I'm no Michael Moore fan but...

[dank69]

It actually worked out rather well.
I did a one year rotation in probably the most rural of rural red states, in a dry county no less, where weekly life revolved around church, wall-mart and all you can eat buffets.

What I learned is that evangelical conservatives are very nice people, have a strong sense of community and are not that much different than people from blue states. They feel economically anandoned, live in largely homogenous communities which limits their perspective, and were it not for topics like guns, gay marriage and abortion, I would otherwise prefer them as neighbors to their eliticist pseudo intellectual urban liberal counterparts

Yes but tell me how you stopped their rage from festering.

I know plenty of conservatives right here in my blue state that are good people but once we get on the topic of politics they are fucking immune to reason and logic. The second you corner them on any single topic they either pivot to another topic, claim Hillary is just as bad or completely shut down. They will never admit they are wrong about any single topic. Never.

 

[glenn1]

Yes but tell me how you stopped their rage from festering.

I know plenty of conservatives right here in my blue state that are good people but once we get on the topic of politics they are fucking immune to reason and logic. The second you corner them on any single topic they either pivot to another topic, claim Hillary is just as bad or completely shut down. They will never admit they are wrong about any single topic. Never.

"Immune to reason and logic" doesn't sound like someone who is actually listening to their concerns and trying to examine them from the perspective of the person stating them. Rather it sounds like you are listening to form a response and mansplain to them about how wrong they are, thinking you already have perfect clarity and "logic." You sound more like a bad mother in law than a good neighbor.

 

[dank69]

"Immune to reason and logic" doesn't sound like someone who is actually listening to their concerns and trying to examine them from the perspective of the person stating them. Rather it sounds like you are listening to form a response and mansplain to them about how wrong they are, thinking you already have perfect clarity and "logic." You sound more like a bad mother in law than a good neighbor.

Would you agree that facts are facts? If someone says something that is demonstrably false and they are shown the evidence that it is false, the reasonable thing to do is admit your error and adjust your opinion accordingly. This does not happen with conservatives. They just get angry and believe the false information even more.

I don't come out and say you are immune during the discussion. These are just observations that I'm am talking about. I ask you guys how to deal with these reactions and you just respond that they are nice people. You guys can't even tell me how to accomplish the thing you are telling me to do.

 

[postmortemIA]

Mr Moore got the best of both worlds. Gets to be fat and rich like true capitalist and to exploit poor by pretending to care for them.

 

[fskimospy]

"Immune to reason and logic" doesn't sound like someone who is actually listening to their concerns and trying to examine them from the perspective of the person stating them. Rather it sounds like you are listening to form a response and mansplain to them about how wrong they are, thinking you already have perfect clarity and "logic." You sound more like a bad mother in law than a good neighbor.

I would hope that no one would be dumb enough to think they have perfect clarity and logic, but surely you have to admit that modern conservatism has a number of widely held tenets that are demonstrably at odds with facts and evidence. For example, tax cuts increase government revenue. This is almost never true. Climate change is a hoax. This is demonstrably false. Birtherism, Obama-Muslim-ism, etc, are certifiably crazy. We're not talking about things that are controversial or where there is disagreement, these are things where there is functionally no disagreement among experts and yet they persist.

And yes, while modern liberalism occasionally shows some of those same traits, (GMO nuttiness, for example) the quantity and severity are just not comparable.

 

[fskimospy]

Would you agree that facts are facts? If someone says something that is demonstrably false and they are shown the evidence that it is false, the reasonable thing to do is admit your error and adjust your opinion accordingly. This does not happen with conservatives. They just get angry and believe the false information even more.

I don't come out and say you are immune during the discussion. These are just observations that I'm am talking about. I ask you guys how to deal with these reactions and you just respond that they are nice people. You guys can't even tell me how to accomplish the thing you are telling me to do.

The backfire effect has been viewed in people across all ideologies though. Maybe some people are more prone to it than others (I have no idea), but it's there for everyone.

 

[glenn1]

I would hope that no one would be dumb enough to think they have perfect clarity and logic, but surely you have to admit that modern conservatism has a number of widely held tenets that are demonstrably at odds with facts and evidence. For example, tax cuts increase government revenue. This is almost never true. Climate change is a hoax. This is demonstrably false. Birtherism, Obama-Muslim-ism, etc, are certifiably crazy. We're not talking about things that are controversial or where there is disagreement, these are things where there is functionally no disagreement among experts and yet they persist.

And yes, while modern liberalism occasionally shows some of those same traits, (GMO nuttiness, for example) the quantity and severity are just not comparable.

