Re: Leftists knocking Friedman ?

On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 09:11:57 -0800 (PST), Lysander
<lysander@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:

>On Feb 16, 11:27 am, stuff_st...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 wrote:
>> On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 10:50:02 -0600, "John Galt"
>>
>> <whoisjohng...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> >> (This stability is one of the reason markets and the economy perform
>> >> better under Democratic administrations that push regulatory
policies
>> >> that increase stability. )
>>
>> >Perhaps a bit of a reach here. You'd have to wait until the end of the
next
>> >business cycle to determine if such intervention was in fact working,
and
>> >there's a pretty good chance that event will occur in somebody else's
term.
>>
>> We've had this discussion, but the numbers bear it
out.http://www.coba.unr.edu/econ/wp/papers/UNRECONWP06008.pdf
>>
>> (He also does it with various lag times.)
>>
>
>
>Correlation does not prove causality. 

Chuckle. That's all your left with. The numbers are clear the markets
and economy do much better under Democrats in the HW. It's true before
WWII, it's true after WWII. 


>I can easily say that the
>Republicans are elected becuase Democrat policy has set the table for
>recession and people know it as easily as I can say Republicans have
>bad policies and democrats have good policies. You do realize lags
>exist.

And if you bothered to actually look at the article before trying to
pretend it has no im****t you'd note they rant the numbers with several
various lag times from mere months to two years. The results stay the
same.

The markets and economy perform better and stronger under Democrats
than republicans.


> It is easy to hypothesize   . . .

Yeah, that's why we're posting facts and figures and your spewing
platitudes and hypotheses.