This May Be Satire, But It's Deadly Serious to Me!

I was talking with my wife the other night and I explained to her my desire to actually vote FOR a candidate. The last time I was able to do that was Perot's first campaign. I actually wanted him to win. This time, it just seems like I am voting for who I think will do the least amount of damage, and even then it's not someone I want to vote for... Maybe I will write McCain in...

0 Replies

McG

Of course, that wastes a vote. On the other hand, that one vote wasted will be accounted for when McCain votes for Kerry.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

I wonder how many jobs a President Gore would have lost if 9/11 had happened eight months into his presidency?

Not many more than if it hadn't -- 9/11 isn't the reason America lost jobs. According to the conventional wisdom among economists, the war on terror -- and on the war in Iraq which your president claims to be related to it -- should both stimulate job growth. As far as the economy is concerned, homeland security and a military buildup are both just another federal spending program, and spending programs create jobs in the short run.

For perspective, remember that World War II got the USA out of the Great Depression, not into it. The wars on Iraq and on terror are both much smaller in scale than World War II, but the underlying principle is the same. Wars are short term stimuli, not short-term impediments to employment, so they don't explain the decrease of employment that happened under George W Bush.

0 Replies

Thomas writes:

Quote:

Not many more (jobs) than if it hadn't -- 9/11 isn't the reason America lost jobs. According to the conventional wisdom among economists, the war on terror -- and on the war in Iraq which your president claims to be related to it -- should both stimulate job growth. As far as the economy is concerned, homeland security and a military buildup are both just another federal spending program, and spending programs create jobs in the short run.

I thought a whole lot about what you said but after looking at the chronology again, I respectfully disagree. Most economists indicated that the U.S. was already entering a natural recession when Bush took office. It no doubt would have been mild and of short duration except for 9/11. 9/11 sent shockwaves throughout the entire financial community, sent the stock market into the tank, drove an already financially strapped airline and tourist industry to the brink of bankruptcy.

In addition, my financial gurus tell me that the U.S. labor market is in a transitional period not unlike the transition from manual labor to high tech a few decades ago. During that time big business pulls in its horns as it regroups and retools for the next emerging industry. (We don't know yet what that will be but if this cycle follows all previous cycles, one will emerge.) We have definitely moved from a manufacturing base to a service-oriented base, though manufacturing jobs have held up better than the press they are getting.

If Bush's policies were what cost the U.S. all those jobs, then the job loss should be cotninuing now that the policies are kicking into full play. Just the opposite seems to be the case however.

9/11 however was the biggie and it drove the GNP and government revenues into the toilet for a time. Investment, hiring, planning for the future virtually stopped for a time. That kind of thing had never happened to us before. The next time won't be nearly so devastating as we no longer are so susceptible to having our innocence shattered. Hopefully the next time will just make us even more angry.

Bush's tax policies are no different from Kennedy's, no different from Reagan's, and if the payoff is as good for this administration as it was for those, the program has already been reversed and will resolve if allowed to continue. All economic indicators point that way right now.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

I thought a whole lot about what you said but after looking at the chronology again, I respectfully disagree.

No problem at all. One of my favorite Churchill quotes is "When two people agree, one is superfluous." (I'm quoting from memory, so the wording may not be accurate.)

Quote:

Most economists indicated that the U.S. was already entering a natural recession when Bush took office.

Agreed. I'm not arguing with that.

Quote:

9/11 sent shockwaves throughout the entire financial community, sent the stock market into the tank,

I can't see that in the data. When I hit the following link and look at the Standard & Poor 500 index during the last five years, I see a steady decline starting in autumn 2000 and ending somewhere between autumn and winter 2002/2003. September 11 shows up as a sharp spike downwards that rebounds by October/November 2001. (Hard to tell on such a large scale.) After that, the trend that started one year earlier continues for about one more year. That's what I see when I look at the data. Now, when you look at the data, what makes you think September 11 changed everything?

Quote:

drove an already financially strapped airline and tourist industry to the brink of bankruptcy.

... but also boosted every business that sold security in any way, shape or form. I challenge you to find economists who mostly publish peer reviewed articles and who thinks 9/11 was the reason the recovery remained jobless for so long. I predict you'll find 10 who disagree until you find one who agrees. (Think tank economists are another matter. Their mission is to grind axes, not to spread knowledge.)

Quote:

We have definitely moved from a manufacturing base to a service-oriented base, though manufacturing jobs have held up better than the press they are getting.

I agree, but this has been happening for at least 10-20 years. The question is, why did the creation of new service jobs fall short of the destruction of old manufacturing jobs? This wasn't the case under presidents Clinton and Reagan, it was the case both presidents Bush. So yes, the structure of America's economy is changing fast, but that doesn't explain what happened to its overall size and to overall employment.

