Atlas Shrugged: The Mocking

Thursday, April 2, 2009

Doubling Down

Megan McArdle can't help but fight the notion that Democratic presidents might actually be a contributing fact explaining why the economy does better under a Democratic president than a Republican president.
But I expect that four years from now, we'll still be having the same conversations with proponents of "cancer clusters" and Democrats convinced that they can scientifically prove that Democrats are better for GDP by doing ham-fisted regressions of Democratic presidencies with a few tightly correlated economic variables.

She's already discussed this in some detail, for her. Why discuss it again? Maybe people who don't understand why they commit irrational actions are doomed to repeat them until they do. McArdle's veiw of herself as an expert does not stand up to reality. Therefore it must be constantly reinforced, either through verification by an expert or as rebuttle against criticism.


Anonymous said...

Yeah, if you've already mentioned something once, why would you mention it again two years later?

Susan of Texas said...

Could you please address the points if you disagree? The first point is that McArdle ignores the actual data. The second point is that McArdle insists that cactus' method of presenting data is biased. The third point is McArdle insists that Democratic presidential economic policies have no effect on the economy. The forth point is that McArdle brings this up again without addressing the arguments presented to her last time. She just makes a statement as if it's accepted truth. You might also address the ad hominem "ham fisted" and the insulting and libelous implication of dishonesty, which is bad form between professionals, although beloved of imaginary scholars such as Jonah Goldberg, whom I am beginning to think is McArdle's gold standard of excellence.

Anonymous said...

"The points"? The only point you make in this post is that it's somehow pathological for McArdle to make a passing reference to something she discussed in detail two years ago. This is a dumb thing to say irrespective of which side is correct in this argument, which I don't really have an opinion on. You're making other points in this comment, which I guess I can try to address:

1) No she doesn't, she acknowledges it and presents arguments for why it's unconvincing .

2) No, she says that it's a useless sample. But if she did, so what?

3) Yes? That's not exactly what she's saying, she acknowledges that economic policies have effects, but I don't know what your point is.

4) She addressed them in the original post and the comments. It wouldn't be surprising if she had also addressed them at some other point in the intervening two years.

You might also address the ad hominem "ham fisted" and the insulting and libelous implication of dishonesty, which is bad form between professionals...

Are you serious? This is the internet, it can get a little rough at times. I'm not seeing the implication of dishonesty anyway.

Susan of Texas said...

So your response is "no. she didn't" and "so what"? Your faith is touching but I prefer to stick to reason.

Anonymous said...

But you aren't providing any evidence to back up your assertions, or explaining why it would be a problem if they were true! When you say something wrong with no evidence to back it up, what response can you expect other than "you're wrong"? "Ignoring the actual data" would mean pretending that the economy doesn't do better under Democrats. McArdle doesn't do that, she presents some arguments for why the difference isn't due to contemporaneous presidential economic policies. You can believe her or not but it's simply wrong to say that she ignores the data. Similarly there's nothing wrong with accusing someone presenting data in a biased way if you can back up your accusation, so I don't know what your complaint is.

Notice you still haven't even tried to defend this dumbass post.

Susan of Texas said...

McArdle addressed home equity (which she got wrong) and nothing else. Unsurprisingly, Republican economic principles--what GHW Bush called voodoo economics; high debt, tax cuts, high military spending, low public welfare spending--don't do better for the economy than Democratic economics.

She didn't show cactus presented the data in a biased way, either. Cactus presented the data. The data indicated the economy did better under Democratic presidents.

Let me guess-the facts have a liberal bias?