Democrats caused recession in 2007

[kaz]

Not sure how old you are, but that makes no sense in terms of the Reagan administration. He cut taxes do spur growth, that's how he dealt with the recession. It worked, just like it had for JFK.

The spending was not an economic policy of Reagan's. He wanted to bring down the Soviet Union. He spent big on military to do it. It was painful to us. It was catastrophic to the Soviets. They agreed to the first reduction in warheads, then eventually fell in an economic collapse. Did Reagan cause it? No. Did he tip the cow? Yes.

Tip's price for Reagan's plan was domestic spending. Reagan agreed to get his agenda. You can agree or disagree with that, but he didn't want the spending and it wasn't an economic plan.

This was my point in mentioning your "Reagan" example rather than the other ones that would have made more sense. You picked Reagan as an agenda, not to make the point in the discussion

INTENT IS COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT - the FACT of the matter is that along with tax cuts government spending was increased under Reagan, raising the GDP and tripling debt. IF same government spending growth occurred under Obama we would easily hit 3%+ GDP growth in at least a few years.

WTF? You brought up intent, not me. You said it was a "conservatives like to use as a model of dealing with recessions." I said no, that's not what his intent was. Now you come back with "INTENT IS COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT." So why did YOU bring up "intent" then? Make up your mind what you're arguing.

And you're demonstrating again my point. You brought in Reagan as a deflection to make another political point, not because he was the best example.

Read my sig man. Yeah, conservatives suck. Every time you say that I agree. But why you would use what both parties do to defend the left who are such disingenuous liars I don't know

 

[BluesLegend]

God you are dumb, Democrats controlled congress during this time. Bush called on congress to tighten regulations on Fannie and Freddie 17 times 17 do you understand that number. Barney Frank House Financial Services Committee Chairman refused to do anything until 2008 when it was too late. With tighter lending standards at Fannie and Freddie there would be no secondary mortgage market to buy up these shit loans and presto there would be no shit loans written.

Sorry, imbecile, the crisis began before 2008.

Even worse for you -- to demonstrate just how ignorant you are ... let me repeat your own words for everyone on the forum reading this to witness such incredible stupidity....

your words .... are ya ready ...?

"Barney Frank House Financial Services Committee Chairman refused to do anything until 2008 when it was too late."​

... see that? According to a raving lunatic like you, Barney Frank did nothing until 2008 ... now let's put aside your chronic rightwing dementia and take a glance at reality....

On March 9th, 2007, just nine weeks after Democrats took over the Congress and Barney Frank became the House Financial Services Committee Chairman, he sponsored
H.R. 1427: Federal Housing Finance Reform Act of 2007 and got it passed in the House.



And you moronically said he did nothing.

What did I just tell you about posting manifestos, its a gift that I even acknowledge your existence let alone read these.

Only to an abject imbecile like you would a U.S. Congressional bill be a "manifesto."

Your sickness aside, why the fuck do you think it even matters if you look at it or not? Stay ignorant. Who cares? The way I figure it, you're too committed to your delusions anyway to accept reality. So while you're making bullshit claims like Barney Frank did nothing until 2008, I'm proving you're deranged by showing that within two months of taking his office, he sponsored a GSE reform bill and got it passed in his chamber. And guess what? That's true whether you read the bill or not.

Your frustration is noted lib but again I have no time for your nonsensical

Ignoring reality doesn't make you right. It just makes you stupid.

My pinky toe is smarter than you lib, just one of them I don't even need two to best you.

 

[Faun]

Sorry, imbecile, the crisis began before 2008.

Even worse for you -- to demonstrate just how ignorant you are ... let me repeat your own words for everyone on the forum reading this to witness such incredible stupidity....

your words .... are ya ready ...?

"Barney Frank House Financial Services Committee Chairman refused to do anything until 2008 when it was too late."​

... see that? According to a raving lunatic like you, Barney Frank did nothing until 2008 ... now let's put aside your chronic rightwing dementia and take a glance at reality....