Quote:

If Bush's policies were what cost the U.S. all those jobs, then the job loss should be cotninuing now that the policies are kicking into full play. Just the opposite seems to be the case however.

No, it shouldn't be continuing, because the policies constitute a one-off waste of opportunity. I expect the economy to continue growing at the sum of productivity growth and labor force growth, just as it did before the recession -- but it will grow from a lower base than it could have.

We'll see how many jobs will be created until the election, but I'd be very surprised if it were nearly as many as had been lost in the first three years.

0 Replies

Here's a link to a larger version of the graph Thomas linked to:

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=^GSPC&t=5y&l=on&z=l&q=l&c=

PS just click the "L" to get the big ones.

0 Replies

Well I looked at the graph and I think it supports what I said about the market. Upticks here and there do not negate the tremendous hit the market took and I defy anybody to find data suggesting that 9/11 and related issues were not the No. 1 cause for it.

I disagree that jobs created in an upsurge in "security/defense' spending can come even close to replacing recession-induced loss of jobs in a free market economy. I won't bother to look for data as Thomas has already suggested he won't find as credible any source I would produce so that would be a waste of time. Smile

Until somebody does an empirical study on the impact of 9/11 on jobs loss, I don't think anybody can say that was not the driving factor behind a temporarily jobless booming economy.

The one thing Thomas did not address was the issue of transition in industry base which my financial gurus have told me is the biggie and why job creation remained stagnant even after the economy began recovering. They say we have a period of low job creation every time that happens and it happens every 20 - 30 years.

As far as 'who has the biggest axe to grind', I wonder what would be the most credible sources? Writers for Money Magazine? University economists? Government bureaucrats? Institutions dependent on grants from partisan sources? How are you going to decide which is the more trustworthy?

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Well I looked at the graph and I think it supports what I said about the market. Upticks here and there do not negate the tremendous hit the market took and I defy anybody to find data suggesting that 9/11 and related issues were not the No. 1 cause for it.

Are you serious? I am very ignorant about economy, but I can read graphs. You were saying that 9/11 "sent the stock market into the tank". How do you see that back in this graph? Within two months after 9/11, the stock market was back exactly where it had been on 9/10. After that it continued to fall again, but at no significantly greater speed than it had been falling before 9/11. I can even calculate that, though reading from the graph the numbers will be rough: between August 2000 and September 10, 2001, the S&P fell by some 310. Thats 24 per month. Between November 2001 and June 2002, it fell by 200 - 28,5 per month. Hardly a trendbreak. Then in June 2002 there was a sudden additional drop of 200, within what looks like a week. A sudden, eight-month delayed reaction to 9/11, you say?

There is no negating the "tremendous hit the market took" - we can all see it from the graph. Its the timing of the hit we disagree on. The graph shows a practically steady drop - with the uptick here and there that you noted on - from Autumn 2000 to Autumn 2002. How can 9/11 have been "the No. 1 cause for it", if it had been going on in practically the same pace from a year before?

<noting the irony in "defying anybody to find data" you were just handed>

0 Replies

(There's a very nice explanation, made easy for laymen like me with clear graphs, of how to distinguish "Long-term alterations in [statistical] trends brought about by [..] events" from "short-term deviations" in this NAES time-series analysis of polls, by the way ... you have to scroll down to page 9 or 10 or something, where it says "time-series analysis" (chart 3, 4).

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Until somebody does an empirical study on the impact of 9/11 on jobs loss, I don't think anybody can say that was not the driving factor behind a temporarily jobless booming economy.

That's a non-argument. You can just as well say, "Until somebody does an empirical study on the impact of 9/11 on jobs loss, I don't think anybody can say that was the driving factor behind a temporarily jobless booming economy."

<also noting how the previously noted "hit the market took" has morphed into a "jobless booming economy">

Foxfyre wrote:

I disagree that jobs created in an upsurge in "security/defense' spending can come even close to replacing recession-induced loss of jobs in a free market economy.

Thomas didn't say the jobs created by the defense/security spending would replace all the "recession-induced loss of jobs".

You need to keep in mind that he argues (convincingly, to me) that the recession preceded 9/11 - and would thus have its own, autonomous effect on jobs, independent from any effect of 9/11.

It is on the possibility of that effect 9/11 (and the war on terror, the war in Iraq) would have had, that he says the resulting extra jobs in the military / government / security apparatus outweigh any loss of jobs caused by it, for example the ones in the afflicted "airline and tourist industry" you bring up as proof.

By the way, does your argument mean you are not one of those Republicans who claim the recession can be blamed on the Clinton administration, from whom it was "inherited"? I mean, considering you argue 9/11 was the main cause of it?

