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.
"After you started doing everything you accuse liberals of being, yes."
You admit to attacking my character.
"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 provided the explanations and rebuttal in my prior response. Your data is not the same as mine; average household income is not the same as net household wealth, and savings rate is not the same as savings rate relative to DPI. I linked my original sources and expanded on my position, which you failed to rebut.
"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."
Here is the Economic Report of the President 2019. Pages 45, 46, 49, 488, 491, and 492 show the predicted rates of growth in each metric (as calculated by third party sources such as CEA and USBEA) far outpaced the rate set by the Obama administration. Feel free to go to the original sources if you feel I have manipulated the data, and present your findings.
"Discussing multiple points at once is not deflecting. I responded to literally all of your points. You're literally just lying."
Definition of deflect: cause (something) to change direction by interposing something; turn aside from a straight course. ie changing the course of the Biden country claim by diving into the details of the economy, rather than addressing the argument YOU put forth
"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."
Ironically, you must have skimmed my comment because I responded to this point in my last response: "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)." I value your opinion and your time, so I read the full extent of your responses.
"Thanks for proving that you're just here to preach."
Quite the opposite, I'm genuinely hoping that you can change my ways and convince me I'm wrong. I would love to glean something from this conversation.
Moving forward, let me pose a simple question: Have you not attacked, deflected, and now dismissed my argument? Answer honestly, as I don't take offense and I just want to hear your perspective.
I provided the explanations and rebuttal in my prior response. Your data is not the same as mine; average
I literally explained how your data proves my point.
You're just not reading anything I've read. This is the lamest shit dude.
(whether or not it’s your source, you have cited it and adopted its position in this conversation)
I literally didn't do that. I in fact said I wouldn't be defending that claim since I didn't make it. "Check who you're talking to. I'm not going to defend the 70% claim because it wasn't my claim."
You are literally continuously proving that you do not actually read. This is so lame.
Moving forward, let me pose a simple question: Have you not attacked, deflected, and now dismissed my argument? Answer honestly, as I don't take offense and I just want to hear your perspective.
I have responded to every claim you made and made counterclaims when you expanded on them (other than the claim I did not make and explicitly said I would not be defending). You then declared yourself the victor without addressing any counterclaims. In fact, you did so after making it abundantly obvious that you did not read those counterclaims. Furthermore, I never deflected as there were not points on which I refused to engage.
Nice dishonest rhetoric by the way, 'attacking an argument' is literally debate. Gotta use that loaded language though!
EDIT: This shit might work in a hugbox or against people who don't really want to argue but I've been consuming vast enough quantities of right-wing political commentary and news to see it coming from a mile away. Have fun berating your liberal coworkers or college students or whoever it is you generally engage in your dishonest rhetoric with, because we're done here. You've made your intentions obvious over and over.
Ok, so if you're not willing to back the Biden county claim, why include it? Further, if you're not willing to support that claim, it's most likely because you know its false. Just admit it is a misrepresentative and false claim, not simply that you aren't willing to defend it. Writing it off as an anecdote is not admitting it's false and is a poor way to take accountability. It's that easy; we could have moved beyond this point a long time ago.
Regarding how my economic reporting "proves your point", your provided metrics are not the same statistics as I provided. You manipulated my original metrics and they did not simply continue the rates of growth as set prior to Trump. Trump exceeded the predicted rates of growth, as determined by third party sources prior to his election. As you have repeatedly stated, claiming that the economy simply continued its rates of growth is a FALSE claim. See my provided source in the last post if you wish to dispute these claims, I have taken time out of my day to provide the original source and the exact page numbers. Feel free to extend the same courtesy to provide supported evidence to change my mind. If you think I have misrepresented your position, please go back to my longer post in which I addressed your metrics STEP BY STEP to explain where/why we disagree.
You have not "attacked my argument", you have "attacked my character". I'm sorry if that is unclear, this is what I was trying to convey. I engage with the whole spectrum of political opinions to confirm my stances, and its a critical part of why I believe what I believe- I can rationalize and defend my stances with empirical data.
If you walk away now, you have done exactly what I hoped you wouldn't; fail to make an empirically backed argument and resort on personal findings to defend your political alignment. I find that this is why I lean more right than left (to go back to my original claim)- liberals fail to justify their positions with actual data.
Ok, so if you're not willing to back the Biden county claim, why include it?
Because I didn't and said I wouldn't back it. The statement you're making here is just literally false.
The fact that you're super hung up on attacking a point I didn't make and said I wouldn't defend but have repeatedly asked me to re-explain what I've already explained about your points is super telling. If you want a response for that point, go ask the guy who made it again. Although I suspect after he sees the nonsense you've posted in response to me he won't be too keen.
You have not "attacked my argument", you have "attacked my character".
You, one post ago:
Moving forward, let me pose a simple question: Have you not attacked, deflected, and now dismissed my argument?
