以下是引用metro3在2008-9-10 15:21:00的发言：
你说的没错，我就是不想拿我交的税去养懒人。。。
你说的没错，我就是不想拿我交的税去养懒人。。。
40% of your tax goes to war,20% goes to dept of defense，Only several % goes to welfare
发帖
查看：18260|回复：459
- 1
When you buy via links in posts, huaren.us may earn a commission
很多华人为什么不希望Obma当选？
0操作1 #
40% of your tax goes to war,20% goes to dept of defense，Only several % goes to welfare
0操作2 #
以下是引用spaday在2008-9-11 0:32:00的发言：
不明白选总统为啥要喜欢他的性格，又不是选american idol，能办事就行，管他手段黑不黑。plan有问题，再有执行能力，最终还是错误的结果。
re这个。我也不care人家的私生活，如以前的克林顿，现在的Palin。不管黑猫白猫，只要能抓老鼠的就是好猫。
0操作3 #
以下是引用Juliayin在2008-9-11 1:12:00的发言：
就是看了，才这么说。btw，我是支持bush的。
你支持Bush什么政策？对伊拉克开战？回顾Bush的成就，也只有这一项能让后人记住了。
这场战争让我想起了越战，也是欲罢不能。有懂历史的说说越战对美国的影响吗？
[此贴子已经被作者于2008-9-11 2:54:47编辑过]
0操作4 #
以下是引用la.confidential在2008-9-11 3:34:00的发言：
-
美国从１９５０年代力挺以色列开始就一直盼着有机会直接打入中东。伊拉克战争的意义恐怕要多年以后才能正确判断，并不能因为感觉相似就与越南战争画等号。何况伊战对美国社会生活各方面的影响远远不能与越战相比。
美国这个国家是很擅长战略思维的，而且非常有耐心。充分利用政治，经济，外交，地缘等等资源因素，长期运作（三五十年或者更长），所以在大国博弈中胜多负少，所以有今天的地位。在这方面，共和党总体上说比民主党强。McCain更是远比Obama强。
自从尼克松上台以来，美国４０年里只出过两位民主党总统。这本身就能说明很多问题。
美国除了二战中是大赢家，从而取代英国成为老大，此外之后的几次战争都让美国深陷泥潭。而共和党信奉的就是军事扩张，用武力解决问题。近40年共和党执政时间长，我只看出来说明近40年美国朝着军帝国主义发展，并不能说明共和党更利于美国。如果talking about economy alone，近120年stock market return民主党执政期间比共和党要高2.5个百分点；real GDP growth rate近70年来共和党是1.9%，民主党是5.1% （如果去掉Great Depression，近40年也是2.9% vs. 4.2%)。
其实美国两党交替的体制非常好，因为他们执政理念不同，不会一条路上走死。既然共和党已经执政了8年，也打了一场硬仗，我觉得下面几年让民主党上台缓口气也好。
0操作5 #
我在想，如果中国成为经济老大，会不会也像美国一样到处出兵？
0操作6 #
ò???ê?òyó?龙小猫?ú2008-9-11 11:58:00μ?·￠??￡o
这是谁写的啊
里根执政八年间的丰功伟绩怎么一点都不提
这是谁写的啊
里根执政八年间的丰功伟绩怎么一点都不提
ALthough Reagan is a Republican, he supported tax increase as well. He signed several bills to increase taxes including social security tax rate, which we are using today. Look at two greatest economic expansion in recent 40 years (Reagan and Clinton), both increased tax.
0操作7 #
Lao La, your data confuses me. Let's look at this meta-analysis done by economists
DATA TABLE.
