especially when Congress is controlled by the opposing party? The Budget, like policies, are worked out in conjunction with Congress. Typically modified by Congress until a compromise is reached with the President.

"I also realize, that with the exception of most of the Clinton Presidency, we have had a Democratic Congress."

And Congress over that time has exerted its influence on the policies of each President.

"I also realize that, the President, most especially in his first term, will usually get his policies through congress."

True to an extent, but again, if the opposing party controls Congress, typically the Presidents policies will be "tweaked" until a compromise is reached. If Congress does at times give carte blanche to the President, then they are still responsible for doing so. Which is why we saw the Reps get the boot in 2006.
 
"Whatever you need to do to convince yourself the GOP and conservative economic policies are superior - even if the data don't support it. I had a hard time letting go of being a republican too. It took me about 4 years, from 1985-89: I kept noticing that actual facts weren't supporting my fledgling republican ideology. "


Now you are just being an ass. Again, I did not say the Reps were better. I said there IS NO CAUSATION to support your claims. NONE. You are simply trying to create causation from correlation.... without looking at ANY of the data. THE DATA that you so fondly quote...is not the result of the President on his own. SO looking at the President on his own and showing correlation and acting as though it has any weight is ridiculous.

But please... cling to your pathetic beliefs all you wish.
 
We already tested your hypothesis, that 100 years of stock market performance was correlated, but not helped (caused), by Democratic policies.

We looked at a whole host and range of other economic metrics. If the stock market/Dem correlation was a false positive (statistically insignificant), we should see some evidence of randomness in some of the other economic metrics: We shouldn't see all the other economic metrics always performing traditionally better under one party.

It turned out that there was no randomness. Not only market data, but virtually all other economic metrics, showed better performance under Democratic adminstrations. (and, hence democratic congress's too, since Dems have held congress for almost all of the last 80 years).

In scientific parlance, that means your hypothesis was rejected ;)
 
Last edited:
No Cypress... because there IS correlation in a good market to all of the good economic data.

What you do not have is causation. You are trying to say that some mysterious policies implemented solely by the Presidents has had an effect on the market.

You continue to ignore the effect on Congress. You continue to try to break down performance under Reps and Dems by using JUST the President or JUST the Congress or JUST one of the houses of Congress. You must look at them TOGETHER. You must also factor in geopolitical conditions, the business cycle, productivity of the American workforce, new innovations etc...

Looking at JUST at who was in the White House and proclaiming that one party is better than the other is quite simply... idiotic. Because you are ignoring all other factors.

also... there is absolutely NOTHING scientific about your claims. NOTHING.

You cannot take an equation that states...

"a+b+c+d+e+....+z= performance" and reduce it to "a=performance" and then act as if your equation has any merit.
 
I'll take 8 more years of random clintonomics please.

Freak, man up and admit that if the rest of the cons had Reagan's record you'd be pumping the rep pres do better horn.


Are you going to tell me Ronnie wasn't good for the economy?:clink:
 
Are you going to tell me Ronnie wasn't good for the economy?
//

ronnie just proved that tax increases are good for the economy.
 
"Freak, man up and admit that if the rest of the cons had Reagan's record you'd be pumping the rep pres do better horn."

No top... because while I am certainly a fan of Reagan and Ike, if the numbers were reversed it would not make it any more accurate to state that the President is responsible without considering all of the other factors involved. Only a moron would do that. Which is why I cannot believe that you are continuing to support such idiotic statements. I thought you considered yourself adept at economics? You cannot be if you support such simplisitic generalizations.
 
You're entitled to your opinon SF.

I'm comfortable with the data.

I suppose republicans can campaign on promises that their economic policies produce better results than democratic policies. Although a century's worth of data don't show a shred of evidence for it, just trust them!

On the other hand, the Democrats can say that their economic policies produce better results....and they have a century's worth of data to back it up!


I like that debate, SF!
 
Cypress said:
You're entitled to your opinon SF.

I'm comfortable with the data.

I suppose republicans can campaign on promises that their economic policies produce better results than democratic policies. Although a century's worth of data don't show a shred of evidence for it, just trust them!

On the other hand, the Democrats can say that their economic policies produce better results....and they have a century's worth of data to back it up!


I like that debate, SF!
Click to expand...

Well stated Cypress.
That is pretty much the basics of how it is.
 
freak who's the moron,
I'm with Cypress 100% on this one.
Read this, NEITHER ONE OF US SAID IT WAS 100% DUE TO THE DEM PRES.
Maybe it's marginally due to.
I could give to shits the reasons, the end result is what I want.
8 years more Clintonomics @ 15% average
vs 8 yrs more fat old white fossil @8%

Plus the dems might actually pull out of Iraq, and stop jailing kids for smoking pot.:clink:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top