On March 9th, 2007, just nine weeks after Democrats took over the Congress and Barney Frank became the House Financial Services Committee Chairman, he sponsored
H.R. 1427: Federal Housing Finance Reform Act of 2007 and got it passed in the House.



And you moronically said he did nothing.

What did I just tell you about posting manifestos, its a gift that I even acknowledge your existence let alone read these.

Only to an abject imbecile like you would a U.S. Congressional bill be a "manifesto."

Your sickness aside, why the fuck do you think it even matters if you look at it or not? Stay ignorant. Who cares? The way I figure it, you're too committed to your delusions anyway to accept reality. So while you're making bullshit claims like Barney Frank did nothing until 2008, I'm proving you're deranged by showing that within two months of taking his office, he sponsored a GSE reform bill and got it passed in his chamber. And guess what? That's true whether you read the bill or not.

Your frustration is noted lib but again I have no time for your nonsensical

Ignoring reality doesn't make you right. It just makes you stupid.

My pinky toe is smarter than you lib, just one of them I don't even need two to best you.

Funny since the rest if you idiotically thought Frank did nothing until 2008; when in reality, he sponsored a GSE reform bill in early 2007 and got it passed in the House. Every prior post of yours belies your last one.

 

[pinqy]

Which has nothing to do with what I was talking about.

You're comparing a change in level to change in percentage. Do you think that's honest?
You do realize that the employment-population ratio has gone up? Since the labor market bottomed out in Feb 2010, the population has gone up 7%, employment has gone up 9.5% (so the emp-pop ratio has gone up 1.4 percentage points). Unemployment has dropped 48.5%, so the labor force (employment plus unemployment) has only gone up 3.8% and the participation rate has gone down.

Discouraged are only a tiny percentage of the overall not in the labor force...only half a percent of those not in the labor force are discouraged.

You're not being honest. I said BOTH change in level (underemployment) AND percentage (labor participation rate)

You are conflating discouraged with not in the labor force. That the Labor Force Participation rate has been going down (since 1999) has nothing at all to do with the number of discouraged. And "underemployment?" This is the first you're using that term talking to me, and whatever you mean by underemployment has nothing to do with labor force participation.

I didn't use the term "discouraged" in the post you just responded to. The post was clear. Labor participation rate combines everyone who's not working who is of working age

I know. But you had so far made no distinction between the two and were definitely trying to link them. The labor force participation rate is the number of people in the labor force (employed plus unemployed) divided by the adult civilian non-institutional population (those age 16 and older excluding active duty military, prisoners, and those in long term health care or nursing homes)

You are thinking instead of Not in the Labor Force, which is everyone who is neither working nor looking for work. That number is mostly people who do not want to work, and the majority are old, disabled, students, or stay home spouses. Also included would be the independently wealthy, many criminals, and potheads living in mom's basement.

Most of the changes to the participation rate are demographic, not economic.

"mostly" LOL. Therein lies where your argument falls apart

How do you figure? I'll rephrase: Most can definitely be identified as demographic, while the rest is uncertain. But if you want to look at contributing factors, give me some time frames...preferably comparison of annual averages or the same month in different years. (otherwise we'd have to use seasonally adjusted data and not as much is available)

 

[IcebergSlim]

Would you post the equation for determining GDP?

We will take this step by step to avoid any logical breakdowns...

I will, but if you continue the contradicting instead of debating crap, I will pull out. A debate is where you process and rationally respond to my points. You are contradicting. You just argue anything I say. If I said water is wet or concrete is hard, you would argue I'm wrong. It gets really dull after awhile. Note I'm not asking you a question here. I am informing you to cut the crap.



GDP = C + I + G + (X - M)

Do I need to explain that to you?

I crack myself up, like you know what an explanation is. I've walked into that trap before. So explain how this gets us to that currency isn't devalued by printing money? Those terms are all measured in nominal currency value. But go ahead, I answered your question. The stage is yours

Contradiction is an essence of Argument.....not to be confused with "gainsaying" and "Boldly Asserting"...

I have " contradicted" your arguments by demonstrating where they are both wrong on the facts, and flawed by structure. In doing so, I have employed objective sources. In response, you have relied on Bold Assertion and Indignation.

