Quote:
Originally Posted by wdmso
Jim in CT detbuch clearly dont understand Empirical evidence its clear data points exist for 8 years under obama
The two times I mentioned empirical evidence I said "It has been empirically demonstrated that flying babies have zero impact on the stroller industry." And "Is there actually empirical evidence that economic theories work other than when tried they do or don't?"
What do you disagree with in those statements?
They are no such long term data points for Trump regarding his overall impact in the economy over time and some see 1 time offers from Companys as Empirical evidence of the benefits of a certain action.. thats not how it works
Data points, apparently, are not empirical to some, as observed by those who say that Trump's policies are not the cause for the highly improved data points existing under his administration. Rather, we are told, they are data points which belong to the Obama administration. If the relevances of data points are disputed, what are they empirical evidence of? That there is disagreement? And how long in "long term" is relevant for you. Apparently 100 years, for you, is a "time machine" and is too long ago to be relevant. The fact that when administrations in the past, even 50, 30, or 15 years ago, lowered taxes which was accompanied by positive "data points," that also" must have been too long ago to be relevant for today. The fact that when several other countries lowered their corporate tax rates, their economy improved substantially and they drew businesses away from higher corporate tax countries like the U.S. also is not a set of relevant data points for you. Apparently, only the last eight years under Obama and the future 3 or 7 years under Trump will be relevant data points. But if they are disputed, which one party will do, will they be relevant?
I am not suggesting Trumps hasn't had an impact on the US economy(its effect are founded only on speculation)
Political speculation is what determines the relevance of economic data points. Speculative partisan conjectures and theories regarding data becomes the reason for dismissal of opposition success, the meat for further opposing policies, and the grist that feeds election propaganda.
And speculation in the market has a profound effect on the market.
And creating confidence and optimism, whether in war, or politics, or in economies, or even in personal life, is an important component for success.
but their is no Empirical evidence any of his legislation he has passed (aka tax cut) or just repealing every this with Obamas name on it . will have the promised out come ... we'll see in the coming years how it shakes out ... and who wins and who looses
|
A great deal of the current business optimism has been created by his policies. The empirical evidence is that the greater optimism and more expansive forecasts occurred after his promises were made and policies began being put into place as evidence that the promises would be kept. The time period may be too short for you (one year instead of four) but evidence gathered from observation does not require a specific period of time (e.g., not too long as in not more than eight years, and not too short as in more than one year) to be empirical. Time may produce more evidence. But, in the immediate now, the evidence, for the time being, is in.
And your use of the "time machine" contradicts itself and other things you've said. As in when I proposed that if past administrations had reduced the corporate tax rates over the past 24 years, the Federal government, during that period, would have collected hundreds of millions, even trillions of revenue more than they got with the high tax rates, you rejected that as being in the past, that I was in my time machine again. Yet you then went on your own time machine into the future, the gathering of "hard data" that will have occurred after Trump's first term is over, to be compared to the past time machine of Obama's eight years and the "hard data" it produced.
First, the data is softer than you portray. The data gets "interpreted" by politically opposing reporters. We're still arguing about the data from the Reagan years or the Kennedy years or the Roosevelt years, and all the data before, in between and after them.
Nor, as in my "what if" conjecture about economic decisions that could have been made in the past, is your sally forth into the future an actual future that is assured to happen. We don't know if Trump will survive the through the rest of this year. We don't know if some cataclysmic event or war will happen. And all of the data that is gathered will be subject to interpretation and will not confirm anything for those who wish it not to. You validate your time machine conjecture merely by expressing it. And pooh-pooh mine, again, merely by saying so.
So far, human nature has not changed since antiquity. And you don't get to limit how far back or how far into the future one may go to find evidence or to speculate on how humans will act under given circumstances. You certainly cannot dismiss how they acted under those circumstances in the past as being too long ago to matter. At least, not without "hard data" to suggest they would act differently today than in the past under the same circumstances.