{"id":32149,"date":"2012-12-03T12:00:02","date_gmt":"2012-12-03T18:00:02","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.shotinthedark.info\/wp\/?p=32149"},"modified":"2012-12-03T12:34:07","modified_gmt":"2012-12-03T18:34:07","slug":"you-call-it-a-blizzard-i-call-it-the-spray-when-bullst-hits-the-fan","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/www.shotinthedark.info\/wp\/?p=32149","title":{"rendered":"Meet The Two-Stage Snowblower Of Logic And Analysis"},"content":{"rendered":"

Last week, I addressed a Dave Mindeman post<\/a> about the DFL whose highlight was Mindeman saying, essentially, “the beatings will continue until morale improves, and\u00a0you’ll like it<\/em>!”.<\/p>\n

Well, no – his idea was the business has nothing to fear from DFL hegemony in the state. \u00a0We can debate that – indeed, we will – but in fact the bulk of my critique had more to do with his claim that business does better when Democrats are in charge. It’s just not true.<\/p>\n

Mindeman responded last week with a post entitled, presumably with no irony intended, “Answering Mitch Berg with a Blizzard of Facts<\/a>“.<\/p>\n

The “unintended irony” bit is because most of the flakes in his “blizzard” that aren’t utterly irrelevant or non-sequiturs\u00a0reinforce my point, and undercut his<\/em>\u00a0<\/em>and, more importantly, the DFL’s and the lefty establishment’s (for whom Mindeman is a reliable crier).<\/p>\n

Example: \u00a0He pointed out the liberal meme that “the economy does better when Democrats are in the White House”. \u00a0I responded that while that is “true”, it’s also dependent on macroeconomic context that goes way beyond the sitting President’s party. \u00a0Here – check that part out for yourself<\/a>:<\/p>\n

So when Mindeman writes…:<\/p>\n

1. According to McGraw-Hill\u2019s S&P Capital IQ, the S&P 500 has rallied an average of 12.1% per year since 1901 when Democrats occupy the White House, compared with just 5.1% for the GOP.<\/p>\n

2. Gross domestic product has increased 4.2% each year since 1949 when Democrats run the executive branch, versus 2.6% under Republicans.<\/p>\n

3. S&P 500 GAAP earnings per share climbed a median of 10.5% per year since 1936 during Democratic administrations, besting an 8.9% median advance under Republicans, S&P said.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Again, as I pointed out,\u00a0there was more to it than just the “D” or the “R” attached to the guy at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue<\/a>. \u00a0The “Blizzard of Fact” completely dodges the important part – all that inconvenient context. \u00a0It merely piles data together to repeat a flawed thesis.<\/p>\n

(And data from before 1933 is both irrelevant – the economy was fundamentally different before The New Deal – and a bit of a red herring, since there really was only one Democrat president between 1901 and 1933, the loathsome Woodrow Wilson, whose economy “benefitted” from massive wartime deficit spending).<\/p>\n

Mindeman seems to have learned “fact checking” from the “Dog Gone” liberal obedience school: Google some figures, print ’em, and huff derisively at the fools one must suffer. \u00a0To be fair, it’s all one needs among leftybloggers.<\/p>\n

But Dave’s not at the 331 Club anymore. \u00a0He goes on:<\/p>\n

And just in case Mr. Berg wants to highlight Obama’s tenure….<\/p>\n

A. Corporate profits have surged an average of 51.8% under Obama, the best out of any stretch of party control since 1933, S&P said.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Sounds good, right?<\/p>\n

Except it’s not because business is banging along on eight cylinders. \u00a0It’s because businesses are sitting on their cash. \u00a0They’re laying off workers, and outsourcing jobs<\/a>. \u00a0They are\u00a0not\u00a0<\/em>investing<\/a> in new plants, new products and new hires.<\/p>\n

Mindeman’s factoid seems to support his thesis – but if you look at the context behind the figure, you find it supports mine.<\/p>\n

B. The S&P 500 has also climbed an average of 12.3% each year since Obama’s inauguration, far outpacing the 3.3% mean return for his predecessor.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Asked and answered. \u00a0Businesses are sitting on cash. As noted over and over by pundits on both <\/em> sides of the aisle, they took the bailout money and put it into CDs. \u00a0They’re outsourcing. \u00a0They’re getting leaner, and buckling in for a rough ride. \u00a0They are\u00a0not\u00a0expanding; they are sitting tight, tightening payrolls, paring back expenses, blowing out inventory.<\/p>\n

That translates into booming profits – but not because business is healthy, thriving and growing. \u00a0Or has Mr. Mindeman not noticed the unemployment rate?<\/p>\n

And just in case you question my sources… they all come from Fox Business News…an analysis from September 4, 2012.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Well, that’s great.<\/p>\n

Unfortunately, they do nothing to change the fact that Mindeman’s thesis – that economies do better, historically, under Democrats than Republicans, is only true on the \u00a0most superficial level possible – a correlation between numbers and dates that ignores causation. \u00a0And, notwithstanding the unearned condescension…:<\/p>\n

But facts never settle anything for conservatives.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

…still ignores it.<\/p>\n

Note to Dave Mindeman; your “blizzard” did nothing to address\u00a0any\u00a0<\/em>of the historical or macroeconomic context behind the numbers; the fact that from 1945 to 1970, we were the world’s only functional export economy; the fact that some of the greatest shocks to the economy happened to occur during GOP administrations – the 1953 and 1958 Recessions, the Oil Embargo, Reagan’s sweating out of stagflation, the transition after the Cold War, the Dotbomb and 9\/11 recession, the Subprime Mortgage collapse, none of which (except the 1982 constriction) had anything to do with Republican policy, or indeed, presidential politics of any stripe.<\/p>\n

It was less a “blizzard” than a drizzle of non-sequiturs; a rhetorical version of yelling “pay no attention to the history behind that curtain!”.<\/p>\n

And saying “conservatives aren’t convinced by facts” is a cozy bit of name-calling – but the fact (!) is, facts without analysis and context are just…well, snow.<\/p>\n

———-<\/p>\n

I don’t mean to be too hard on Mindeman. \u00a0He’s one of the small cadre of Twin Cities’ leftybloggers that doesn’t deserve to be under police surveillance. \u00a0Leaving the\u00a0pro forma\u00a0<\/em> condescension aside, the guy actually tries to debate. \u00a0Kudos to him.<\/p>\n

But here are some bonus questions:<\/p>\n

If business does so well under liberal Democrat rule, then…:<\/p>\n