Consider the following:

Obama will be the first President in history not to have one year of 3% GDP growth.

The "G" in your formula represents the contribution to GDP of Government expenditures and net investment.......

The Great Recession is the first in the Post WW2 era to feature a NEGATIVE avg annual contribution from "G"....

To compare 2009- present to 1981-1989, and 2001-2009, you would add 0.85% and 0.5% respectively.

Mind you, this is entirely independent of the effect of household leverage....

So if you take out the "G," what are you claiming exactly? You didn't contradict what I said, just gave a single point which you then didn't follow up on

I didn't say "take out"..... You should pay attention... It will save us both a lot of time.

Yes you did

To compare 2009- present to 1981-1989, and 2001-2009, you would add 0.85% and 0.5% respectively.

You lied.

 

[IcebergSlim]

So if you take out the "G," what are you claiming exactly? You didn't contradict what I said, just gave a single point which you then didn't follow up on

He is claiming that if Obama ramped up government spending the way it was during Reagan's terms did we would have 3%+ growth.

Reagan's term? Why pick that one of all the Presidents who increased spending? That was is odd since while Reagan drove military, it was O'Neill who drove up domestic spending

I picked the two Supply Side regimes......Useful Idiots love to offer Reagan as a counterexample to the current Administration.

And, no, discretionary social spending under Reagan was largely flat...

You are susceptible to a lot of "received wisdom"

No you didn't

To compare 2009- present to 1981-1989, and 2001-2009, you would add 0.85% and 0.5% respectively.

You lied......Again.

 

[IcebergSlim]

. You don't know what cetris paribus means.

Me - ..CP holds all ELSE, not EVERYTHING, constant....

Ceteris paribus, a Latin phrase, roughly means “holding other things constant.” The more common English translation reads “all other things being equal.” This term is most widely used in economics and finance as a shorthand indication of the effect of one economic variable on another, keeping all other variables constant that could render an effect on the second variable.

Read more: Ceteris Paribus Definition | Investopedia http://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/ceterisparibus.asp#ixzz4GBagrvVi


. And you keep saying OMG, you made up those numbers! No shit, that's what I said. It was to explain the concept

No....that is not what I have said.....I have pointed out that the illustration you offered has nothing to do with CP because none of your variables are dependent.....your argument is tautological..... It assumes what you aim to "demonstrate"....

" It's a stupid argument and prima facie wrong."

If something is shown to be in conflict with the facts, it is NOT "prima facie"..... Go ahead and look up the definition.

I'm going to give you one last chance to show you're not just being an ass.

It wasn't an argument on printing money. Yes, I made it up.

I was explaining to Skylar what "all else held equal" or ceteris paribus means. He didn't grasp it and I was ONLY explaining that concept to him. The numbers in my example were NOT ... AN ... ARGUMENT, they were a made up EXAMPLE. But if he didn't understand the concept, we couldn't get to the actual argument, and he didn't understand it. He kept saying it means there are no other factors, that isn't what it means.

I am not explaining this to you again. Either get it and we move on or we're done now. Next step is up to you. But I'm not repeating this step again

You have yet to explain how three FIXED data items can offer an example of "ceteris paribus"...... I have demonstrated that, in the absence of a DEPENDENT variable, they cannot....what you INTENDED to show is irrelevant....

I've seen the error of my ways. You just want to argue. That's cool, but it gets dull after awhile when you're not intellectually engaged.

To answer your question though, all the variables I gave were dependent variables. The independent variable was the money printed, the discussion topic. I mean duh.

I look forward to another deeply intellectually thought through and presented, no it isn't ...

They would be dependent if they were derived......in your illustration they are given........just like " money printed"....

No it wasn't

Let's say arbitrarily for three years there are only three variables that affect currency.

Year 1
Economic growth: +2%
Productivity: +1%
Printing money: -2%

Year 2
Economic growth: -2%
Productivity: -1%
Printing money: -2%

Year 1
Economic growth: +3%
Productivity: +5%
Printing money: -2%

Note that printing money in this example devalued the currency 2% each year. Let's assume that the inflation numbers are additive and not cumulative just to make the math easier, doesn't change the point

You're saying, the value of money in this case grew by 2%! Printing money didn't devalue the currency! Yes, it did.

