Droopy's Myths Debunked

[_TAO]

How so?

If I provide a month by month graph over the course of eight years, he'll come back with a demand that I manipulated the data until I provide a week by week graph, and then a day by day graph, etc.

I don't see how a month by month graph could in any way prove the graph representing annual averages is "inaccurate" for what it claims to represent?

Because on the graph above that's line, it jumps years... some have 2 years gaps, other have 8 year gaps, etc. It needs to be consistent. Months would be a rather accurate measurement. Weeks is too specific to get a good reading.

[_Kevin Graham]

bump

[_Droopy]

Kevin has to retreat to a war of carefully teased and primped charts and graphs because he doesn't understand basic economics and has literally no critical reasoning abilities such that he could formulate a rational critique of the conservative view to which he is so emotionally averse.

Now, of course, my response is going to be to post chart after chart after chart debunking his own charts and/or his interpretations of them. That's the easy part, and could be accomplished in a short time frame.

The difficult part is just attempting to reach Graham with rational discourse.

Graham's cooked graphs do not impress, any more, as bc pointed out, then have the countless charts and graphs showing unprecedented global warming and how much warmer specific recent cherry picked time periods were then specific cherry picked past time periods.

Graham's tiny smattering of economists as the basis of some kind of overall mainstream view is also just as suspicious as the "consensus" claimed to have existed around AGW, which never existed at all in the manner claimed. He claims that virtually all agree with him, but yet can provide nothing but perhaps a half dozen cherry picked specimens, preferring to argue from authority than from educated principle.

The fundamental principles of economics, historical empirical data, and the principles of what Von Mises termed "praxology", the study of the principles of human action, all coalesce to tell us why, as marginal tax rates and taxes that directly attack risk, investment, and savings (such as capital gains, dividend, and high corporate tax rates) are lowered, tax revenue rises, and why as these rates are raised, revenue falls.

As I mentioned before, this is utterly elementary, logical, and self evident, and there is no reason for me to waste my time cutting and pasting my own charts and graphs demonstrating the empirical history of the matter (its all over the internet, in large quantities, no any who desire to may do their own homework on the subject).

As to the Laffer Curve, I'll let Mr. Laffer defend himself here:

http://www.heritage.org/research/report ... and-future

I should point out here that, while I'm not up to too much cutting and pasting today, as I've done it many times before here while glassy eyed leftists on this board stare uncomprehendingly at the mismatch between their ideology and reality, the above essay contains a thorough and detailed debunking of Mr. Graham's Alice-through-the-looking-glass economic history. Its much more complex than the Keith Olbermann world of polemical fuming and statistics mongering that passes for "thought" in Mr. Graham's world of apostasy and leftist bad conscience.

[_Droopy]

Yes, he cannot call your graph 'manipulation', but neither can you call your graph 'accurate' until you post the information.

While not a statistician myself, after many, many years studying and following political and eocnomic issues, both theoretically and as a matter of practical policy, what I do know is that graphs and charts can be very easily created and manipulated to show exactly what the creator desires it should show, through the choice of what empirical data are to be measured, which are to be left out, the time frames involved, and the method or methodology of calculation or analysis.

I can post reams of similar charts showing exactly the opposite of Graham's stuff, and then we can all claim that each others stuff is "cooked"

Charts and graphs don't tell the whole story unless we know how they were constructed and by what methodology. Even then, as correlation is never causation, we must have a strong, educated, informed theoretical and historical understanding of the phenomena in question, and the ability to apply critical, logical analysis and reflection to the problems at hand.

[_Runtu]

Droopy,

Now you know why I almost never post about politics. With facts and figures at our disposal, we ought to be able to argue about policies and their effects and come to some reasonable conclusions. But it never happens.

I read from a broad spectrum of political and economic positions, but my fundamental principles are always conservative. Ask Blixa what I think of Fidel Castro, and you might understand where I'm coming from.

I've had interesting discussions with a lot of people, some of whom you cite as being authors you read and admire. But I don't post about that here because I don't see the point.

Call me an ignoramus who can't defend my principles and suggest I'm just a "conservative," not a real one. That doesn't bother me at all. I know what I think and believe, but it's unlikely I'll ever spend any time discussing politics and economics here.

[_Kevin Graham]

Hilarious!

Droop complains because I used graphs. He thinks he can just dismiss these facts and figures as being "cooked" by saying he can come up with graphs of his own that contradict these. I'm calling his bluff and we won't see droopy produce because he knows he's full of crap. He's so stupid he doesn't even realize some of these graphs come from his precious Heritage Foundation.

The fact is Reagan exploded the national debt and the federal deficit. The graphs I showed are based on indisputable date. I doubt Droopy could even find a fellow moron at American Thinker to challenge these facts.

Reagan was a tax and spend President if there ever was one. His own associates and close friends helped dispel the myth that he was against high taxes. Reagan increased taxes on numerous occasions. This is indisputable fact that Droopy can't deal with, so he blows it all aside saying he could easily produce graphs to show the opposite. So what else...

The rate of growth for the Gross Domestic Product under Bush grew at a meager rate, even with record tax cuts for the wealthy. This is indisputable fact that Droopy can't reconcile with his philosophy.

Job growth under Bush was abysmal. It was the worst job creation record for a two term President since the depression. This is important because Obama is usually attacked for the current economic climate and high unemployment.

The federal deficit also exploded well over a trillion under Bush. It was at the very least $1.3 trillion, though some experts claim he is responsible for at least $1.42 trillion that was thrown into Obama's lap as he walked in the door.

And then he throws up a link (what a shocker!) where Art Laffer defends his theory way back in 2004, long before it was even refuted. Funny, because Droopy is so ignorant of the Laffer curve that he actually thinks it supports his claim that lower taxes always result in higher revenues. Laffer NEVER argued that, but I don't expect someone who gets his information from Talk Radio to actually understand more nuanced economic theories.

We all know that if droopy could show any of my data to be in error, he'd be all over it. But he can't, so all we ever get from him is excuses for his laziness and ignorance.

[_Kevin Graham]

Still waiting for those charts Droops...

You chickening out already.... AGAIN?

[_Buffalo]

You almost have to feel sorry for Droopy. He could really only thrive in a heavily censored environment like MAD. When political discussions aren't shut down before page 2, his fundamental inability to defend his points becomes immediately apparent, despite the verbal diarrhea.

[_Kevin Graham]

Any day now Droops...

[_Kishkumen]

Very few tax academics think the Laffer Curve is anything other than laughable. The Republican tax agenda is suicidal.