4 ms·

I assumed you already saw the chart. The period of increase starts right at the start of Trump's term and it seems fairly simple to make a descriptive claim lik

by NhanH 6y ago

I assumed you already saw the chart. The period of increase starts right at the start of Trump's term and it seems fairly simple to make a descriptive claim like I did.

lotsofpulp 6y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_cau... In the same chart, there was a huge decline during Trump’s tenure also, but I wouldn’t say he had something to do with it just because he was President.
- NhanH 6y ago
  If you are saying that a sitting President have no effect on unemployment rate and the economy, I think it’s fair for the burden of proof to be on the detractors. The wording of my original statement was careful to avoid this whole boring “correlation does not imply causation” conversation. The negative of that statement would be one to claim Trump has no effect whatsoever on the unemployment.
  - lordnacho 6y ago
    The burden of proof is squarely on whoever says the president caused the good times. I could as well say that Mike Pence did it, since his term was the same. Or Pelosi as the leader of the House. There's no way around it, claiming the president has something to do with causing a good economy requires a statistical argument along the lines of "it must be him because this line informs that one and these plausible alternatives don't". That's my one liner summary but of course there are books about causality. My guess is that there's not much you can do as president to improve the economy, or someone would have done it. There are lots of things you can do to derail it, which people from time to time because they're naive about how it works.
  - lotsofpulp 6y ago
    Considering the graph started going up in Sep 2015, Trump didn’t even become president until Jan 2017, and didn’t pass the tax cuts until Dec 2017, I don’t think there is any burden of proof for the detractors.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

by NhanH 6y ago

I assumed you already saw the chart. The period of increase starts right at the start of Trump's term and it seems fairly simple to make a descriptive claim like I did.

lotsofpulp 6y ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_cau... In the same chart, there was a huge decline during Trump’s tenure also, but I wouldn’t say he had something to do with it just because he was President.

NhanH 6y ago
If you are saying that a sitting President have no effect on unemployment rate and the economy, I think it’s fair for the burden of proof to be on the detractors. The wording of my original statement was careful to avoid this whole boring “correlation does not imply causation” conversation. The negative of that statement would be one to claim Trump has no effect whatsoever on the unemployment.
- lordnacho 6y ago
  The burden of proof is squarely on whoever says the president caused the good times. I could as well say that Mike Pence did it, since his term was the same. Or Pelosi as the leader of the House. There's no way around it, claiming the president has something to do with causing a good economy requires a statistical argument along the lines of "it must be him because this line informs that one and these plausible alternatives don't". That's my one liner summary but of course there are books about causality. My guess is that there's not much you can do as president to improve the economy, or someone would have done it. There are lots of things you can do to derail it, which people from time to time because they're naive about how it works.
- lotsofpulp 6y ago
  Considering the graph started going up in Sep 2015, Trump didn’t even become president until Jan 2017, and didn’t pass the tax cuts until Dec 2017, I don’t think there is any burden of proof for the detractors.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]