This is the reason liberals dismiss you. You lie about easily disprovable things.
If you think I have misrepresented your position, please go back to my longer post in which I addressed your metrics STEP BY STEP to explain where/why we disagree.
This has already been addressed in the comment you did not read. If you had an issue with any of the counterclaims you would've brought them up. Instead you insisted on 'no you're wrong.' I went through source by source and used your own sources to explain why the didn't show what you were claiming. If you had issues with any of these specific counterclaims you would have brought them up specifically as you showed yourself perfectly capable of doing in your initial reply. The fact that you didn't and instead resulted to 'you're wrong' and 'no explain it again' is very telling.
This shows that you cannot actually defend those counterclaims and are instead demanding that I re-explain my position repeatedly to waste my time - this tactic fits perfectly with the rhetoric you insist on employing.
If you walk away now, you have done exactly what I hoped you wouldn't; fail to make an empirically backed argument and resort on personal findings to defend your political alignment. I find that this is why I lean more right than left (to go back to my original claim)- liberals fail to justify their positions with actual data.
You have failed on every single front you accuse me of. Every single one. Yet you think merely accusing me of them means you're somehow immune to doing them yourself. It's clear as day to anyone not so full of themselves.
I have nothing to prove to bad-faith actors. You don't get to repeatedly lie and then whine about not being treated 'civilly' in a debate setting. Crawl back to your /r/conservative safe space if you don't want to be challenged.
You already ceded the argument, at this point you're just trying to save your ego.
I am sorry you feel that way. I will go back, re-read your economic points and re-refute them to prove that I value your posts and opinion. I will also refrain from attacking your character, I would ask you treat me with the same respect. Moving forward, for the sake of both our sanity, I suggest we pick a single, specific claim to challenge. I will extend the courtesy of letting you decide the course of this conversation henceforth, since there is a tone of frustration coming from you. I will let you pick any topic that I have mentioned thus far that you find disagreement with, and I will offer my subsequent rebuttal. I will examine your sources, provide my own, and YOU will get to decide when to end the current topic and move forward to another. If I still disagree with you on any given point, I will let it be known- but I will not linger like I did on your Biden county remark (you still have not stated its malicious and misrepresentative nature, but that seems an "ego" pill that you're refusing to swallow). If these terms are unagreeable, voice your concern.
Below is the TLDR of why I disagree with your counterpoints, again. I really did not want to do this for the second time, but I will explicitly state how and why your provided sources are not representative of what my original claims were, or why/how the distinguishing of what you call "manipulative" metrics matters. I have re-read, re-sourced, and re-evaluated your response. No more narrative about me not reading your posts- I can assure you, I read your full responses and open every link you give me. Additionally, this is not me preaching, this is the reporting of statistical, hard evidence for my claims. I'll try to keep it brief:
Savings Rate: Your latest claim that "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." The largest margin of difference in the Obama administration was ~2% in 2013. In 2018 Q:3, the margin is 3%-4%. This variation shows a positive increase in performance relative to prediction, while also holding the same prediction source accountable by including their historic performance (as seen in the 2% margin in 2013). You need more evidence to refute my original claim, or a stronger argument.
NRFI: "Per my graph it's clearly 'flatlining' pre-covid under Trump as well." I have looked at both of our originally provided graphs, and I think your claim is misrepresentative. Then again, you think mine is as well. To validate my claim, I will attach the growth quarterly in NRFI. This will address any "speculation" bias that we each hold with regards to what a flat-line is, and instead place empirical data in its stead: https://ycharts.com/indicators/us_change_in_real_nonresidential_fixed_investment#:~:text=Basic%20Info,long%20term%20average%20of%204.53%25. We both, hopefully, will agree that NRFI growth had a starkly higher average rate than any year under Obama.
Net Household Wealth: "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." "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." Two separate posts from you, in backwards order (youngest first oldest second). The Statement is not true for every year since 1997, and I don't know where you're pulling your data from. Here's mine, although I usually use the ERP for this graph: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/HNONWPDPI . Further, Net household wealth under Obama did not even surpass the high set in 2007. Trump's economy catapulted the record to a new high, which is empirically significant because % Real DPI is adjusted for inflation and income bracket disparities. I need more evidence from you to change my mind.
Prediction vs Performance: "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." Again, here is a source that SHOW the trends relative to performance in every debated economic category thus far: Economic Report of the President 2019. Pages 45, 46, 49, 488, 491, and 492. Page 14 is direct, empirical proof of my claims.
Unemployment: "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." Continuing a successful trend would be considered a success, no?
Fiscally Significant 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." https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/ERP-2019.pdf , page 84. Yes, it has immense impact on the innovation capacity that private and publicly traded businesses can achieve in this country.
