For Horace - stock market will go up regardless of who wins President
-
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.
-
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.
@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.
-
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 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.
-
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.
@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.
-
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. This isn't because a bunch of wall street nerds wrote an article, it's because things were done that created jobs. You don't create jobs by doing things that limit profits by the companies these people have jobs with, or by doing things that will give the company reason to move out of the country. Factories make stuff. People buy the stuff they make. If people can't afford to buy the stuff the factories make, the factories will have to make fewer of the stuff they make.
Then you raise taxes on the people who buy stuff but now can't buy because they lost their job... the company still makes money because they've moved to Ireland where the taxes are lower, and left wing Google searchers will say "See? The stock market is still goid!" While tens of thousands of people who lost their jobs are drawing unemployment checks and sitting around trying to keep from losing their homes. All so some people can virtue signal about how they're saving the environment and increasing unemployment checks....
Take it to its ultimate conclusion - if stifling business and raising taxes has no negative effects, then just go ahead and take 100% of corporate profit. Tax the working folk at 100%, take it all. When you finally figure out just how the economy actually works, it will be too late.
@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.
-
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.
@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.
-
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.
@Klaus said in For Horace - stock market will go up regardless of who wins President:
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.
Exactly.
-
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.
@Klaus said in For Horace - stock market will go up regardless of who wins President:
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.
Statistics is a snapshot of a constantly changing thing. I can understand how a mathematician would think it's "nonsensical" to think one can talk about reality without talking about numbers. Thankfully however, there is a much more accurate way to gauge something than to focus on a narrow little snapshot obtained by navel gazing at numbers.
My intent is not what you've assumed from your numbers based method of viewing the world. My intent is to approach the issue that was being discussed by looking at reality and not allowing you or anyone else blow the same smoke up my ass that you have had blown up yours.
Again, using black employment as the example.. we can navel gaze over a bunch of numbers we found by Googling, or we can step back to get a wider view and take a look at what's actually happening. Confirmation bias will more likely be found among you number crunchers, since it's quite common for one set of data to be used to support both sides of an argument. That's because statistics and data are often meaningless except to navel gamers.
I don't gaze at my navel. TG has her opinion, and she uses data and statistics to defend her positions - positions she formed long before she set out to find the data she wanted to find. Someone else with a different opinion can also find data and statistics to defend their position as well - which is a well proven point, and statistics confirmed both biases.
But when one takes a wider view of the issue, they see that blacks are leaving the democrat party in large numbers, blacks who support Trump are growing at a rapid pace, and by the tens of thousands they are telling the rest of us it's because of record setting employment and other things Trump has done to help the black community.
So you go on getting your information from a bunch of numbers. I'll get my information from looking at results.
-
@Klaus said in For Horace - stock market will go up regardless of who wins President:
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.
Statistics is a snapshot of a constantly changing thing. I can understand how a mathematician would think it's "nonsensical" to think one can talk about reality without talking about numbers. Thankfully however, there is a much more accurate way to gauge something than to focus on a narrow little snapshot obtained by navel gazing at numbers.
My intent is not what you've assumed from your numbers based method of viewing the world. My intent is to approach the issue that was being discussed by looking at reality and not allowing you or anyone else blow the same smoke up my ass that you have had blown up yours.
Again, using black employment as the example.. we can navel gaze over a bunch of numbers we found by Googling, or we can step back to get a wider view and take a look at what's actually happening. Confirmation bias will more likely be found among you number crunchers, since it's quite common for one set of data to be used to support both sides of an argument. That's because statistics and data are often meaningless except to navel gamers.
I don't gaze at my navel. TG has her opinion, and she uses data and statistics to defend her positions - positions she formed long before she set out to find the data she wanted to find. Someone else with a different opinion can also find data and statistics to defend their position as well - which is a well proven point, and statistics confirmed both biases.
But when one takes a wider view of the issue, they see that blacks are leaving the democrat party in large numbers, blacks who support Trump are growing at a rapid pace, and by the tens of thousands they are telling the rest of us it's because of record setting employment and other things Trump has done to help the black community.
So you go on getting your information from a bunch of numbers. I'll get my information from looking at results.
@Larry said in For Horace - stock market will go up regardless of who wins President:
But when one takes a wider view of the issue, they see that blacks are leaving the democrat party in large numbers, blacks who support Trump are growing at a rapid pace, and by the tens of thousands they are telling the rest of us it's because of record setting employment and other things Trump has done to help the black community.
So you go on getting your information from a bunch of numbers. I'll get my information from looking at results.I'm glad you can make your point so well without reference to (fictional?) numbers and data.
Let me guess: If Trump looses, you'll also refuse to accept the voting numbers as not being "reality"?
image url)
