Democrats outperform Republicans across the board

[tuhaybey]

Just blurting out that "lobbyists" gave us causation and correlation makes you a moron. You have no argument to refute.

Doesn't seem like you read my post. Give it another go.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Just blurting out that "lobbyists" gave us causation and correlation makes you a moron. You have no argument to refute.

Doesn't seem like you read my post. Give it another go.

Having a debate with Zander or Rabbi or CrusaderFrank is defined as mental masturbation without a climax.

 

[Zander]

Just blurting out that "lobbyists" gave us causation and correlation makes you a moron. You have no argument to refute.

Doesn't seem like you read my post. Give it another go.

These are all "correlated". Start refuting......

...

 

[tuhaybey]

These are all "correlated". Start refuting......

Again, virtually all evidence is correlation. For example, if the FDA needs to decide if a new drug will cause cancer, it looks at how cancer correlates to taking the drug. Correlation is not unscientific or something, that is what most of science is- looking for strong correlations.

Now, most definitely, you can have situations where an external factor affects both. For example, wearing gloves doesn't make you wear a hat even though the correlate strongly (cold makes you both wear a hat and wear gloves). That is called a confounding factor. So far, nobody in this thread has come up with a suggestion of a confounding factor that would cause Democrats to have so much better numbers, but if you have one that you can document, that would be a legitimate argument. Just claiming it is a coincidence with no basis for your claim, on the other hand, is not a real argument.

Your graphs rely on two tricks. First, they are just totally unrelated things and there are an infinite number of unrelated things, so of course you can find two that correlate. That isn't the case with the data I showed you in the OP. Those aren't like tiny unrelated factors among thousands, those are every major economic indicator correlated to who is running the government. For example, say that 1 in every 1,000 two random variables correlate fairly closely like that. If you want to find charts of unrelated things that correlate, you could just look at 1,000 possible correlations and pick the strongest ones even if only 1 in 1,000 correlate. But in this case, we're looking at the 8 or so most obvious things to look at and all 8 correlate. Do you see why that makes it so much stronger evidence?

Second, a number of your graphs are just playing a trick by failing to control for population. All "number of incident" type stats go up as population goes up. The charts in the OP don't make that mistake.

 

[Zander]

These are all "correlated". Start refuting......

Again, virtually all evidence is correlation. For example, if the FDA needs to decide if a new drug will cause cancer, it looks at how cancer correlates to taking the drug. Correlation is not unscientific or something, that is what most of science is- looking for strong correlations.

Now, most definitely, you can have situations where an external factor affects both. For example, wearing gloves doesn't make you wear a hat even though the correlate strongly (cold makes you both wear a hat and wear gloves). That is called a confounding factor.

Your graphs rely on two tricks. First, they are just totally unrelated things and there are an infinite number of unrelated things, so of course you can find two that correlate. That isn't the case with the data I showed you in the OP. Those aren't like tiny unrelated factors among thousands, those are every major economic indicator correlated to who is running the government. For example, say that 1 in every 1,000 two random variables correlate fairly closely like that. If you want to find charts of unrelated things that correlate, you could just look at 1,000 possible correlations and pick the strongest ones even if only 1 in 1,000 correlate. But in this case, we're looking at the 8 or so most obvious things to look at and all 8 correlate. Do you see why that makes it so much stronger evidence?

Second, a number of your graphs are just playing a trick by failing to control for population. All "number of incident" type stats go up as population goes up. The charts in the OP don't make that mistake.

List the specific Democrat legislation and specific Democrat policies that "caused" the economic performance you ascribe to them.

 

[tuhaybey]

List the specific Democrat legislation and specific Democrat policies that "caused" the economic performance you ascribe to them.

There are obviously way too many to list in a meaningful way. The main reasons that Democrats tend to perform so much better are:

1) They favor broader access to opportunity and wealth which gives people more of an incentive to work hard, wastes fewer people's abilities on poverty, and leaves more employees and consumers able to perform their economic role well.