---

Furthermore, I am puzzled on an additional score here. You speak of 9/11 driving "a temporarily jobless jobless booming economy". And elsewhere (in that post Craven took you to task for), you maintained that "If we weren't spending billions to prosecute the war on terror, [Iraq, etc.], the budget would not be unbalanced as revenues would be covering the expenditures".

So if I get this correctly, you contend that revenues have still flowed in sufficiently enough that they would have covered normal (peace-time) spending - there's nothing abnormal about the revenues, its just the spending that causes unbalanced budgets. And the economy has in fact been "booming", be it in a jobless way. So the only problem, apparently, for this temporary period after 9/11, was jobs.

But what I dont get is, why would "the impact of 9/11" have had such a horrific effect specifically on the number of jobs, if it didnt stop the revenues from flowing or the economy from "booming"? What was it about 9/11 that would impact the employment market, but not the economy overall?

Foxfyre wrote:

As far as 'who has the biggest axe to grind', I wonder what would be the most credible sources? Writers for Money Magazine? University economists? Government bureaucrats? Institutions dependent on grants from partisan sources? How are you going to decide which is the more trustworthy?

I think he suggested the criteria of "economists who mostly publish peer reviewed articles" (good) and "think tank economists" (bad). I have no idea what that means, myself, but you probably do.

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
Until somebody does an empirical study on the impact of 9/11 on jobs loss, I don't think anybody can say that was not the driving factor behind a temporarily jobless booming economy.

That's a non-argument. You can just as well say, "Until somebody does an empirical study on the impact of 9/11 on jobs loss, I don't think anybody can say that was the driving factor behind a temporarily jobless booming economy."

The second one actually makes more sense.

Compare:

1) Until somebody does an empirical study that proves that God doesn't exist nobody can say he doesn't.

2) Until somebody does an empirical study that proves that God does exist nobody can say he does.

Burden of proof.

0 Replies

nimh

There are any number of Washington thinktanks (they've sprouted like dandilions over the last decade particularly, mainly because there's good money to be made from people like Scaife and from industry donations) which can be counted on to argue pretty much anything needed to be argued. We have them in Canada too, the Fraser Institute being the most high profile. They publish to their own media organs or send out press briefings, but the research (if any) and the conclusions they draw are not subject to review by trade or professional peer groups, which is in contrast to professional or academic journals (eg "Nature", etc)

0 Replies

(expanded post above w/3 extra paragraphs)

Craven de Kere wrote:

nimh wrote:
That's a non-argument. You can just as well say, "Until somebody does an empirical study on the impact of 9/11 on jobs loss, I don't think anybody can say that was the driving factor behind a temporarily jobless booming economy."

The second one actually makes more sense.

Compare:

1) Until somebody does an empirical study that proves that God doesn't exist nobody can say he doesn't.

2) Until somebody does an empirical study that proves that God does exist nobody can say he does.

Burden of proof.

Hey Craven, thanks for the heads up. I dunno tho. Aren't you in both cases speculating or theorising on what the driving factor behind the jobs loss was - either the impact of 9/11, or something else?

For one, Fox didnt actually write, "does an empirical study that proves that it was the impact of 9/11 that caused the job loss" -- just a study "on the impact of 9/11 on job loss".

So the more exact paraphrasings would be, I think:

1) Until somebody does a study on the existence of God nobody can say he doesn't exist vs
2) Until somebody does a study on the existence of God nobody can say he does exist.

Those seem to be at least more equivalent than your examples. I mean, part of the origin of the claims of modern secularism is based on studies on at least the proposed theories on what God had done (create the world in 7 days and such).

But yeh, I get the "burden of proof" thing ... still, in this case its different because the jobs loss, at least, is an empirical fact, so either you think it was 9/11 or you think it was other things - in both cases you are submitting the existence of something.

Oh god this is starting to sound like one of those philosophy threads I always stay away from! Very Happy

0 Replies

nimh,

It's a standard of critical thinking to require substantiation of alleged causative factors.

Otherwise what you have is called the post hoc ergo propter hoc (after this therefore because of this) fallacy which is part of a more general family of logical fallacies that I tried to explain to her earlier (using the layman's terms of "circumstantial vs causative" or "subsequence vs causative" and "enable vs causative").

Now, that particular fallacy is not really applicable to this case. Not because of the arguments that Foxfyre has submitted but because of the arguments that can be. There is, in fact, ample evidence that 9/11 did cause economic problems at least on some scale.

A real easy example would be the actual monetary cost of the 9/11 damage, the monetary cost of the lost days of trading etc. Mere subsequence is not all there is, so it's not that particular fallacy.

