Re: [MLUG - DISCUSSION] [POLITICS] one amazing graph that tells it all

[Mike Miller <EMAIL:PROTECTED>]

On Sat, 5 Apr 2008, Vern Green wrote:

> > http://rodrik.typepad.com/dani_rodriks_weblog/2008/03/american-politi.html
>
> I think there is some information missing here. To have growth there has 
> to be a comparison of some sort, is this graph comparing directly 
> Democratic Presidential terms to Republican terms?

It's growth per year, so it is comparing income at the end of the year 
with income at the beginning of the year.  This is done for every year 
while a Republican was president and for every year when a Democrat was 
president, then the averages across all years are compared.


> Also, who chose the 1948 cutoff point and why was that point chosen?

It must have been chosen by the author of the graph -- Princeton political 
science professor Larry Bartels:

http://www.princeton.edu/~bartels/

I think the reason for his choice of year is that 1948 marked a major 
shakeup in the parties and they were quite different before that.


> why not go back to 1900 or even 1930? Could it be that there were some 
> years beterr 1948 and 1968 that made the numbers look better for 
> democrats? For this to be meaningful, there should be some real 
> comparisons directly between the presidents.

I assume that he wanted to show how things have been working recently, not 
100 years ago.  You have a valid point though -- it would be interesting 
to see even more of the data with maybe one plot for every 4 year term. 
I don't agree with your assertion that this graph is not meaningful.  I 
think it is quite meaningful, but the exact meaning (really the cause of 
the difference between Republican and Democrat presidents) is not 
immediately clear.


> > Think about it (you might have to look really carefully because it's 
> > slightly fuzzy).  Note especially that people are showing larger income 
> > gains under Democrats than under Republicans at *all* plotted income 
> > levels!  Here's what Krugman has to say:
> >
> > http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/04/02/bartels-alfred-wegener/
>
>
> Of course the liberal Krugman is going to agree and is going to go right 
> along with the numbers and the graph as presented. He is far from an 
> impartial resource and as such should be shunned from these discussions. 
> Any opposing opinion on this board that cited an equally biased resource 
> would get the same treatment. Since the book is not out, I would have to 
> assume that not a lot of opposing discussion has occurred as yet. Time 
> will tell how this book is received.

You have to be careful not to reject ideas because they come from a 
"liberal."  What if a liberal is sometimes right?  Is that impossible? 
Is that like saying "sometimes Satan is right?"  If you reject ideas that 
are different from those you currently hold only because they are 
presented by someone who disagrees with you, you'll never move forward 
intellectually.  You'll never learn anything.  It's not a good strategy. 
I seek out the conservative positions and sometimes they are right.  But I 
would say that altogether, when conservatives and liberals disagree, that 
usually the liberals are right, so obviously I think you miss out on a lot 
if you reject all liberals ideas out of hand.

Krugman is (full) Professor of Economics and International Affairs at 
Princeton University.  He knows what the heck he is talking about.  He's 
not some wild-eyed ideologue.  I'm sure that his positions, liberal though 
they are, were carefully considered over the course of many years.  He's 
no Janeane Garofalo.  If you read his column in NY Times, you'll also find 
that he gives credit to Republicans who he thinks are making the right 
moves.  He's not going to sacrifice his status as a renowned professor of 
economics by spewing off a bunch of liberal nonsense that isn't based on 
sound economic theory and good numbers.


> > So, MLUG, what do you think?
>
> I think I am going to wait until a more complete analysis ad review of 
> the man's work has been conducted.

That's never a bad idea.  His book comes out in June and soon afterward 
there will be a series of reviews critiquing it:

http://press.princeton.edu/titles/8664.html
(Note the HTML and PDF links to Chapter 1.)


> His numbers might be correct, but I would expect that they are skewed 
> tremendously to favor a democratic point of view.

Why would you expect that?  It sounds like a self-serving expectation. 
Maybe you should read Bartels' paper to see if that clears anything up:

http://www.princeton.edu/~bartels/income.pdf


> I might be wrong, but there are cleary reasos why those chose specifics 
> dates here.

I strongly agree with the first part of your last sentence!  ;-)

Mike

_______________________________________________
discussion mailing list
EMAIL:PROTECTED
http://mlug.missouri.edu/mailman/listinfo/discussion