2) They favor stricter regulation of externalities and monopoly and oligopoly, all of which boost economic efficiency.

3) They seek to invest more in the future.

4) They are much less prone to irrational acts that drastically undermine the economy, such as threatening to default, shutting down the government, and so forth. Democrats tend to be pragmatic and data driven which leads to much better policy than being idealistic and slogan driven.

 

[Zander]

List the specific Democrat legislation and specific Democrat policies that "caused" the economic performance you ascribe to them.

There are obviously way too many to list in a meaningful way. The main reasons that Democrats tend to perform so much better are:

1) They favor broader access to opportunity and wealth which gives people more of an incentive to work hard, wastes fewer people's abilities on poverty, and leaves more employees and consumers able to perform their economic role well.

2) They favor stricter regulation of externalities and monopoly and oligopoly, all of which boost economic efficiency.

3) They seek to invest more in the future.

4) They are much less prone to irrational acts that drastically undermine the economy, such as threatening to default, shutting down the government, and so forth. Democrats tend to be pragmatic and data driven which leads to much better policy than being idealistic and slogan driven.

I didn't ask for a list of platitudes and wishful thinking. I am looking for concrete, specific policies and laws passed by Democrats that correlate to your premise. Surely you can provide at least a few?

 

[tuhaybey]

I didn't ask for a list of platitudes and wishful thinking. I am looking for concrete, specific policies and laws passed by Democrats that correlate to your premise. Surely you can provide at least a few?

I mean, the stats I gave you show how their overall portfolio of policies performs economically. There isn't an objective way to know how much of that performance is tied to which of their policies. I think the list I gave you should help you understand why their policies are performing so much better though.

Remember, we already know, for a fact, that the Democratic policies are working better economically, so you should be trying to figure out what it is about them that is working better, not whether or not they are working better. If I give you an example, and you just blurt out Republican reasons why you wouldn't expect it to work better, that won't bring you any closer to understand why it is working better.

But, with those disclaimers, sure, if you think it will help you get your head around it, we can talk about a specific example. Take antitrust regulation. The parties differ starkly on how aggressively we should enforce antitrust laws. Bush2, for example, allowed virtually every merger to go through during his presidency. Obama, on the other hand, has been blocking any merger that would result in less than 4 major players in an industry. That's a huge difference between the parties with obvious economic consequences, so lets look there. Take, for example, the DOJ blocking the merger of AT&T and T-Mobile. Conservatives pretty much all argued that the DOJ should let it go through, liberals pretty much all argued that it should be blocked, and the Obama DOJ blocked it. So, consider the economic consequences.

Most notably, capitalism is built on competition. The whole theory of capitalism is that competition drives prices down and quality up. The more competition, the more efficient the economy gets. So, generally, anything that increases competition or prevents a reduction in competition is economically good. In this specific case, it was especially clear cut because the merger would have reduced the wireless market to only 3 players, all 3 of whom charge exactly the same as the others for every service, which shows they aren't really competing much at all on price. What's more, T-Mobile was the one exception that actually was trying to undercut the others on price. That would have been lost had the merger been allowed to go through. Can you see how that would have economic benefits to block that merger?

 

[Vigilante]

 

[Zander]

I didn't ask for a list of platitudes and wishful thinking. I am looking for concrete, specific policies and laws passed by Democrats that correlate to your premise. Surely you can provide at least a few?

I mean, the stats I gave you show how their overall portfolio of policies performs economically. There isn't an objective way to know how much of that performance is tied to which of their policies. I think the list I gave you should help you understand why their policies are performing so much better though.

Remember, we already know, for a fact, that the Democratic policies are working better economically, so you should be trying to figure out what it is about them that is working better, not whether or not they are working better. If I give you an example, and you just blurt out Republican reasons why you wouldn't expect it to work better, that won't bring you any closer to understand why it is working better.

