I misspoke above. I meant to say, “you think standard of living went down under Obama and that Obama was responsible.”

Here is US Real GDP per capita for 2009-2016. Please explain using math how this shows Obama screwing the US economy or hurting the American standard of living.



Is it because you think Obama was increasing the deficit? Let's take a look at the trendlines for the deficit as a percentage of GDP for a few recent Presidents:

Clinton:



George W Bush:



Obama:



Trump:

Dont waste your time with graphs. Shandrax already said that he doesnt want to discuss standard of living using "math."

I said that Obama screwed the western world. The median household income went down in western countries, identity politics devided/fragmented western populations, values of society got turned upside down, islamic "freedom fighters" got funded, the Middle East and Northern Africa got destabilized, in the process the EU got destabilized too, China is about to take over global leadership and the former head of the Socialist International became the general secretary of the United Nations. Not bad for 8 years in office.

The funny thing is that you can't argue about a single point on the list. The only thing you can do is to turn these points into a success. Don't get me wrong, that is actually possible, because it's a zero-sum-game. Everything that went FUBAR in the western world actually helped other global players and interest groups.

I give you an escape: Maybe Obama's decisions were great, but he was just very unlucky. **** happens.

Nope, this is false.



Here's a link for the EU, which shows that median household income increased from 14802 in 2009 to 16943 in 2017.

I found a statistic that says the opposite.

http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_For...Grwth_2017.pdf

Funny, isn't it?

How do you explain articles like the following?

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/20/o...o-stop-it.html

Maybe we are both living in parallel universes and you were lucky to live in the good one.

Let's be clear on this: If you honestly believe that the US were better off after 8 years Obama than before, then I fully understand that you also honestly believe that Trump could only win the election by cheating. Otherwise it doesn't make any sense at all. It's the only possible conclusion for your perception of reality.

You shouldn't just hunt statistics that confirm your priors. First, that is a figure only for advanced economies, not Western economies. Second, the data used for that trendline is 2008-2012+, not the more accurate 2009-2017 that I used.

There's always a market for Chicken Little stories, especially near an election.

Insofar as our universes are made up of the media sources on which we rely, that is plausible.

No, you are making a false assumption here. I honestly believe that the US was better off after 8 years of Obama, but I don't believe that Trump could only win the election by cheating. In fact, US voters often vote against the party under which the economy has improved. For instance, in 2000 George W Bush was elected president even though under Clinton median household income also increased:



You need to update your mental model of how economic factors affect voter behavior.

Shandrax,

In response to evidence that the standard of living in fact did not go down under Obama, you shifted the goalposts in this thread and said:

But in the Trump thread, you made the same criticism of Obama, stating:

Do you think people are so stupid that they can't remember what you said from one thread to another?

You believe that the White House switches from Democrat to Republican or vice versa only if (i) the country is worse off; or (ii) there was cheating?

In other words, you believe there is no other possible explanation for a change from one party to the other? I don't believe that's the case. In fact, I don't know anyone who believes that's the case.

He believes what he wants to believe. He made that blatantly obvious by choosing the words "Obama screwed up the whole western world"...

That statement alone is demonstrably false, to a point where right off the bat I can't be sure I can take a person seriously. It's not so much "how much better or worse the western world is" but rather his "you can't argue against my points" and his talk about reality, when his initial choice of words is literally a denial of reality in which he's continuing to argue for. His view of reality is not sober. Evidence being presented to him is not being acknowledged. What is the point in taking someone like that seriously? You might as well talk to a brick wall...

Regarding Obama and his effect on the economy what factors do you consider to be the most impactful in affecting the growth of the economy? Regarding monetary policy he re-nominated Bernanke, a Bush appointee. Then he appointed Janet Yellen. Both had very good credentials.

Regarding fiscal policy, he basically supported Bush tax cuts for the “middle class.” The making work pay tax credit, the lower FICA taxes for a period of time in addition. He got to allocate half of the TARP money as he saw fit. The 2009 stimulus too. I probably missed a few things. He also raised marginal tax rates on the highest income earners. Please discuss if so inclined.

I will not participate in this. But please inform yourself about a) Venezuela and what Cuba is doing to them and b) Venezuela and what Russia is doing to them (to the Ukraine as well, and Syria and.....). THANK YOU!!

Thank god I did this. Imagine I post something different on the same subject.

I was just trying to come up with a rational explanation for this behavior:

https://www.y*utube.com/watch?v=wDYNVH0U3cs

It seems obvious to me - maybe only to me - that it must have something to do with a different perception of reality. Some believe they live in the best USA ever while others believe the exact opposite. The next step is to project the own perception of reality on others. If liberals do that they tend to believe that voting liberal is the most normal thing in the world. So why the hell did they lose the election? It must have been cheating of some sort, right?