Why? Economic growth and productivity had a net +8% increase while printing money was net -6%.

​

Show me which number was derived rather than given.

 

[kaz]

You're not being honest. I said BOTH change in level (underemployment) AND percentage (labor participation rate)

You are conflating discouraged with not in the labor force. That the Labor Force Participation rate has been going down (since 1999) has nothing at all to do with the number of discouraged. And "underemployment?" This is the first you're using that term talking to me, and whatever you mean by underemployment has nothing to do with labor force participation.

I didn't use the term "discouraged" in the post you just responded to. The post was clear. Labor participation rate combines everyone who's not working who is of working age

I know. But you had so far made no distinction between the two and were definitely trying to link them. The labor force participation rate is the number of people in the labor force (employed plus unemployed) divided by the adult civilian non-institutional population (those age 16 and older excluding active duty military, prisoners, and those in long term health care or nursing homes)

You are thinking instead of Not in the Labor Force, which is everyone who is neither working nor looking for work. That number is mostly people who do not want to work, and the majority are old, disabled, students, or stay home spouses. Also included would be the independently wealthy, many criminals, and potheads living in mom's basement.

Most of the changes to the participation rate are demographic, not economic.

"mostly" LOL. Therein lies where your argument falls apart

How do you figure? I'll rephrase: Most can definitely be identified as demographic, while the rest is uncertain. But if you want to look at contributing factors, give me some time frames...preferably comparison of annual averages or the same month in different years. (otherwise we'd have to use seasonally adjusted data and not as much is available)

I'm not sure what you're arguing. Are you just saying everyone who wants a job can get one whether they are unemployed, discouraged or gave up and quit? That's ridiculous. If you are genuinely concerned with the truth, Google is your friend. If you're just shilling for Democrats, well, nothing Google or I can tell you will matter, will it?

Let's make clear first though what you are even arguing. If it's that employment is good in this country, then I just invite you to spend more time out on the street meeting real people

 

[kaz]

I will, but if you continue the contradicting instead of debating crap, I will pull out. A debate is where you process and rationally respond to my points. You are contradicting. You just argue anything I say. If I said water is wet or concrete is hard, you would argue I'm wrong. It gets really dull after awhile. Note I'm not asking you a question here. I am informing you to cut the crap.



GDP = C + I + G + (X - M)

Do I need to explain that to you?

I crack myself up, like you know what an explanation is. I've walked into that trap before. So explain how this gets us to that currency isn't devalued by printing money? Those terms are all measured in nominal currency value. But go ahead, I answered your question. The stage is yours

Contradiction is an essence of Argument.....not to be confused with "gainsaying" and "Boldly Asserting"...

I have " contradicted" your arguments by demonstrating where they are both wrong on the facts, and flawed by structure. In doing so, I have employed objective sources. In response, you have relied on Bold Assertion and Indignation.

Consider the following:

Obama will be the first President in history not to have one year of 3% GDP growth.

The "G" in your formula represents the contribution to GDP of Government expenditures and net investment.......

The Great Recession is the first in the Post WW2 era to feature a NEGATIVE avg annual contribution from "G"....

To compare 2009- present to 1981-1989, and 2001-2009, you would add 0.85% and 0.5% respectively.

Mind you, this is entirely independent of the effect of household leverage....

So if you take out the "G," what are you claiming exactly? You didn't contradict what I said, just gave a single point which you then didn't follow up on

I didn't say "take out"..... You should pay attention... It will save us both a lot of time.

Yes you did

To compare 2009- present to 1981-1989, and 2001-2009, you would add 0.85% and 0.5% respectively.

You lied.

No I didn't

 

[IcebergSlim]

So if you take out the "G," what are you claiming exactly? You didn't contradict what I said, just gave a single point which you then didn't follow up on

He is claiming that if Obama ramped up government spending the way it was during Reagan's terms did we would have 3%+ growth.

