Commenter “Dog Gone” finally responded to my challenge a few weeks back, in this thread.
To her credit, she cited a source to one of her claims.
To her debit? It isn’t a very good source.
Anyway, “Mitchketeers” – feel free to go and respond to the response.
by
Tags:
so she REALLY wants her audience back!
Correlation ≠ causation. Otherwise, DG:tl;dr.
meh mitch you should make it a 3 strikes and your banned if ahe goes super duper off topic. Also Id love to hear her further spin about how our side is doomed yet we dominate government at the local state and national level at levels unseen since the roaring 20s
What Mr. D said.
But, being long winded myself, I’ll add that I don’t believe that any serious person has said that electing a GOP president is a magic elixir that makes the economy do better, and that electing a D president is a magic elixir that makes the economy do worse . DG seems to believe, however, that the opposite is true, and that this can be proven by a few white papers anyone can read on the internet.
I’ll add that I don’t believe that any serious person has said that electing a GOP president is a magic elixir that makes the economy do better, and that electing a D president is a magic elixir that makes the economy do worse
No, it is true. However, the content of House and Senate matters as well. The axiom that R is good for the economy and D is bad has been proven time and time again. Of course, there are exceptions and RINOs, like Bush for example to whom the axiom does not apply.
JPA…and no matter which why you look at it, comparing past Presidents with today’s parties on specific economic issues is tough. Truman was going to nationalize the railroads and draft all the railroad employees into the Army to end a strike. How does that tie to today’s Democrats. Richard Nixon was very liberal on several fronts (EPA for example). Bill Clinton talked about how important border security is.
But if nothing else as far as Trump goes, I am sooo happy to hear John Bolton’s name coming up as a possibility in his cabinent.
DG,
You’re going to finish our conversation on that other post before we let your other comments out of moderation.
It can be now, it can be after dog season, it matters not.
Educating the media class about economics would go a long way toward healing the divisions in this country. In a market economy, a balance has to be found between high economic growth and the negative side effects of the things that create high economic growth (immigration, automation, environmental exploitation). In the days when the Republicans represented business and Democrats represented labor, this was understood. These days you have the Democrats claiming that they can deliver high economic growth without lowering wages or exploiting the environment, and the media types just nod their heads and publish it as though they have just heard a serious discussion of economic issues in the 21st century.
Again, we disagree. You CAN deliver high economic growth without lowering wages AND exploiting the environment (fracking and drilling and logging and other …ings are not exploitive if done sustainably and responsibly). Just kill the regs and reduce the goobernment that enforces and supervises these regs to let them do more. However, I am afraid that is something neither establishment rethuglicans nor demoncrats in Congress will be willing to do.
JPA-
How much we want to protect the environment or workers from harmful exploitation is a value judgment (as is what is harmful to them). That is a problem of public choice theory. The Left has accepted the notoon that public choices are made, or can be made, on a rational basis, while individual consumer choices are hopelessly irrational. Economists disagree. You cannot apply the principles of a market economy to public choices, only to individual choice (this explains why: http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/PublicChoice.html).
So the more resources you direct to public expenditures, via taxes or mandates (aka regulations), the less resources are available to invest in activities that have a positive economic outcome.
All laws are regulations with an economic impact, even the laws that we agree with.
The Left has accepted the notoon that public choices are made, or can be made, on a rational basis, while individual consumer choices are hopelessly irrational.
On this we agree. I just hate it when “you use your tongue purttier than a twenty-dollar whore” and get me all confused.
SJWs like DG are fond of citing cherry picked studies that support their belief in left wing redistributive economic policies. But in their next breath they bemoan the fact that income inequality has never been higher. So which version do they believe? If Democratic economic leadership is so productive, why are things so crappy for the underclass? Read “The Bell Curve” for the answer.
“The Bell Curve” might explain some of the differences, but as far as I can tell, the big differentiator between rich and poor isn’t intelligence, but rather things like work, marriage, and the like. It’s primarily ethics and wisdom, not raw smarts.
(which is why you see so many people with incredible raw smarts–professors and such–looking as if they just slept on a park bench)
BTW, regarding DG, looks like yet another threadjack and providing impossibly inadequate evidence to make her point. Not worth the time.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.