Tax cuts "almost never" increase revenue? While this needs to be caveated heavily that it depends on what tax is being cut and from what level it's being cut (e.g. 90% vs 5%) your statement is also untrue. If it weren't then you wouldn't have events like tax repatriation holidays. Or generally have large spikes in receipts of capital gains after that rate is cut. Now if what you were trying to say is that tax cuts don't have a long term effect on receipts then you'd be correct but you'd also be even more correct to say that tax increases also don't have a long term effect on receipts. Thus it's both ethical and logical (your so-called favorite reason for supporting anything) to keep rates low since there is no benefit whatsoever to reverting to pre-Reagan rates.

 

[Starbuck1975]

Yes but tell me how you stopped their rage from festering.

I know plenty of conservatives right here in my blue state that are good people but once we get on the topic of politics they are fucking immune to reason and logic. The second you corner them on any single topic they either pivot to another topic, claim Hillary is just as bad or completely shut down. They will never admit they are wrong about any single topic. Never.

Not all. There are blind emotional partisans of both political persuasions. I see no distinction between the 'murica they took our jerbs deh ghays partisans and the triggered safe space social justice warrior partisans. Neither extreme demonstrates logic or reason because emotion is driving them.

 

[sandorski]

Tax cuts "almost never" increase revenue? While this needs to be caveated heavily that it depends on what tax is being cut and from what level it's being cut (e.g. 90% vs 5%) your statement is also untrue. If it weren't then you wouldn't have events like tax repatriation holidays. Or generally have large spikes in receipts of capital gains after that rate is cut. Now if what you were trying to say is that tax cuts don't have a long term effect on receipts then you'd be correct but you'd also be even more correct to say that tax increases also don't have a long term effect on receipts. Thus it's both ethical and logical (your so-called favorite reason for supporting anything) to keep rates low since there is no benefit whatsoever to reverting to pre-Reagan rates.

Tax Reciepts will increase over the Longterm regardless of Increase, Decrease, or Holding of Tax Rates. Just as long as GDP Increases.

 

[fskimospy]

Tax cuts "almost never" increase revenue? While this needs to be caveated heavily that it depends on what tax is being cut and from what level it's being cut (e.g. 90% vs 5%) your statement is also untrue. If it weren't then you wouldn't have events like tax repatriation holidays. Or generally have large spikes in receipts of capital gains after that rate is cut. Now if what you were trying to say is that tax cuts don't have a long term effect on receipts then you'd be correct but you'd also be even more correct to say that tax increases also don't have a long term effect on receipts. Thus it's both ethical and logical (your so-called favorite reason for supporting anything) to keep rates low since there is no benefit whatsoever to reverting to pre-Reagan rates.

This is unfortunate as you just ended up lumping yourself in with the people who believe demonstrably false things. There are some cases in which decreasing tax rates leads to overall increase in revenues but they are very rare. What's funny is that you can very clearly see that tax cuts do decrease revenue and tax increases increase revenue from your chart, so you're actually just proving my point.

Your argument overall seems to be that because federal revenues have stayed at a relatively constant percentage of GDP that means tax increases/cuts don't affect revenue. First, the percentage of GDP collected in fact varies by almost 6% of GDP between various times at that chart, which would be the equivalent of nearly a trillion dollars in revenue per year today. The idea that isn't a revenue effect is absurd. Second, those peaks and troughs that end up 'averaging out' are very closely correlated with actual tax policy changes, which proves my point and not yours, and third, your chart is actually showing policy preferences and not the economics of taxation.

There is a large body of empirical evidence on the relationship between tax rates and revenues and basically all of it says what is obvious, that tax cuts decrease revenue and tax increases increase revenue. Looks like we just found the illogical conservative thing that you believe in.

http://www.nber.org/chapters/c11222.pdf

http://angrybearblog.com/2010/11/hausers-law-is-extremely-misleading.html

Let me know how many papers you would like me to cite on this topic.

 

[agent00f]

It actually worked out rather well.
I did a one year rotation in probably the most rural of rural red states, in a dry county no less, where weekly life revolved around church, wall-mart and all you can eat buffets.

What I learned is that evangelical conservatives are very nice people, have a strong sense of community and are not that much different than people from blue states. They feel economically anandoned, live in largely homogenous communities which limits their perspective, and were it not for topics like guns, gay marriage and abortion, I would otherwise prefer them as neighbors to their eliticist pseudo intellectual urban liberal counterparts

I take it you're not one of those people they aren't fond of.