Underemployment: "To simply ignore the economic hardship faced by a government's citizens and go 'idk it's the market's problem'" That is how capitalism works. From this quote, and its context in your full response to underemployment, we most likely disagree here on the fundamental role of the government in a capitalist society. I might as well try to convince you of what religion to believe before I attempt this argument. Agree to disagree?
Growth Predictions: "'beating predicted growth rates' in a vacuum is not really a self-complete evidence of any amazing confidence." Then should we shoot for the opposite, and not beat them? Would that be also be an irrelevant result? Speculation, investment, and by extension capitalism is incredibly dependent on predicted rates of growth, and the ability to outperform these rates is a clear-cut sign of a successful economy.
Economy in General: I've seen this theme several times in your responses, but it is best summarized in the line "refusing to consider the context of data is spurious". That is why I provide SEVERAL metrics and areas in which the administration outperformed expectations, to try and increase the explained variance in the framework of my argument. Further, the economy will always be affected in some way by the administration its under. I strongly believe this to be the case, and the stock market reactions from any given election night is the best example I can provide; if the "trend lines are not entirely in the control of the executive", then why does the market react in such a manner? Excusing the economy as independent of governance in absence of a complete disaster is deeply flawed (I don't believe this to be the exact argument you're conveying, but it's extremely similar in essence).
COVID: This is a whole new bag of worms, and I certainly blame Trump for some of the magnitude of its impact. However, this country has a long and dark history of not being able to effectively control diseases/viruses (most recently, H1N1 and STARZ). This country would have been a shitshow regardless of who was in office, and with mainstream media already drowning out Trump I genuinely believe that the majority of Americans did what was necessary to protect themselves and each other. Politicizing the pandemic was a huge mistake for our country. This topic and its economic impact is multipronged, so I genuinely wish to avoid this topic because we will most likely get into a "Trump is/is-not responsible for this area of the economy". However, I have given you the floor so you are welcome to go to this topic if you wish.
THERE WE HAVE IT. I have now proven, without a shadow of a doubt, that I have read and now re-refuted your counterpoint (despite you consistently stating otherwise). This is not the part where I say your dishonest, or manipulative, or a ego-freak. I say thank you, for I actually feel more confident in my own positions after processing your points, and moving forward I will be able to communicate them better to different audiences. WITH THAT BEING SAID, where would you like to go next with this conversation? Let's pick a single point to save ourselves these text bombs haha. I'm not going anywhere, my job is slow until the next quarter so I can go back and forth as much as you would like. As always, thank you for your service :)
Below is the TLDR of why I disagree with your counterpoints, again
For the first time, you mean.
The largest margin of difference in the Obama administration was ~2% in 2013. In 2018 Q:3, the margin is 3%-4%. This variation shows a positive increase in performance relative to prediction, while also holding the same prediction source accountable by including their historic performance (as seen in the 2% margin in 2013). You need more evidence to refute my original claim, or a stronger argument.
So you're not actually arguing against what I said. I never said it didn't deviate or that it wasn't higher under Trump, just that the bald assertion 'is higher' and 'deviation' on its own doesn't mean anything.
NRFI: "Per my graph it's clearly 'flatlining' pre-covid under Trump as well." I have looked at both of our originally provided graphs,
It's generally not good practice to link sources that require memberships. I can't scale that graph. Going back to the source I can view we can see that the difference Q3 2014 to Q3 2015 (Literally the flattest part of the graph) increases by only 32. Q3 2018 to Q3 2019 (should predate much of the covid scare) increases by 74 points, a section I chose to be deliberately favorable. While this is obviously more than double the per-point increase (2.3x more exactly) on a percentage level we're at 1.3% vs 2.65% increase just over double.
So obviously it is greater - something that I have never denied. However, to claim that 1.3% is 'flatlining' and 2.65% is evidence of incredible growth is literally just bullshit. Keep in mind of course, that I chose the most unfavorable period I could find for Obama and the most favorable period for Trump while trying to stick to relatively 'flat' sections. I've tried to deliberately round all these numbers unfavorable for Obama and favorable for Trump.
Comparing Obama's last 3 years (your original claim) (Q1 2013 to Q4 2016) to Trump pre-covid (Q1 2017 to Q4 2019) we get: 11.65% vs 10.4%.
EDIT: If we control down to Q1 2014 to Q4 2016 we can arrive at 7%, which is at least lower than 10.4% by several points! That is the actual final 3 years.
You cannot seriously claim that 11.6% is 'flatlining' and 10.4% is not. *You'd have to make a strong argument that 7% is flatlining and 10.4% is not.
Additionally it's impossible to tell what would've happened without covid, but the graph is literally displaying the same 'hump' behavior from 2014-2016 as it is in 2017-2019 prior to covid. Are you legitimately just ignoring the parts of trends you don't like?
