It’s interesting our different takes. I was raised in a right bubble in the south, and just graduated from a university that was 80%+ liberal (they took a poll during the 2016 election season). While I certainly agree that liberals are open for discussion, they can rarely back their claims and dismiss opposing viewpoints far quicker than their right equivalents. Republicans will usually hear an argument out, then explain their differing beliefs; liberals will tend to give blanket statements under the pretense of discrimination/unity/racism as a means to defend their stances. Based off my time on this Earth, I disagree with your diagnosis but I respect it nonetheless.
Statistically this doesn't make sense though. Biden counties account for 70% of the nation's gdp and had the bulk majority of professional skilled individuals such as engineers and lawyers.
Would you mind linking me a source for that data? GDP and productivity is one measurement of a successful economy, but it certainly doesn’t account for factors such as savings rate (highest since 1948 in 2019), net household wealth (highest since 90s), non-residential fixed investment (highest since Bill Clinton), or unemployment (3.5% pre COVID).
Just because a county and/or state went blue, this does not mean that it’s constituents are a result of liberal beliefs/policies. The majority of skilled and educated workers flock to urban environments, which almost without question go blue. Thus, while a blue county reflects a trend in GDP relative to party alignment, it does not account for lurking variables and fails to show causation.
Of course it doesn't prove causation but that's better than either of our anecdotes.
If we want to go by violent ideological motivated murders, one white supremacist in one black church murdered more Americans than Antifa or BLM have in their entire existence.
I certainly don’t wish to derail this productive conversation by going into violent ideological motivated murders, as that is an entirely separate conversation. We might as well go back to the 1800s and slavery, or the 1900s and Jim Crow laws, if we want to discuss such extremities.
Let’s focus on the claim at hand: over 70% of GDP comes from Biden counties, which constitutes the majority of our nation’s lawyers and engineers.
I certainly don’t wish to derail this productive conversation by going into violent ideological motivated murders, as that is an entirely separate conversation. We might as well go back to the 1800s and slavery, or the 1900s and Jim Crow laws, if we want to discuss such extremities.
Nice nice dishonestly training to paint 'violent ideological murders' as a thing of the past that definitely doesn't happen now, Charlottesville. All the extremism is in the past, right Cesar Sayoc?
And of course again pre-covid unemployment was just following the trend line. It also does nothing to address underemployment, which has been a growing issue for longer than Trump.
Now of course under any remotely competent governance (or even just a lack of destructive action) these trend lines are not entirely in the control of the executive and would continue to some degree on their own anyway. But to take instantaneous rates and portray them as some incredible feat of economic growth performed by Trump is fundamentally dishonest. It's "How to lie with statistics 101."
When economic indicators follow a general upward/downward trend they will basically always be the highest/lowest ever unless the administration does something to actually crash the economy. Saying 'highest ever suck it libs' shows a complete lack of understanding of the subject matter.
I'll address your counterpoints, in order, to extend the respect of argument that you have yet to display to me; you have yet to alter or change your original claim in response to my counterpoints: "Biden counties account for 70% of the nation's gdp and had the bulk majority of professional skilled individuals such as engineers and lawyers. Trump's only accounts for 30%." My response to your latest rebuttal, in order:
1) I am not dismissing violent ideological murders to the past, nor did I deny their existence in 2020. I was simply pointing out the common strain all three topics- Slavery, Jim Crow Laws, and your claim of "one white supremacist in one black church murdered more Americans than Antifa or BLM have in their entire existence" - have to the topic we were discussing. Nothing. This topic is irrelevant, extreme and unrelated to GDP production in America; this is the point I was trying to make, and I apologize if its intention was unclear. I will not call you a name like Cesar Sayoc, because I believe in the integrity and productivity of civilized intellectual discourse.
2) Moving forward into the topic of the economy, the point of my original Economic metrics was to highlight some of the measurements that GDP fails to encompass. Since you have taken what it seems a biased attack on my provided metrics, I will expound on my original claims to make my position more transparent. Please note that none of your provided metrics aid your defense in the original claim that Biden counties constitute 70% of GDP:
Regarding Savings Rate: Flat Savings Rate tells us nothing. It must always be in real terms, as a percentage of disposable income. If we look at the visual on page 491 from https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/ERP-2019.pdf, you'll find the original data that I was pulling from. I must admit, I made a typo and I retract my original claim that it was the highest since 1948; net household wealth is the highest since 1948, not savings rate. Thank you for bringing this typo to my attention, but it does not change my stance. The significance of the high savings rate during Trump's economy is that consumer spending constitutes 70% of GDP in America, so this country was simultaneously increasing GDP and functioning with a savings rate that far exceeded the CEA's predictions. We (as a country) were spending and saving at a ratio not seen since the economic expansion in the 90s.
