Arguing with the fringe
Over at Bubba’s, someone made the observation that while Clinton was in office, that unemployment decreased; and while Bush has been in office unemployment has risen. Of course, this observation was meant to credit Clinton with creating jobs (which is crap) and Bush with losing them (again, crap).
I don’t think that the government can control the economy. If it could, we’d have no recessions or depressions. But we do. The government can slightly impact the economy by adding or removing certain barriers at its disposal, such as taxes, fines, subsidies and a limited number of other things. That is, in a nutshell, my position in this argument.
Barry B. makes the claim that when Clinton was in office, he was responsible for the phenomenal unemployment rate. I asked Barry to prove it. Obviously, he can’t because it didn’t happen. The overwhelming majority of jobs were created as a result of a technological revolution. The internet revolution and IT consulting employed a great number of people and stock prices rose and everyone was happy. Clinton was, of course, happy to be coincidentally occupying the office of the president about this time. If Clinton was the reason, why then did unemployment and the markets start tanking at the end of his tenure? Because the internet revolution and IT consulting went belly up and did so hard and fast. Therefore, he couldn’t control it.
After asking Barry to prove it, Digby chimes in to tell me that my debate skills are minimal because all I did was tell Barry to prove me wrong.
My problem with this is that I don’t have to prove that there is no cause and effect. But Barry has to support his contention of cause and effect to prove his point. Things coincidentally happen all the time without one being the cause of the other. Right now, I am typing at my computer. I am also drinking a beer. These two things just happen to be occurring at this moment almost completely without regard to one another. I therefore can’t state drinking beer caused typing at my computer; nor that typing at my computer causes me to drink beer. I think for a scientific fact to be valid (if I’m recalling high school science correctly) that it must be absolutely proven. We call this positive assurance, which means something is proven to cause some other thing. Negative assurance is essentially stating that nothing has been brought to our attention that disproves what we think is the effect of this particular cause. This is the basis for theories, not facts.
Barry can (and does) theorize about the cause of employment but it is not a hard and fast fact. So, we will disagree until he proves that Clinton caused unemployment to significantly decrease. Regardless, the burden of proof is on him.
And no, I don’t think the current turnaround in the economy is attributable to Bush.
June 29th, 2003 at 5:51 pm
Well Uncle the question was not if the (your words) ‘current economic turnaround’ is a result of Bush policy. I offer in the links above confirmation from the Business Roundtable and the Treasury department unequivocal statements that Bush tax cut policies will result in increased employment. That is exactly what Bush said as well: Now it appears that you are saying that they are misleading us or lying.
Bill Clinton made job creation a priority and as is indicated in the links above his policies were tailored to that end. That has nothing to do beer and computers. It has to do with proposals and policies that made hiring people good business, providing funds to put 300,000 more police on the streets, tax incentives to hire people off welfare. These were actual policies with actual results.
Of course Uncle is a cynic about government and that is fine. He says that Bush lies about creating jobs with tax cuts and that is fine.
Can anyone prove that the aforementioned Clinton policies were the cause of the record levels of employment of 1992-2000? I know that the record speaks for itself.
Bush’s record is a loss of jobs unequaled in history since Herbert Hoover. It is small wonder that uncle want to believe that Bush has nothing to do with that even though he says his tax cuts (now) will fix what his last tax cuts failed to fix (the unemployment problem).
June 29th, 2003 at 6:09 pm
Uncle,
I will continue to comment on your comments as I take exception to them and I will continue to supply argument with reason as opposed to rhetoric and marginalization.
You can term this arguing with the fringe if that makes you feel better. I don’t really mind. But the fringe you are arguing with here is in pretty much complete agreement with the man who recorded 550,000 more votes in the election than Bush. If that qualifies us as “fringe” what does that make you uncle?
June 29th, 2003 at 9:00 pm
“Current Economic Turnaround” is strong phrasing for the current situation. The stock market rose a bit, then fell, but current economic indicators don’t point to anything resembling a “turnaround”. At best, a stagnation in economic decay…but that’s about it.
June 29th, 2003 at 10:40 pm
man… can the guy discuss politics without whining about an election his party lost?
June 30th, 2003 at 12:42 am
Jesse makes a good point regarding the “current turnaround in the economy.”
Regarding Say Uncle’s post, he touches on two distinct issues: stock market performance and the underlying economy.
I think the former often has a life of its own based on investor psychology. However, the government is a large entity that does impact the latter. Granted, the president may not control many of the instrumentalities which operate on the economy. But government policies do make a difference. Just because they don’t repeal the business cycle doesn’t mean they aren’t felt.
June 30th, 2003 at 4:13 am
In questioning a the title of this post “Arguing with the fringe” the observation was made that 550,000 more Americans were on the opposite side from this current administration.
CJ considers that whining.
Wonder what I should consider CJ?
O Brain dead
O Neanderthal
O Mentally challenged
O Pre-cognitive
O Retarded
O Uninformed
O Astute
O Genius
O Handsome
O Ugly
O Stupid
O Ridiculous
O Unbelievably brilliant
O In need of a remedial reading course
O A Crybaby
O Witty
O Erudite
O Droll
O Simple
O Silly
O Limited
Your choice
June 30th, 2003 at 8:37 am
Actually, the point of the post (aside from laying out my reasoning about my position on the economy) is one of proving cause and effect.
There has been a turnaround in the economy though it as arguably just stabilzing.
BTW Barry, I enjoy our little debates and don’t take any of it personally. I hope you’re doing the same 🙂
June 30th, 2003 at 9:00 am
The stock market is an indicator of the economy only in that it reflects invetor expectations regarding the future performance of publicly traded companies. In other words, it’s a crystal ball, and about as useful.
June 30th, 2003 at 10:04 pm
If Clinton was responsible for all those jobs, and he was responsible for the tech boom, then it follows that he was responsible for the fact that the Nasdaq was down around 2500 (from a high of over 5000) the day that Bush took the oath of office. Therefore, we are trying to recover from the Clinton recession. Where’s the outrage?