Acronyms: BLS = U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics; BEA = U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis
| Metric | Source of data/ analysis | Average under Democratic Presidents/ Administrations | Average under Republican Presidents/ Administrations | Who measured better on this metric? (See critiques page) |
| Average Ranking (lower the number the better) for highest GDP growth, real disposable personal income, employment/ unemployment, deficit reduction 1953-2001 | Average rank calculated from ranking data from Dan Ackman, Forbes.com | Overall rank: 4.58 (top 3 are Democrats) GDP rank: 3.8 Real Disposable Employment rank: 4.6 Deficit Reduction | Overall rank: 6.44 (Reagan is #4) GDP rank: 7.2 Real Disposable Employment rank: 6.4 Deficit reduction | Democratic Presidents [Also see this data |
| Real Disposable Personal Income Growth per year 1953-2001 | Dan Ackman, Forbes.com | 3.65% | 3.08% | Democratic Presidents |
| Employment gains per year 1953-2001 | Dan Ackman, Forbes.com | 1.684 million/year | 1.279 million/year | Democratic Presidents |
| Unemployment: 1962-2001 | P.L.A., using data from the BLS | 5.1 % | 6.75 % | Democratic Presidents |
| Unemployment: 1947-2001 Assuming that each President's policies took effect 1 year after his inauguration | Larry Bartels, Los Angeles Times | 4.8 % | 6.3 % | Democratic Presidents (trend similar if 2 year shift assumed) |
| Unemployment: 1948-2001 Assuming Presidents are also responsible for economic performance 3-5 years after they leave office | CalPundit, using data from the BLS | 3-yr lag: 5.06 % 4-yr lag: 5.04 % 5-yr lag: 5.01% | 3-yr lag: 6.16 % 4-yr lag: 6.18 % 5-yr lag: 6.21 % | Democratic Presidents |
| Average After-Tax Return on Tangible Capital: Jan 1952 - June 2004 | Roger Altman, Wall Street Journal (data from Federal Reserve) | 4.3% | 3.2% | Democratic Presidents [For a Bush I + Bush II vs. Clinton comparison, see here] |
| GDP growth: 1962-2001 | P.L.A., using data from the BEA | 3.9 % | 2.9 % | Democratic Presidents |
| GDP growth: 1948 - 2001 Assuming Presidents are also responsible for economic performance 3-5 years after they leave office | CalPundit, using data from the BEA | 3-yr lag: 3.56 % 4-yr lag: 3.78 % 5-yr lag: 3.71 % | 3-yr lag: 3.35 % 4-yr lag: 3.16 % 5-yr lag: 3.21 % | Democratic Presidents |
| GDP growth: 1930-2000 | Carol Vinzant in Slate | 5.4% | 1.6 % | Democratic Presidents |
| Inflation: 1962-2001 | P.L.A., using data from the BLS | 4.26 % | 4.96 % | Democratic Presidents |
| Inflation: 1948-2001 Assuming Presidents are also responsible for economic performance 3-5 years after they leave office | CalPundit, using CPI data from Economagic | 3-yr lag: 3.33 % 4-yr lag: 3.07 % 5-yr lag: 3.20 % | 3-yr lag: 4.36 % 4-yr lag: 4.60 % 5-yr lag: 4.48 % | Democratic Presidents |
| Percentage growth in Total Federal Spending: 1962-2001 | P.L.A., using data from the U.S. Govt. Budget 2003 | 6.96 % | 7.57 % | Democratic Presidents if lower Govt. spending is better; Republican Presidents if higher spending is better Note, however, that |
0操作8 #
| Percentage growth in Non-Defense Federal Spending: 1962-2001 | P.L.A., using data from the U.S. Govt. Budget 2003 | 8.34 % | 10.08 % | Democratic Presidents if lower Govt. spending is better; Republican Presidents if higher spending is better Note, however, that |
| Non-defense Federal Government Employees: 1962-2001 | P.L.A., using data from the U.S. Govt. Budget 2003 | Rose by 59,000 (16 % of total rise over 40 years) | Rose by 310,000 (84% of total rise over 40 years) | Democratic Presidents (assuming smaller Govt. is better) |
| Yearly budget deficit: 1962-2001 | P.L.A., using data from the U.S. Govt. Budget 2003 | $36 billion | $190 billion | Democratic Presidents |
| Increase in National Debt: 1962-2001 | P.L.A., using data from the U.S. Govt. Budget 2003 See follow-up by P.L.A. | Total debt increased by $0.72 trillion (20 years) | Total debt increased by $3.8 trillion (20 years) | Democratic Presidents |
| Annual stock market return: 1927 (through) 1998 | Pedro Santa-Clara and Rossen Valkanov Research Paper, UCLA (via Atrios) Results are "statistically significant" Also reported by | ~ 11% (value weighted CRSP index minus 3 month Treasury Bill) | ~ 2% (value weighted CRSP index minus 3 month Treasury Bill) | Democratic Presidents (Delta increases to 16% for The study says: |
| Annual stock market return: (1900) 1927 - 2000 | Carol Vinzant in Slate | 12.3 % (S&P 500) | 8.0 % (S&P 500) | Democratic Presidents |
| Annual stock market return: (1900) 1927 - 2000 | Carol Vinzant in Slate | Democratic Senate 10.5 % (S&P 500) Democratic House 10.9 % (S&P 500) | Republican Senate 9.4 % (S&P 500) Republican House 8.1 % (S&P 500) | Democratic Senate or House (but see article for qualifications) |
| Annual stock market return: (1900) 1927 - 2000 | Stock Traders' Almanac as reported by Carol Vinzant in Slate | 13.4 % (Dow) | 8.1 % (Dow) | Democratic Presidents |
| Rankings for highest GDP growth, biggest increase in jobs, biggest increase in personal disposable income after taxes, biggest rise in hourly wages, lowest Misery Index (inflation plus unemployment), etc. (until 2001) | Arthur Blaustein, Mother Jones | N/A. But all these best case metrics were under Democratic Presidents | N/A | Democratic Presidents |
0操作9 #
ò???ê?òyó?Caffeine?ú2008-9-11 13:58:00μ?·￠??￡o
the fundamental flaw of those economics analysis is that it ignored economic cycles as well as the power of congress and the supreme court.
the fundamental flaw of those economics analysis is that it ignored economic cycles as well as the power of congress and the supreme court.