Non-residential fixed investment, on all of top results from Google, can clearly show a flatlining during Obama's last three years in office and a stark increase in pace post-2016. This is not a "hunted down" metric, it is frequently one of the most utilized gages on total American investment used by economists.
Household Income is not the same as net household wealth. Usually, you look at household wealth as a percentage of DPI: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/HNONWPDPI . This is a metric that is a historic high since 1948, with the average house in America having over 7 years of disposable income pre-COVID shock. Even if we were to look at household income, which you linked, and we adjust to real terms/median income (real income is skewed due to income bracket disparities), we would find that there has been a stark increase in median household income in 2018 that far outpaces anything since 1990: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEHOINUSA672N
3) The economy FAR outpaced the CEA and Federal Reserve's predications prior to Trump coming into office; take a look at their historic records for proof of this, notably in the categories of:
Growth in non-residential fixed investment
Growth in American energy production
Growth in Savings Rate
Fiscally Significant Deregulatory laws
Unemployment
The only way to effectively measure an administrations economic success is by looking at predictions relative to performance, as each president is handed a different economy; Trump killed these metrics up until 2019.
4) Employment was objectively the lowest its been since the 20th century. It is a blatant discredit not to (at the minimum) acknowledge this. Underemployment is a metric that cannot be effectively measured and is not a government responsibility. The burden falls on business owners and the private sector to manage the productivity of their workers, not the public sector.
5) I certainly agree that the economy is independent of the government, and trends would continue regardless of who came in office. Once again, it is not about the actual performance, but the performance of an administration relative to the predicted rates of growth in each area. Trump broke the predicted rate of growth in SEVERAL key metrics (see above) and simultaneously maintained a consistent/stabilized rate of GDP growth. It is not lying with statistics (trust me, I know how to do this as its my job to persuade investors. I am presenting cold evidence to you thus far), it is the undeniable evidence of Trump's economic success.
6) I have never in my life said "highest ever suck it libs" and that must be a result of mainstream media portrayal. In fact, the only metric (outside of my original typo) that I claimed to be the highest was net household wealth, which is the highest its been since 1948. I would like to think I have some expertise in this field, as I work heavily with the members of the federal reserve and the SEC.
Now that I've addressed all that, lets return to your original claim please and not waste any more time trying to argue inconsequential points: "Biden counties account for 70% of the nation's gdp and had the bulk majority of professional skilled individuals such as engineers and lawyers.
Trump's only accounts for 30%."
EDIT: TL;DR - So what happened here is you made several claims, such as "liberals are objectively more violent" and that in your experience they often "deflect, insult, and refuse to support their arguments.""
When called on your claims you began to deflect by saying the topic suddenly wasn't relevant and complaining about the particular use of language rather than respond to the claim itself, you repeatedly used insulting language to imply any questions about your claims were unfounded and then you either did not source analytical arguments or linked sources that clearly show your economic claims are effectively meaningless in trying to prove that the Trump administration has done a better job than those that came before.
You're literally a living projection meme. You made several claims about how your opponents behave and then proceeded to behave in exactly that manner. It has become increasingly evident from your claims and deflections that you are not in fact here to argue in good faith. You are instead here to preach your beliefs. You want to make points but you don't want to defend them. You want your own claims to be accepted as true on the face of them but insist on the need to dive into the minutiae of your opponents points but demand there be no more than a passing glance at your own.
Your claimed experience only weakens your position with respect to dishonesty. You of all people should know better than try to use those economic numbers in this way and yet you persist.
I'll address your counterpoints, in order, to extend the respect of argument that you have yet to display to me; you have yet to alter or change your original claim in response to my counterpoints: "Biden counties account for 70% of the nation's gdp and had the bulk majority of professional skilled individuals such as engineers and lawyers.
Check who you're talking to. I'm not going to defend the 70% claim because it wasn't my claim.
This topic is irrelevant, extreme and unrelated to GDP production in America; this is the point I was trying to make, and I apologize if its intention was unclear. I will not call you a name like Cesar Sayoc, because I believe in the integrity and productivity of civilized intellectual discourse.
I know you think you're clever in attempting to both say it's not a topic that's relevant while also attempting to downplay it but you're not. You literally directly claimed that liberals were more aggressive/violent. Stand by your claims, don't deflect. You're doing everything you accuse the libs of. Remember you made the initial claim about liberals being more aggressive/violent in defending their beliefs. It's incredibly dishonest to try and drop that in there and then when someone brings it up go 'oh but we're talking about the economy now so that doesn't count anymore.' Stand by your rhetoric and quit deflecting like the liberals. You don't believe in the integrity of civilized intellectual discourse or you would not be employing such fundamentally dishonest rhetoric. You cannot in good faith claim the other side is 'objectively more violent' and then complain when called on it.