I'm not "claiming" it....I'm demonstrating it....

The data is available at BEA...

No you aren't

Table 1.1.2. Contributions to Percent Change in Real Gross Domestic Product
Seasonally adjusted at annual rates



U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA)

 

[kaz]

So if you take out the "G," what are you claiming exactly? You didn't contradict what I said, just gave a single point which you then didn't follow up on

He is claiming that if Obama ramped up government spending the way it was during Reagan's terms did we would have 3%+ growth.

Reagan's term? Why pick that one of all the Presidents who increased spending? That was is odd since while Reagan drove military, it was O'Neill who drove up domestic spending

I picked the two Supply Side regimes......Useful Idiots love to offer Reagan as a counterexample to the current Administration.

And, no, discretionary social spending under Reagan was largely flat...

You are susceptible to a lot of "received wisdom"

No you didn't

To compare 2009- present to 1981-1989, and 2001-2009, you would add 0.85% and 0.5% respectively.

You lied......Again.

Did not .... either time

 

[IcebergSlim]

Contradiction is an essence of Argument.....not to be confused with "gainsaying" and "Boldly Asserting"...

I have " contradicted" your arguments by demonstrating where they are both wrong on the facts, and flawed by structure. In doing so, I have employed objective sources. In response, you have relied on Bold Assertion and Indignation.

Consider the following:

Obama will be the first President in history not to have one year of 3% GDP growth.

The "G" in your formula represents the contribution to GDP of Government expenditures and net investment.......

The Great Recession is the first in the Post WW2 era to feature a NEGATIVE avg annual contribution from "G"....

To compare 2009- present to 1981-1989, and 2001-2009, you would add 0.85% and 0.5% respectively.

Mind you, this is entirely independent of the effect of household leverage....

So if you take out the "G," what are you claiming exactly? You didn't contradict what I said, just gave a single point which you then didn't follow up on

I didn't say "take out"..... You should pay attention... It will save us both a lot of time.

Yes you did

To compare 2009- present to 1981-1989, and 2001-2009, you would add 0.85% and 0.5% respectively.

You lied.

No I didn't

What word do you use to describe "asserting something which is demonstrably false"?

 

[kaz]

I'm going to give you one last chance to show you're not just being an ass.

It wasn't an argument on printing money. Yes, I made it up.

I was explaining to Skylar what "all else held equal" or ceteris paribus means. He didn't grasp it and I was ONLY explaining that concept to him. The numbers in my example were NOT ... AN ... ARGUMENT, they were a made up EXAMPLE. But if he didn't understand the concept, we couldn't get to the actual argument, and he didn't understand it. He kept saying it means there are no other factors, that isn't what it means.

I am not explaining this to you again. Either get it and we move on or we're done now. Next step is up to you. But I'm not repeating this step again

You have yet to explain how three FIXED data items can offer an example of "ceteris paribus"...... I have demonstrated that, in the absence of a DEPENDENT variable, they cannot....what you INTENDED to show is irrelevant....

I've seen the error of my ways. You just want to argue. That's cool, but it gets dull after awhile when you're not intellectually engaged.

To answer your question though, all the variables I gave were dependent variables. The independent variable was the money printed, the discussion topic. I mean duh.

I look forward to another deeply intellectually thought through and presented, no it isn't ...

They would be dependent if they were derived......in your illustration they are given........just like " money printed"....

No it wasn't

Let's say arbitrarily for three years there are only three variables that affect currency.

Year 1
Economic growth: +2%
Productivity: +1%
Printing money: -2%

Year 2
Economic growth: -2%
Productivity: -1%
Printing money: -2%

Year 1
Economic growth: +3%
Productivity: +5%
Printing money: -2%

Note that printing money in this example devalued the currency 2% each year. Let's assume that the inflation numbers are additive and not cumulative just to make the math easier, doesn't change the point

You're saying, the value of money in this case grew by 2%! Printing money didn't devalue the currency! Yes, it did.

Why? Economic growth and productivity had a net +8% increase while printing money was net -6%.

​

Show me which number was derived rather than given.