It is time series data, so accounts for economic cycles. Economic cycle presents for both parties, right?
And your statement of lagged effect is also counted (Clinton created tech & housing bubbles...)
0操作10 #
ò???ê?òyó?Caffeine?ú2008-9-11 17:35:00μ?·￠??￡o
From what I read, I don't think it is the case......
From what I read, I don't think it is the case......
The fact is, Democratic presidents have consistently higher economic growth and consistently lower unemployment than Republican presidents. If you add in a time lag, you get the same result. If you eliminate the best and worst presidents, you get the same result. If you take a look at other economic indicators, you get the same result. There's just no way around it: Democratic administrations are better for the economy than Republican administrations.
0操作11 #
以下是引用seven3在2008-9-11 20:29:00的发言：
I don't think your fact is quite true. And regardless that fact, why there are many more republican presidents than democrats presidents after WWII? People aren't stupid.
I don't think your fact is quite true. And regardless that fact, why there are many more republican presidents than democrats presidents after WWII? People aren't stupid.
people are not stupid, but most of them have short-memory.
其实这在学术界也是个myth，也有很多种解释。一种是culture overrides economy，不过这个我觉得不convincing，起码对于我来讲，什么gay marriage, anti-abortion都是added benefits，经济才是重头。还有一个我觉得有点道理，就是大部分的大选年如果是Republican执政，当年的经济还算不错，所以老百姓就忘了前几年的苦日子了，呵呵。当然，这次好像完全相反，所以美国人估计都要捧Obama的臭脚了。![[em55]](https://emojis.huaren.us/static/emojis/v1/yoci/em55.gif)
0操作12 #
以下是引用Caffeine在2008-9-11 21:14:00的发言：
show me your model. Let me see where the adjustments are. Otherwise I don't believe it.
I already showed you hard data, it depends on you to believe it or not.
BTWI: this is meta-analysis
BTWII, your argument is rather weak to make here. Nothing personal.
[此贴子已经被作者于2008-9-11 21:17:35编辑过]
0操作13 #
以下是引用Caffeine在2008-9-11 21:23:00的发言：
you showed me the result. you didn't show me the process or the model. am i correct?
咖啡因mm，这个是meta-analysis, as I said many times. Pls do homework on what meta-analysis is.
0操作14 #
以下是引用Caffeine在2008-9-11 21:29:00的发言：
thanks:)
wiki:
A weakness of the method is that sources of bias are not controlled by the method. A good meta-analysis of badly designed studies will still result in bad statistics. Robert Slavin has argued that only methodologically sound studies should be included in a meta-analysis, a practice he calls 'best evidence meta-analysis'. Other meta-analysts would include weaker studies, and add a study-level predictor variable that reflects the methodological quality of the studies to examine the effect of study quality on the effect size. Another weakness of the method is the heavy reliance on published studies, which may increase the effect as it is very hard to publish studies that show no significant results. This publication bias or "file-drawer effect" (where non-significant studies end up in the desk drawer instead of in the public domain) should be seriously considered when interpreting the outcomes of a meta-analysis. Because of the risk of publication bias, many meta-analyses now include a "failsafe N" statistic that calculates the number of studies with null results that would need to be added to the meta-analysis in order for an effect to no longer be reliable.
everything has two folds. 这个世界上还没什么methodology or model是十全十美的，都有这样那样的weakness。但是对于这个purpose来说，meta-analysis is a sound methodology。
Now can you show me a meta-analysis study that favors Republican then?
[此贴子已经被作者于2008-9-11 21:44:04编辑过]
0操作15 #
以下是引用Caffeine在2008-9-11 21:27:00的发言：
okay, let me ask you in a diffent way. for instance, how was the housing bubble effect adjusted in the model? by how much and by what factors?
you are talking about one specific time period (i.e., Clinton administration). This study showed multiple time periods and averages. Plus, some of the studies already counted lag effect.
0操作16 #
以下是引用Caffeine在2008-9-11 21:40:00的发言：
i truly believe that the analysis (the underlying studies, not meta-analysis itself) is flawed. GIGO - garbage in, garbage out.
alright then, show me something that is not garbage in your term![[em79]](https://emojis.huaren.us/static/emojis/v1/yoci/em79.gif)
发帖回复
查看：18260|回复：459
- 1