I got the idea for this concept from poker. Most people believe that they are a pretty decent poker players, at least average, but certainly not outright bad. Nevertheless most players are consistently losing money on the internet, because they are at least underestimating the rake, which turns breakeven-players into losers. What is the favorite explantion for losing? Internetpoker is rigged!!!!

It doesn't mean that I believe the same, but I believe that many losing players think like that.

Coming back to your first question (i), yes, I firmly believe that "it's all about the economy, stupid". People vote almost exclusively for their own interest. They either vote for the candidate who realistically* promises the most advantages to them, or for the one who promises to stops the bleeding.


* which cuts out Bernie

This is a bit too postmodern for me. Yes, our perceptions color how we experience reality, but nonetheless there is still a base level of objective facts about the world. For instance, many people might have thought crime was increasing during Obama's presidency, but as a matter of reality, it was not.

I've played a lot of live poker, and while regs often have the view you describe, tourists usually don't - they acknowledge that they are probably losing players, but want to play for fun anyway. Most voters are the functional equivalent of tourists, not regs.

This is your belief though, not mine, so you shouldn't project it onto me or my view of the 2016 election. It's also fairly obviously contradicted by the evidence. Even the theory isn't persuasive - most people don't actually know enough about public policy to know which promises are in their own interest, and so instead vote on the basis of identity, other cultural cues, or sheer randomness.

best interest loooool

Even though Unions provide voting recommendations(based on an actual understanding of what would best suit the brotherhood), you'd be surprised how many rank and file are reluctant to vote in accordance.

It's generally because they are hicks that cringe at any association with gays and minorities, or because they value single-issue abstractions like gun-rights or poor babies being killed in the womb.

They are making their 30$ an hour, making massive monthly payments for the latest pickup truck off the assembly line, and literally vote so that mechanical contractors don't have to hire them or the cats that built the trucks, but rather their less-skilled, uncertified competition for the available jobs.

So, now that your 'understanding' of that concept has been thoroughly destroyed, maybe you can arrive at another notion via poker, Shandrax.

If you think this sort of explanation has ever been welcome or endorsed by regs on this site, you are terribly mistaken. Several times, I have seen conversations on this site that go as follows:

Random person who signed up the day before: I'm losing. EIther internet poker is rigged or I am running way below expectation.

Regs: Highly doubtful, but post your graphs and some specific hands.

Random: [Posts graphs and hands for a few weeks.]

Regs: Yeah, this pretty much proves that you don't understand variance. Also, you should play better.

Since you don't seem to know the original quote, it's not from me, it's from a liberal campaign manager.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/It%27s...conomy,_stupid

The famous #not_all is indeed in missing in my statement, but it is missing on purpose in order to make a point. It is missing in his statement also. I guess he wanted to make the same point.

I am pretty sure that the election wasn't rigged on the basis of Ockham's Razor. It's much more difficult to rig an election on a grand scale and to keep it secret than to do it the normal way and the majority was simply voting in their own interest. You need a ton of people to do that, but their interest is the same.

Note: It is sufficient that voters are convinced that things are going bad.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

You're conflating a campaign message in a particular campaign with a theory of voter behavior in all elections. Yes, if you're running for President against an incumbent during a recession, you should run on the bad state of the economy. However, when Trump ran against Clinton the economy was not in recession, nor was unemployment high. Not all elections indeed, including in particular the election between Trump and Clinton.
I mean, your note here gives away the entire game. Voters can be convinced that things are going bad even if the economy is strong. Such is the power of partisanship. Thus, while the economy does play a role in determining the winner of an election, it is not sufficient. For instance, the thermostatic nature of American voters also plays a role, as does the quality of the candidates running and whether there is a war going on, etc.

If you ask people who voted for Trump, you may get a different opinion. Economy is not about the stock market. It's about what voters have in their purse. If the purse is constantly empty, there is a recession.

Every decision we make is based on our personal perception of reality. This also includes whom we trust. This is not only my entire game, it's the entire game of every politicial actor. It's the entire game of shaping public opinion ever since the days of Edward Bernays and even before. This is essentially what political-PR is all about. Both sides like to put emphasis on the facts that support their arguments, and this is legit.

Do you believe that only one side tells all the truth while the other side tells nothing but lies?
Btw, you may add #not_all to it and replace "all" with a softer expression that leaves room for exceptions.

Sure, if you ask Trump voters you'll get a false opinion. A recession isn't a measure of either the stock market or what voters have in their purses, but rather names an extended period of negative economic growth (GDP). It's just a fact that we weren't in a recession during or immediately prior to the 2016 election.
Of course not, although Trump himself does tell an unusually large number of lies. Prior GOP candidates were approximately as truthful as the Democratic ones. However, GOP voters are more dependent on partisan sources for information, so they have fewer safeguards against being deceived.

but the experiment!?