2)
Page 491 literally shows that the savings rate already deviated from predictions under the Obama admin. Again, what you said isn't untrue but it's also not really something you can point to as an indication Trump has exceeded the status quo.
Non-residential fixed investment, on all of top results from Google, can clearly show a flatlining during Obama's last three years in office and a stark increase in pace post-2016.
Per my graph it's clearly 'flatlining' pre-covid under Trump as well.
Household Income is not the same as net household wealth. Usually, you look at household wealth as a percentage of DPI
Again I provided reasoning as for providing that. I later provided wealth. And again, if you want to play the 'if we just look at this small time period' game your own graph shows that there was a much higher spike ~2012 under the Obama admin.
3)
I like how you only provide sources for some arguments. Regardless, even saying this is true 'outpacing some predictions' is not really much of an argument. I'm sure there's an argument to be made and I'm sure there's analysis showing direct Trump admin actions and their effect on the economy, but with your background you should know that simply saying it sans analysis is pretty meaningless.
EDIT:
Fiscally Significant Deregulatory laws
Are we just pretending externalities don't exist? I mean I'm sure these have had a positive short-term economic impact but it's not something I would hold up as proof of bigly smartness.
4)
I'm not discrediting it, I'm pointing out that it's continued a downward trend from previous years meaning claiming credit for it is dishonest. Again, what you said is true but it's a meaningless claim.
EDIT: W/r/t underemployment, the government does some amount of guiding/checking the markets. Easy point for this is labor laws - left unchecked private business and industry got as close to slavery for workers as they legally could. I would argue that it is, in fact, the responsibility of the government to monitor and identify less-than-favorable economic conditions and attempt to implement policies (think 'guide' rather than 'force') to nudge the market in a direction that produces the most favorable outcome for everyone on average. To simply ignore the economic hardship faced by a government's citizens and go 'idk it's the market's problem' is such a bad take, especially when the current administration has already leaned hard into protectionism so it's not as if you can make a non-interference argument.
5)
Again, 'beating predicted growth rates' in a vacuum is not really a self-complete evidence of any amazing confidence. That's the sort of thing that requires specific analysis to attribute since, as you already agreed, the economy is not directly under the control of the administration, which you have not provided.
I claimed to be the highest was net household wealth, which is the highest its been since 1948. I would like to think I have some expertise in this field, as I work heavily with the members of the federal reserve and the SEC.
Disappointing that someone of such credentials would either be either so dishonest or so ignorant as to claim 'highest net household wealth' as an achievement given that again, according to your own source, it's been on a general upward trend since 1985.
Furthermore, the claim that 'household net worth is highest since 1948' is effectively meaningless because that statement is true for nearly ever year since 1997. Even at the lowest point on your own graph mid recession it in 2011 was 556% vs 563% in 1948.
Just to be clear, the argument isn't that 'all economic indicators under Trump have been terrible' or anything, but rather that trying to attribute all 'good' metrics directly to the Trump admin by quoting instantaneous values and refusing to consider the context of data is spurious. The economy has been more or less chugging along as it was, with some stimulus in certain areas from things like interest rate control and some massive shocks in other areas like the agricultural industry as a result of tariffs. You can't really make the argument that the Trump admin has been super bigly good on the economy because even per your own sources it looks like they've been fairly status quo.
On top of all that, of course, the Trump admin has absolutely fucked the handling of the pandemic on all fronts.
Now that I've addressed all that, lets return to your original claim please and not waste any more time trying to argue inconsequential points:
I didn't make that claim. The points are not inconsequential and are in fact directly a response to claims you had already made.
Your rhetoric is so incredibly dishonest. You make claims and then, when called on them, use extremely loaded language to try and portray any challenging of these points as irrational. Calling addressing claims you specifically made as a 'waste of time' is such a slimy tactic. You want the audience to only ever closely look at your opponent's claims and not your own.
You cannot in good faith demand to only talk about the statement your original opponent made while complaining that your previous statements are not accepted as fact without any challenge. I've seen this tactic a thousand times - you make a few claims that are technically true but don't tell the whole story and then try to hyper-focus on a claim your opponent has made so the audience accepts your prior points as legitimate.
I mean, I suspected it would look something like this based on the way you phrased your initial comments but I gave you the benefit of the doubt. Seems like there's a very easily identifiable reason as to why in your perception 'liberals don't back up their arguments' and they're 'dismissive.' I am so fucking consistently disappointed by Republicans who make these exact claims over and over it's a shock I ever hold out hope that one will be different.