But to assert that 9/11 is primarily responsible is a horse of a different colour and would require substantiation.

To assert that 9/11 is not the primary factor is a negative assertion that only assumes burden of proof if the positive is a given (e.g. if I decide, today to declare that gravity does not exist burden of proof rests on me).

One does not have to claim to know what caused the economic downturn to doubt that 9/11 is primarily responsible (though doing so makes a more convincing argument). Your statement is still true, negating 9/11 as a reason means it was something else. And if you make a claim about what that something is, you then assume burden of proof for your claim (important to note is that this burden of proof would coexist with that of the 9/11 claim, it's not a binary thing like people seem to think).

But ultimately you have a good point. If someone wants to say that it was caused by X (a non 9/11 factor) burden of proof then rests on them.

But to assert that 9/11 is responsible is a move that shoulders burden of proof.

My only caveat is that if 9/11 being responsible is accepted as fact burden of proof is on the negative claim. To Foxfyre's credit that seems to be what she thinks, as she says people "ignore" it rather than "dispute" it.

Unfortunately that is also not to her credit as it is not a fact and is eminently disputable.

Furthermore, saying that an "empirical" study needs to be done is to misunderstand (greatly) either the nature of economics or the meaning of the word "empirical".

BTW, to answer your earlier question to Foxfyre, I have seen her on multiple occasions say that she does not fault Clinton in an "inherited economy" argument. In fact I remember her saying once that Bush inhereted a "pretty good economy". So in this she is standing by her 9/11 catalyst belief and does not have a double standard based on partisan politics.

But it was a good question, as some do exactly what you said and say it was both Clinton's fault and that it wasn't Bush's fault because of 9/11.

0 Replies

thanks for your post craven! (and blatham, too)

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

I think he suggested the criteria of "economists who mostly publish peer reviewed articles" (good) and "think tank economists" (bad). I have no idea what that means, myself, but you probably do.

Economists who publish in scholarly journals have a reputation to lose for getting things wrong. "Peer review" is the name of the mechanism by which the scholarly journals ensure this. In peer reviewed journals, each submission by a scientists are thoroughly checked by scientists of the same field for inaccuracies in the data, logical holes in the argument methodology, and other problems that can lead to mistaken conclusions. If this process is done right -- and the good journals are pretty good at getting it right -- articles which misrepresent the subject for political reasons are unlikely to get published. This the reason I tend to trust peer reviewed literature, but not so much think tank literature, when it takes controversial positions.

Think tank economists, on the other hand, tend to have their articles published on the strength of their conviction to their think tank's party line. Hence, there is much less reason to believe that publications in think tank books and magazines are fact-checked and consistency-checked. I tend to distrust them. But I need to qualify that because there is no clear-cut line between the two. On the conservative side for example, the Hoover Institution has several Nobel price winners in economics working for it. The same is true for the Brookings Institution, a liberal think tank and I think the oldest and most respected one. So there is a grey zone between scientific opinion and partisan hackery, and not all think tank publications are bad. But for purposes of political argument, the distinction is nevertheless useful for seperating scientific wheat from partisan chaff. That's why my challenge asked for peer-reviewed literature.

Hope that helped.

0 Replies

Yes it did. Thanks.

0 Replies

Quote:

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/2004/la-na-diplo13jun13,1,1142936.story?coll=la-home-headlines

0 Replies

Just to keep it all in perspective

http://vets4bush.com/DickWinters.shtml

http://vets4bush.com/

http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2004/040528-political-corps.htm

0 Replies

Nah, that's putting it 'in perspective' fox. Actually it is the opposite...it is an attempt to obfuscate perspective. Perspective in this sense means,

"The ability to perceive things in their actual interrelations or comparative importance".

As I just said on another thread, what your links refer to and what these gentlemen have done are not comparable. There not even close to being comparable.

Your first two links express the views of vets who support Bush. The third link takes a look at the mixed reactions from military in seeing Bush constantly using the military for photographic backdrop as a marketing ploy.

You are apparently trying to suggest that some folks like Bush and some folks don't, that the signatories to this announcement I've noted are just more folks with opinions. Ho hum.

But they aren't just 'more folks'. And they aren't just saying 'we like x'.

Fourteen are former ambassadors. Ten are former Assistant Secretaries of State. Turner is a former Director of the CIA...etc, etc.

And they are saying that Bush's policies have 'harmed American security' and that Bush's policies have undone the work of a generation of foreign relations.

And they are saying, most importantly, that this administration should be terminated.

How many such public statements from such senior officials have you seen in your lifetime, fox?

So, no, you aren't providing perspective.

Your first link is to a military

0 Replies

This May Be Satire, But It's Deadly Serious to Me!

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know