Here's an interesting word for you to learn:

Definition of ARBITRARY

I was explaining the concept of this to Skylar who didn't understand it, not making an argument with those numbers:

Ceteris paribus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[kaz]

So if you take out the "G," what are you claiming exactly? You didn't contradict what I said, just gave a single point which you then didn't follow up on

I didn't say "take out"..... You should pay attention... It will save us both a lot of time.

Yes you did

To compare 2009- present to 1981-1989, and 2001-2009, you would add 0.85% and 0.5% respectively.

You lied.

No I didn't

What word do you use to describe "asserting something which is demonstrably false"?

I didn't, doesn't matter

 

[kaz]

So if you take out the "G," what are you claiming exactly? You didn't contradict what I said, just gave a single point which you then didn't follow up on

He is claiming that if Obama ramped up government spending the way it was during Reagan's terms did we would have 3%+ growth.

I'm not "claiming" it....I'm demonstrating it....

The data is available at BEA...

No you aren't

Table 1.1.2. Contributions to Percent Change in Real Gross Domestic Product
Seasonally adjusted at annual rates



U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA)

Fallacy of the single cause. The same one that Skylar kept committing.

If you want me to engage in a debate, you have to start reading and processing my points. Not just contradict everything I say as you are doing. I'm bored as shit with your disingenuous arguments. Else I'll put into it the effort you are. None

 

[IcebergSlim]

You have yet to explain how three FIXED data items can offer an example of "ceteris paribus"...... I have demonstrated that, in the absence of a DEPENDENT variable, they cannot....what you INTENDED to show is irrelevant....

I've seen the error of my ways. You just want to argue. That's cool, but it gets dull after awhile when you're not intellectually engaged.

To answer your question though, all the variables I gave were dependent variables. The independent variable was the money printed, the discussion topic. I mean duh.

I look forward to another deeply intellectually thought through and presented, no it isn't ...

They would be dependent if they were derived......in your illustration they are given........just like " money printed"....

No it wasn't

Let's say arbitrarily for three years there are only three variables that affect currency.

Year 1
Economic growth: +2%
Productivity: +1%
Printing money: -2%

Year 2
Economic growth: -2%
Productivity: -1%
Printing money: -2%

Year 1
Economic growth: +3%
Productivity: +5%
Printing money: -2%

Note that printing money in this example devalued the currency 2% each year. Let's assume that the inflation numbers are additive and not cumulative just to make the math easier, doesn't change the point

You're saying, the value of money in this case grew by 2%! Printing money didn't devalue the currency! Yes, it did.

Why? Economic growth and productivity had a net +8% increase while printing money was net -6%.

​

Show me which number was derived rather than given.

Here's an interesting word for you to learn:

Definition of ARBITRARY

I was explaining the concept of this to Skylar who didn't understand it, not making an argument with those numbers:

Ceteris paribus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So the numbers are now "arbitrary"?

So what are you " holding constant"?

How would that make any of them "dependent"?

 

[IcebergSlim]

So if you take out the "G," what are you claiming exactly? You didn't contradict what I said, just gave a single point which you then didn't follow up on

He is claiming that if Obama ramped up government spending the way it was during Reagan's terms did we would have 3%+ growth.

I'm not "claiming" it....I'm demonstrating it....

The data is available at BEA...

No you aren't

Table 1.1.2. Contributions to Percent Change in Real Gross Domestic Product
Seasonally adjusted at annual rates



U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA)

Fallacy of the single cause. The same one that Skylar kept committing.

If you want me to engage in a debate, you have to start reading and processing my points. Not just contradict everything I say as you are doing. I'm bored as shit with your disingenuous arguments. Else I'll put into it the effort you are. None

Demonstrate how it represents a "Fallacy of a Single Cause"....


How many " causes" would the quantification of "G" be subject to?

 

[kaz]

I've seen the error of my ways. You just want to argue. That's cool, but it gets dull after awhile when you're not intellectually engaged.

To answer your question though, all the variables I gave were dependent variables. The independent variable was the money printed, the discussion topic. I mean duh.

I look forward to another deeply intellectually thought through and presented, no it isn't ...

