VoyForums
[ Show ]
Support VoyForums
[ Shrink ]
VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, [3], 4 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 19:58:19 10/30/02 Wed
Author: Richard (reply to Michael)
Author Host/IP: 1Cust29.tnt1.gainesville.fl.da.uu.net / 67.243.7.29
Subject: Let's look for the controlling variables
In reply to: Richard 's message, "Are Democrats the best for the eocnomy?" on 15:41:39 10/30/02 Wed

Hi Michael,

I can see you are serious in your thinking. Honestly, at first I thought you were just looking for associations to make political points. So let's examine the situation from a more scientific approach and see if we can find the controlling variables. In your work, you assume the controlling variables are the Democrat's economic policies vs. the Republican's policies.

This is all my opinion. So treat it as such. And I don't mean to turn this into a lecture. So don't take it that way at all. My first point in looking at your theory is to point out that we can't replicate the economy multiple times to check one policy against the other. In a typical experiment we can hold everything else constant as we allow a control variable to change. Unfortunately we don't have that ability with our economy. We have to rely on a very thorough understanding of history and specific economic conditions.

I want to make another quick tangential point. It has to do with characterizing one leader as good or bad depending on the outcome of events. With a president, he has a specific set of circumstances he must deal with. For FDR it was the depression and WWII. Completely different from Eisenhower, JFK, LBJ, Carter, Reagan and Bush. We have to ask ourselves how anyone else might have done under similar circumstances. It's easy to call Carter a failure, but how would someone else have done things differently? As an example, I would like to point to my Navy experience. I've seen very, very good officers put into very bad sitations. And when the results weren't stellar, their fitness reports reflected the outcome and not necessarily his influence. Even though that officer might have worked miracles to keep things from becoming a disaster. On the other hand, I've seen some very poor officers put into rather bland circumstances which allowed them to pursue all sorts of extra curricular activities which made them look like leadership stars.

But, getting back to the point. To test your theory properly, I feel we have to try to define the policy(ies) that effected the economy and trace them back to the philosophy that drove it. That is very difficult to do, and that's why I think your theory needs more work. I can point to some extremes and compare them to current policies. For example, let's take a system we know doesn't work, strict communism. Its basic tenent is a strong central control with a planned economic program. That approach has failed in several countires which include the USSR, Cuba, and North Korea. On the other hand, we know that we need some central authority or we have anarchy. Certainly we have to have a framework of laws under which people can carry out normal daily commercial activites. Certainly areas governed by warlords such as Adide in Mogadishu will never be thiving economies.

At this point, I would like to draw an analogy between the overall economy and the output of agricultural products worldwide. Worldwide output depends greatly on weather patterns. That is something none of can control. It also has depends on demand, which is something else we can't control. One thing we can have an influence over is the efficiency at which the product is produced. This depends on the available infrastructure (water supply, roads, etc), demand, and competition. Just like the weather, we can only work withing the overall limiting factors it places on us. Just as no amount of regulation will produce more good weather, no amount of regulation will grow more agricultural product.

So as we go between the two extremes of total control to total anarchy, we have to try to define those elements we can control, and those we cannot. Your theory doesn't go far enough along these lines to be able to draw any conclusions. So, I have to ask how we can define and isolate the variables we can control and then search economic history to see how those variables can be applied to our economic benefit?

Richard

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

Post a message:
This forum requires an account to post.
[ Create Account ]
[ Login ]
[ Contact Forum Admin ]

Forum timezone: GMT-5
VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.