But, with those disclaimers, sure, if you think it will help you get your head around it, we can talk about a specific example. Take antitrust regulation. The parties differ starkly on how aggressively we should enforce antitrust laws. Bush2, for example, allowed virtually every merger to go through during his presidency. Obama, on the other hand, has been blocking any merger that would result in less than 4 major players in an industry. That's a huge difference between the parties with obvious economic consequences, so lets look there. Take, for example, the DOJ blocking the merger of AT&T and T-Mobile. Conservatives pretty much all argued that the DOJ should let it go through, liberals pretty much all argued that it should be blocked, and the Obama DOJ blocked it. So, consider the economic consequences.

Most notably, capitalism is built on competition. The whole theory of capitalism is that competition drives prices down and quality up. The more competition, the more efficient the economy gets. So, generally, anything that increases competition or prevents a reduction in competition is economically good. In this specific case, it was especially clear cut because the merger would have reduced the wireless market to only 3 players, all 3 of whom charge exactly the same as the others for every service, which shows they aren't really competing much at all on price. What's more, T-Mobile was the one exception that actually was trying to undercut the others on price. That would have been lost had the merger been allowed to go through. Can you see how that would have economic benefits to block that merger?

No. I don't see any economic benefits of blocking that merger and you cannot prove any. Fact is we have dozens of cell service providers in this country. At least 30 facilities based providers and at least 50 virtual providers. That is 80. Not 3 or 4. Apparently you think it is OK to make shit up as you go along?

Bottom line - you're shooting from the hip and using anecdotes to confirm your own bias. The fact is you have not listed even one democrat passed law that supports your premise. My work here is done.

 

[tuhaybey]

No. I don't see any economic benefits of blocking that merger and you cannot prove any. . . . Bottom line - you're shooting from the hip and using anecdotes to confirm your own bias.

Re-read my two disclaimers in the post you replied to silly.

Anyways, am I correct that your position is basically just that you can't explain why the Democrats do so much better? That's fine I guess.

Fact is we have dozens of cell service providers in this country. At least 30 facilities based providers and at least 50 virtual providers. That is 80. Not 3 or 4. Apparently you think it is OK to make shit up as you go along?

There are only 4 major national carriers. Those are mostly regional, local carriers or small or prepaid national carriers. The number of carriers varies by locality. Some local areas have only 2. Others have like 15. But, ultimately the relevant market is national non-prepaid carriers. What you look at when deciding how to define the market is how readily consumers switch from one company's type of service to another's. If they are pretty reluctant to make that kind of switch, they're different markets. Generally speaking, for example, an AT&T customer that has nationwide unlimited calling with no roaming charges isn't going to switch to picking up a new phone every month at a corner store that only has local coverage. So, the DOJ, correctly I think, defined the market as national non-prepaid carriers. AT&T, Verizon, Sprint and T-Mobile combined control over 90% of that market. Had they allowed the merger to go through, 3 companies would have controlled 90% of that market.

See, I think part of the issue on the right is that they approach it the way you did- they try to come up with excuses not to regulate businesses instead of just honestly trying to figure out what approach is economically optimal. They put a thumb on the "don't regulate" side of the scale and that results in policy that isn't always optimal. The question is not "can you prove for a fact that this regulation is necessary?", the question is "is it more likely that this regulation will result in more benefits or more costs?" Say, for example, that you have a regulation that some believe will cause a net loss of $100 and other say it will cause $100 in gains. The right seems to approach that as "we will only approve this regulation if you can show me that there is a 90% chance it will give us the gains, and only then if nobody in talk radio is against it." That isn't rational. The rational thing would be to say "if you can show me that there is a 51% chance that we will have more gains than costs, I will support that regulation regardless of what talk radio says." That's why the Democrats always do better economically in a nutshell IMO.

