By that same logic we could conclude that killing turkeys causes winter. The statistics are just as compelling. Chart the number of turkeys killed by month on one axis, and average temperatures in the northern hemisphere on the other axis. Anyone who doesn't know the difference between correlation and causality will be convinced that killing turkeys causes winter. In order to provide statistically significant evidence of causality (Dems cause job increases) you would need to do the following: 1. Identify causal actions taken by the democrats when in office. 2. Statistically control for factors such as: (a) which party controlled congress; (b) world macroeconomic environment, (c) etc. It would be an interesting scientific study and might yield some cause/effect insight.
Yes, quite. "Caifornia has more regulations than any other state in the country, yet has the third highest unemployment in the nation."
Stock market does better under democratic presidents then republican presidents as well http://money.cnn.com/2004/01/21/markets/election_demsvreps/ Surprise: Dems are better for rallies Despite 'market friendly' Republican policies, stocks rise more and volatility dips under Democrats. January 22, 2004: 2:11 PM EST By Alexandra Twin, CNN/Money Staff Writer NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - Plenty of Wall Streeters are Republicans. The party's policies are seen as better for big business and therefore better for the stock market. "Democrats are seen as being pro-regulatory, and more willing to enact laws against Wall Street and laws against CEOs," said Don Luskin, chief investment officer at Trend Macrolytics. But here's Wall Street's strange little irony -- studies show the stock market performs better and tends to be less volatile when Democrats are in power. This discrepancy was explored recently in a study by two finance professors at the University of California at Los Angeles, Pedro Santa-Clara and Rossen Valkanov. According to their paper, entitled, "The Presidential Puzzle: Political Cycles and the Stock Market" and published in the October issue of the Journal of Finance, stock market returns are on average about 5 percent higher when the White House is run by a Democrat than during Republican rule. Looking at the 72-year period between 1927 and 1999, the study shows that a broad stock index, similar to the S&P 500, returned approximately 11 percent more a year on average under a Democratic president versus safer, three-month Treasurys. By comparison, the index only returned 2 percent more a year versus the T-bills when Republicans were in office. The study also looked at how the index responded under both Democrats and Republicans, using two portfolios tracked by the Center for Research in Security Prices, a research outfit affiliated with the University of Chicago's business school. The "value-weighted portfolio" ranks all the stocks in the index according to their total market value, whereas in the "equal-weighted portfolio" the stocks are all ranked the same. On average, value-weighted portfolios returned 9 percent more under Democrats than Republicans during the 72 year period, while equal-weighted portfolios returned 16 percent more under Democrats. "I think plenty on Wall Street would be pretty shocked to hear that," said Barry Ritholtz, a market analyst at Maxim Group. The study examined a variety of reasons that might have caused this discrepancy. One particularly interesting finding was that markets seemed to show more surprise in reaction to economic or stock-related decisions made by Democratic administrations. "It thus seems that the difference in realized returns can be attributed to the market being systematically positively surprised by Democratic policies," the professors wrote. According to their study, the difference in stock returns becomes gradually obvious through the course of a presidency, rather than in the period immediately surrounding an election.
You're right. I misused the data. I did not provide a statistically significant model of causality. I stand corrected. Now perhaps AK-47 could provide some statistical analysis for us rather than just posting correlation/coincidence.
Because thats the one I have previously posted and didn't feel like copying and uploading another chart.Please feel free to do so if you wish
I stopped right there because of her gross stupidity. Who in their right mind thinks the largest problem facing the nation is a lack of jobs? The inability to discern cause from effect evidently vexes the liberal mind. 1) lack of employment is a result of govt interference on multiple levels. causality discussion in the matrix <object width="480" height="360"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/E_PFZ92dMys?version=3&hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/E_PFZ92dMys?version=3&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="480" height="360" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></object>