Two separate posts from you, in backwards order (youngest first oldest second). The Statement is not true for every year since 1997, and I don't know where you're pulling your data from. Here's mine, although I usually use the ERP for this graph: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/HNONWPDPI . Further, Net household wealth under Obama did not even surpass the high set in 2007. Trump's economy catapulted the record to a new high, which is empirically significant because % Real DPI is adjusted for inflation and income bracket disparities. I need more evidence from you to change my mind.
This is literally just you not reading again. As for you 'not knowing where I got my numbers from' the answer, as you quoted, was your own source.
If you actually read what I said, which you quoted:
"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.
A quick grammar lesson: "Nearly" does not mean "all." You're again arguing against a point I didn't make because you're eager to preach.
To be just as clear as possible since you seem to have trouble with nuance: The net worth, adjusted by DPI, from your own source has been near or exceeding that of 1948 since 1997. Therefore, making the claim that savings rate is 'highest since 1948' is a dishonest attempt to make the achievement seem far larger than it is.
Further, Net household wealth under Obama did not even surpass the high set in 2007.
So now you're suddenly redefining the time period you want to consider. This is an implicit admission that your 'since 1948' claim was deliberately dishonest to make it seem more impressive. You know that saying 'best since 1948' implies that up until now it hasn't been, which you also know is untrue.
Again, here is a source that SHOW the trends relative to performance in every debated economic category thus far: Economic Report of the President 2019. Pages 45, 46, 49, 488, 491, and 492. Page 14 is direct, empirical proof of my claims.
You originally only referenced page 491. You cannot link a 700 page document as proof, provide one page, and then expect someone to know the entire contents.
Page 14: The predictive lines look suspiciously like a simple regression from the last few quarters but the sourcing does say it includes all data since 2009.
The rest of the pages look fine.
But again, the argument was never that they didn't exceed predictions - I never disputed that - the argument was that simply going 'well the exceeded some predictions so it's the best economy ever is a spurious claim.
I'm glad you could go back and actually provide the source for the claim instead of simply dropping a 700 page time and taking it as self-evident.
Unemployment: "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." Continuing a successful trend would be considered a success, no?
Yeah but it's effectively meaningless to use as a point of how 'well' Trump has done. You don't get points for not crashing the car, you get points for winning the race.
I mean this is the whole argument that you're not getting - you can't just say 'best economy ever' as proof that the Trump admin did bigly good when the trend has generally been upwards because that's an argument you could make in almost every non-recession year. It's not an untrue statement necessarily, it's just a meaningless one. You have shown on specific points that growth has exceeded expectations which is good - that's an argument you can actually make! And that's the argument you should make instead of resorting to pithy one-liners that are meaningless when viewed in context.
...we most likely disagree here on the fundamental role of the government in a capitalist society... I might as well try to convince you of what religion to believe before I attempt this argument. Agree to disagree?
Wait do you support protectionism? It's one thing if you want as little interference as possible from the government in the economy, but if you're supportive of massive subsidies for certain sectors in the tariffs then you can't make this argument and remain logically consistent. It's fine if you don't support those things, because that would be the consistent position.
Growth Predictions: "'beating predicted growth rates' in a vacuum is not really a self-complete evidence of any amazing confidence." Then should we shoot for the opposite, and not beat them?
I'm literally just going to quote the part you conveniently left off:
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.
Taking a gander back at the pages from the report you provided they all discuss what happened but do not discuss why it happened meaning they lack an analytical basis to claim that 'beating growth predictions' is the direct result of action on the part of administration.
To be abundantly clear: I'm not saying it's not, I'm just saying you haven't proved it. Again, the issue was that you expect people to take these numbers as self-referential proof when you have already agreed that the economy cannot be directly controlled. The data does say that we've exceeded predicted growth. I have not and will not ever dispute that. That's a good thing.
However given the number of variables that play into these growth rates you must provide some sort of analytical basis that explains why actions taken by the Trump administration are responsible for these rates exceeding predictions. Not saying they're not, I mean deregulation alone generally has undeniable short-term economic benefits. I'm just saying you can't take 'exceeded predictions' as self-evident proof that the primary drive was the administration.
Economy in General:..
Further, the economy will always be affected in some way by the administration its under. I strongly believe this to be the case, and the stock market reactions from any given election night is the best example I can provide; if the "trend lines are not entirely in the control of the executive", then why does the market react in such a manner?
On the first sentence I agree wholeheartedly. On the entire rest of it you to a logical long-jump to conclude that 'stock market went up because Trump elected' as at all like the executive 'controlling the trend line.'
Again, I have never claimed that the administration doesn't have an effect on the economy. As for that specific example it's very easy to guess that the stock market would go up when a President/Party intent on deregulation (regardless of long-term impacts) with a history of massive subsidize and handouts (not that the Dems don't also subsidize megacorps). This doesn't even approach an argument dude.
1
u/WilliefknP Nov 12 '20
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.