 

[Stephanie]

Cult members are not pretty. they are more like apes beating their hairy chest with, Democrats are better naa naa na na na

 

[tuhaybey]

Cult members are not pretty. they are more like apes beating their hairy chest with, Democrats are better naa naa na na na

I don't get it. You think it is cultish and ape-like to vote based on which party's policies actually work better? Instead we should vote, how? Just at random?

As a side note, you shouldn't exactly call others "cult members" and "apes" if you have an avatar like that lol.

 

[Stephanie]

Cult members are not pretty. they are more like apes beating their hairy chest with, Democrats are better naa naa na na na

I don't get it. You think it is cultish and ape-like to vote based on which party's policies actually work better? Instead we should vote, how? Just at random?

As a side note, you shouldn't exactly call others "cult members" and "apes" if you have an avatar like that lol.

lol, HOW MUCH does it cost us for their policies to actually work? Start with Detroit and go from there please

 

[tuhaybey]

lol, HOW MUCH does it cost us for their policies to actually work?

Not sure exactly what you're asking. The federal budget doesn't really change much when the parties in control change. It is more that they focus it on different things.

If you're talking more broadly about costs than just the budget, what the data shows us is that the benefits created by the Democratic policies exceed the costs by a wider margin than they do for Republican policies.

 

[Stephanie]

lol, HOW MUCH does it cost us for their policies to actually work?

Not sure exactly what you're asking. The federal budget doesn't really change much when the parties in control change. It is more that they focus it on different things.

If you're talking more broadly about costs than just the budget, what the data shows us is that the benefits created by the Democratic policies exceed the costs by a wider margin than they do for Republican policies.

lol, are you old enough to vote? out of college and working in a job?
just curious

 

[tuhaybey]

lol, are you old enough to vote? out of college and working in a job? just curious

Yes... Of course... The thing where tea party types assume liberals must be unemployed is so weird lol. You understand that we have a way higher median income than you guys do, right? For example, San Francisco, which is just about 95% Democratic, has a median income $35k/year higher and the average person has 2.5 more years of education than the southern Republican states... We're rapidly getting to the point where all highly successful people (not counting people who are successful because they inherited something) are liberals. The 3 richest people in the country all are very liberal, virtually everybody at a top 10 school is liberal, lawyers, doctors, scientists, etc., all liberal... Yet you guys still just go along assuming that liberals are generally like on welfare or something lol? Have you never gone to a city or something? How could you be so out of touch?

 

[Stephanie]

lol, are you old enough to vote? out of college and working in a job? just curious

Yes... Of course... The thing where tea party types assume liberals must be unemployed is so weird lol. You understand that we have a way higher median income than you guys do, right? For example, San Francisco, which is just about 95% Democratic, has a median income $35k/year higher and the average person has 2.5 more years of education than the southern Republican states... We're rapidly getting to the point where all highly successful people (not counting people who are successful because they inherited something) are liberals. The 3 richest people in the country all are very liberal, virtually everybody at a top 10 school is liberal, lawyers, doctors, scientists, etc., all liberal... Yet you guys still just go along assuming that liberals are generally like on welfare or something lol? Have you never gone to a city or something? How could you be so out of touch?

omg, you had to drag the tea party in this? you're brainwashed sheep. You're not convincing anyone here to switch parties with they way you put them on some pedestal . just go vote for the Democrats. no one here cares....

 

[tuhaybey]

omg, you had to drag the tea party in this? you're brainwashed sheep. You're not convincing anyone here to switch parties with they way you put them on some pedestal . just go vote for the Democrats. no one here cares....

So basically, you're unable to come up with any objective rational measure that shows Republicans doing better, or even close to as well as Democrats do, so you have no rational reason to vote Republican, but you're just going to keep doing it anyways just because... But you call *me* a "sheep?"

Looking at the actual facts and trying to make voting decisions based on actual empirical data is not being a sheep, a cult member or an ape. It is exactly the opposite of those things.

 

[Zander]

Still waiting for even one democrat passed law that supports the OP's premise.......