For Horace - stock market will go up regardless of who wins President
-
-
@Horace said in For Horace - stock market will go up regardless of who wins President:
It often enhances communication in these exchanges if one posts from an iPhone. Most leading scientists say that arguments are 13% more persuasive when typed on an iPhone. 16% if typed on an iPhone that had been bought within the past year.
What percentage of scientists are leading and what percentage are non-leading?
-
In order to be a leading scientist, a scientist must submit to consensus with other leading scientists. The global warming debate has brought this into sharp focus. Leading science follows from conclusions. There is no leading science which does not lead to good conclusions.
As it turns out, 98% of scientists are leading scientists.
-
@Horace said in For Horace - stock market will go up regardless of who wins President:
It often enhances communication in these exchanges if one posts from an iPhone. Most leading scientists say that arguments are 13% more persuasive when typed on an iPhone. 16% if typed on an iPhone that had been bought within the past year.
I can tell you typed this on a recently bought iPhone.
-
What percentage of leading scientists own stock in AAPL?
-
@Larry said in For Horace - stock market will go up regardless of who wins President:
Nice... you ignored everything I said.
Larry, I respectfully disagree. I did not ignore what you said. My interpret is that for you personally, you personally have done much better under Republic presidents than Democrat presidents.
All I am asking you is what would you use to define the economy on a nationwide basis?
And I believe that if you pick 5 things (GDP, etc), and we look at historical data, there will not be a big difference between Republics and Democrats presidents. I am will be happy to buy a cup of coffee if I am incorrect.
-
-
@Larry said in For Horace - stock market will go up regardless of who wins President:
I know that's what you believe. But you're wrong just the same. Data and statistics can be made to fit whatever picture you want to paint. Reality however, never lies.
Hu? There is no way to compare except through data and statistics. You cannot compare "realities" without identifying data points.
-
@Larry said in For Horace - stock market will go up regardless of who wins President:
I measure economic success by using common sense instead of googling for statistics that support my politics. Black employment is at an all time high, Latino employment is at an all time high.
You just quoted two statistics to support your assertion
-
Saying blacks have the highest employment level in history is not citing statistics. It's stating a reality. If I had said "black employment is up by 47.8% that would have been a data point.
To be honest, her questions were so confusing I didn't even consider them. Like I said, one can make data say whatever you want it to say.
-
How can you know that black employment is at it's lowest level without looking at statistics?
Actually, we don't know whether it's true, since they only started keeping records in 1972.
So no, it's not as simple as saying 'it's reality' if you don't have the data.
Proud supporter of Plan 2525.
-
@Doctor-Phibes said in For Horace - stock market will go up regardless of who wins President:
How can you know that black employment is at it's lowest level without looking at statistics?
Actually, we don't know whether it's true, since they only started keeping records in 1972.
So no, it's not as simple as saying 'it's reality' if you don't have the data.
First, i didnt say black employment was at its lowest, i said it was at its highest.
Second, you just proved that basing things on statistics doesn't work by pointing out that you can't figure out what the truth is since you don't have any statistics beyond 1972.
But the reality is there just the same, and can easily be understood by anyone who uses their brain instead of Google.
-
Sorry, I meant to say 'unemployment is at it's lowest level'
So how do we know that black employment is at the highest level in history if we don't have any records?
And it's not 'statistics' we need, it's data. Without data there are no statistics, but there is no way of determining reality, either.
-
How can you tell whether something is true without any data?
Politicians say a lot of stuff that isn't true. I've heard it said that even Donald Trump is occasionally prone to minor exaggerations.
How do we verify their claims?
-
Data is just a piece of reality. Statistics is just a way to summarize data.
It's completely nonsensical to assume that there's a way to talk about reality without talking about data.
Larry's intent seems to be to find justifications to uphold his propositions when they clash with reality. Let's call it a variant of confirmation bias.
image url)