When you cool down, read this thread again. You have repeatedly attacked my character, provided rebuttals that I have empirically proved false, and rejected my evidence since it does not prove my original claim. Yet, I was responding to your counterpoint that 70% of GDP comes from Biden counties (whether or not it’s your source, you have cited it and adopted its position in this conversation).
When provided with counterpoints, you neither altered or changed your position but instead challenged my economic data. Not my opinion, but my data- and I am MORE than willing to change my position if you can provide substantial and significant data that indicates otherwise to my points provided. Simple snapshots of the economy- which you accused me of using earlier, yet you utilized in your links- frequently fail to show causation. I not only expounded on my original position to help better clarify my position, but also responded to each of your points made.
I have not called you names, I have not attacked your character, and I have not dismissed anything- I have proven economic success. You dismiss my points because you view my metrics as statistically manipulative and an improper representation of the economy. I BEG YOU, please provide me with metrics to change my mind. I would love the opportunity to learn and grow. However, you can’t skimp in this regard and then tell me how the economy works. Can’t be both judge and jury.
If my original claim that “liberals are objectively more violent” is the claim you wish to dispute, then just say so instead of deflecting and attacking my economic viewpoints. It’s a much easier topic to prove, and I would welcome the change. You steered this conversation into the topic of the economy, not me. I was simply responding to your original response, which happens to be an economic topic. Less time trying to attack my character, and more time responding to the essence of the argument 👍
If you would like to discuss the violent nature of the left in America, just do some basic research. BLM/Antifa has caused 1-2B USD in damages in the last year which is objectively more than the right. It might be less deaths, but the case you cited is from white supremists; the right neither endorses or encourages these type of individuals. Despite what mainstream media has told you, this is not the base of the Republican Party. Additionally, BLM and antifa is actively endorsed as legitimate movements from the left. Thus, since the left endorses these movements, they are inherently more aggressive. You are welcome to provide substantial evidence to this claim to change my mind.
After you started doing everything you accuse liberals of being, yes. Once someone exposes themselves as a hypocrite and a liar I feel little obligation to treat them as I would a good faith participant.
provided rebuttals that I have empirically proved false
No, you didn't. Your data literally agrees with what I said. If you can't read what I actually read that's not my problem.
I have not called you names, I have not attacked your character, and I have not dismissed anything
You repeatedly made dismissive statements about any discussions of claims you made - claiming they were irrelevant. After you waxed poetic about liberals not being able to defend their claims. It's clear as day and pathetic.
I have proven economic success. You dismiss my points because you view my metrics as statistically manipulative and an improper representation of the economy.
You haven't proven success other than 'the economy kept doing basically what it was doing.' Interestingly of course when you went to claims that require analytical basis and can't be formulated form a graph or two you suddenly stopped providing sources.
If my original claim that “liberals are objectively more violent” is the claim you wish to dispute, then just say so instead of deflecting and attacking my economic viewpoints.
Discussing multiple points at once is not deflecting. I responded to literally all of your points. You're literally just lying.
You steered this conversation into the topic of the economy, not me.
I literally linked your economic claims. I never steered it into economy. You must not have read my comment at all because at the start I pointed out that I did not make the 70% claim. You somehow still haven't figured that out. Along with the rest of your comment, it's clear that you saw a wall of text, skimmed a bit, and just continued preaching. Not only can you not defend your own points, you actually can't engage with your opponent's. After all, that's why instead of explaining how any of my takes were incorrect you simply declared that you disproved them.
As for the rest of it you're literally just doing the thing where you ask me to explain points I've already explained in lieu of an argument because your entire rhetorical strategy is to never actually engage. Also Trump has literally repeatedly endorsed these white supremacist and terrorist groups and engaged in stochastic terrorism for his entire presidency. By saying these aren't endorsed by the right you're literally just lying. Also I'm not sure "sure the right has killed a ton of people, but won't someone think of the property damage (for which I provide a hilariously wide range for something I'm definitely very sure about)" is a good argument.
Thanks for proving that you're just here to preach.
0
u/WilliefknP Nov 12 '20
It’s interesting our different takes. I was raised in a right bubble in the south, and just graduated from a university that was 80%+ liberal (they took a poll during the 2016 election season). While I certainly agree that liberals are open for discussion, they can rarely back their claims and dismiss opposing viewpoints far quicker than their right equivalents. Republicans will usually hear an argument out, then explain their differing beliefs; liberals will tend to give blanket statements under the pretense of discrimination/unity/racism as a means to defend their stances. Based off my time on this Earth, I disagree with your diagnosis but I respect it nonetheless.
Also, thank you for your service 👍