They would be dependent if they were derived......in your illustration they are given........just like " money printed"....

No it wasn't

Let's say arbitrarily for three years there are only three variables that affect currency.

Year 1
Economic growth: +2%
Productivity: +1%
Printing money: -2%

Year 2
Economic growth: -2%
Productivity: -1%
Printing money: -2%

Year 1
Economic growth: +3%
Productivity: +5%
Printing money: -2%

Note that printing money in this example devalued the currency 2% each year. Let's assume that the inflation numbers are additive and not cumulative just to make the math easier, doesn't change the point

You're saying, the value of money in this case grew by 2%! Printing money didn't devalue the currency! Yes, it did.

Why? Economic growth and productivity had a net +8% increase while printing money was net -6%.

​

Show me which number was derived rather than given.

Here's an interesting word for you to learn:

Definition of ARBITRARY

I was explaining the concept of this to Skylar who didn't understand it, not making an argument with those numbers:

Ceteris paribus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So the numbers are now "arbitrary"?

So what are you " holding constant"?

How would that make any of them "dependent"?

The example was using arbitrary numbers to define ceteris paribus to Skylar who thought it meant there are no other factors, which is not what it means.

All the variables I said in that description were dependent variables, we hadn't started the discussion yet. Neither you or he ever grasped what ceteris paribus means and you don't know what a definition is, so we're stuck in purgatory since neither of you understand how to analyze dependent and independent variables to have a discussion. You just want to keep arguing the arbitrary numbers I made up in explaining the concept to Skylar even though I said they were arbitrary the first time.

That's where we are

 

[kaz]

He is claiming that if Obama ramped up government spending the way it was during Reagan's terms did we would have 3%+ growth.

I'm not "claiming" it....I'm demonstrating it....

The data is available at BEA...

No you aren't

Table 1.1.2. Contributions to Percent Change in Real Gross Domestic Product
Seasonally adjusted at annual rates



U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA)

Fallacy of the single cause. The same one that Skylar kept committing.

If you want me to engage in a debate, you have to start reading and processing my points. Not just contradict everything I say as you are doing. I'm bored as shit with your disingenuous arguments. Else I'll put into it the effort you are. None

Demonstrate how it represents a "Fallacy of a Single Cause"....


How many " causes" would the quantification of "G" be subject to?

37

 

[IcebergSlim]

They would be dependent if they were derived......in your illustration they are given........just like " money printed"....

No it wasn't

Let's say arbitrarily for three years there are only three variables that affect currency.

Year 1
Economic growth: +2%
Productivity: +1%
Printing money: -2%

Year 2
Economic growth: -2%
Productivity: -1%
Printing money: -2%

Year 1
Economic growth: +3%
Productivity: +5%
Printing money: -2%

Note that printing money in this example devalued the currency 2% each year. Let's assume that the inflation numbers are additive and not cumulative just to make the math easier, doesn't change the point

You're saying, the value of money in this case grew by 2%! Printing money didn't devalue the currency! Yes, it did.

Why? Economic growth and productivity had a net +8% increase while printing money was net -6%.

​

Show me which number was derived rather than given.

Here's an interesting word for you to learn:

Definition of ARBITRARY

I was explaining the concept of this to Skylar who didn't understand it, not making an argument with those numbers:

Ceteris paribus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So the numbers are now "arbitrary"?

So what are you " holding constant"?

How would that make any of them "dependent"?

The example was using arbitrary numbers to define ceteris paribus to Skylar who thought it meant there are no other factors, which is not what it means.

All the variables I said in that description were dependent variables, we hadn't started the discussion yet. Neither you or he ever grasped what ceteris paribus means and you don't know what a definition is, so we're stuck in purgatory since neither of you understand how to analyze dependent and independent variables to have a discussion. You just want to keep arguing the arbitrary numbers I made up in explaining the concept to Skylar even though I said they were arbitrary the first time.

That's where we are

If they are " arbitrary", on what are they "dependent" (other than your whim)?

I have no problem understanding any of the terms employed so far........you have repeatedly demonstrated that you have no idea what you are yammering about.