But you're right, they are generally very nice, even for the most part to those people, which makes it all the more heinous that a major political party gets its votes from demonizing various minority group that its base aren't naturally aligned against. "Hey y'all, look at them welfare queens & illegals getting free money that ain't coming to you good god fearing folk".

 

[sdifox]

Citizen United was just horrible. At least ID where the money came from.

 

[agent00f]

Mr Moore got the best of both worlds. Gets to be fat and rich like true capitalist and to exploit poor by pretending to care for them.

Moore does actually care about the common man, or at least he obvious did about Flint which is what motivated him on that path.

 

[dank69]

This is unfortunate as you just ended up lumping yourself in with the people who believe demonstrably false things. There are some cases in which decreasing tax rates leads to overall increase in revenues but they are very rare. What's funny is that you can very clearly see that tax cuts do decrease revenue and tax increases increase revenue from your chart, so you're actually just proving my point.

Your argument overall seems to be that because federal revenues have stayed at a relatively constant percentage of GDP that means tax increases/cuts don't affect revenue. First, the percentage of GDP collected in fact varies by almost 6% of GDP between various times at that chart, which would be the equivalent of nearly a trillion dollars in revenue per year today. The idea that isn't a revenue effect is absurd. Second, those peaks and troughs that end up 'averaging out' are very closely correlated with actual tax policy changes, which proves my point and not yours, and third, your chart is actually showing policy preferences and not the economics of taxation.

There is a large body of empirical evidence on the relationship between tax rates and revenues and basically all of it says what is obvious, that tax cuts decrease revenue and tax increases increase revenue. Looks like we just found the illogical conservative thing that you believe in.

http://www.nber.org/chapters/c11222.pdf

http://angrybearblog.com/2010/11/hausers-law-is-extremely-misleading.html

Let me know how many papers you would like me to cite on this topic.

This is the part where Glenn shows us that I am wrong about conservatives by admitting his mistake and adjusting his worldview.

 

[Starbuck1975]

I take it you're not one of those people they aren't fond of.

But you're right, they are generally very nice, even for the most part to those people, which makes it all the more heinous that a major political party gets its votes from demonizing various minority group that its base aren't naturally aligned against. "Hey y'all, look at them welfare queens & illegals getting free money that ain't coming to you good god fearing folk".

I actually gained an interesting window and perspective into police profiling when I lived there. I mentioned I lived in a dry county, and the town I lived in did not have a movie theater or shopping mall. Every Saturday I would drive to the closest city just to have something to do. Every Saturday night returning, the local cops would pull me over. Not because I was speeding or drinking. It was because I had blue state license plates. They weren't fond that I was a Yankee from a liberal state.

People often dislike that which is unlike them. Race is one of many criteria that could differentiate someone in an otherwise homogenous environment.

 

[agent00f]

I actually gained an interesting window and perspective into police profiling when I lived there. I mentioned I lived in a dry county, and the town I lived in did not have a movie theater or shopping mall. Every Saturday I would drive to the closest city just to have something to do. Every Saturday night returning, the local cops would pull me over. Not because I was speeding or drinking. It was because I had blue state license plates. They weren't fond that I was a Yankee from a liberal state.

People often dislike that which is unlike them. Race is one of many criteria that could differentiate someone in an otherwise homogenous environment.

Racism in this country runs a little deeper, given facilities weren't separate by yankee/confederate within living memory until the gubmint forced otherwise.

 

[glenn1]

This is unfortunate as you just ended up lumping yourself in with the people who believe demonstrably false things. There are some cases in which decreasing tax rates leads to overall increase in revenues but they are very rare. What's funny is that you can very clearly see that tax cuts do decrease revenue and tax increases increase revenue from your chart, so you're actually just proving my point.

Your argument overall seems to be that because federal revenues have stayed at a relatively constant percentage of GDP that means tax increases/cuts don't affect revenue. First, the percentage of GDP collected in fact varies by almost 6% of GDP between various times at that chart, which would be the equivalent of nearly a trillion dollars in revenue per year today. The idea that isn't a revenue effect is absurd. Second, those peaks and troughs that end up 'averaging out' are very closely correlated with actual tax policy changes, which proves my point and not yours, and third, your chart is actually showing policy preferences and not the economics of taxation.

There is a large body of empirical evidence on the relationship between tax rates and revenues and basically all of it says what is obvious, that tax cuts decrease revenue and tax increases increase revenue. Looks like we just found the illogical conservative thing that you believe in.

http://www.nber.org/chapters/c11222.pdf

http://angrybearblog.com/2010/11/hausers-law-is-extremely-misleading.html

Let me know how many papers you would like me to cite on this topic.

Firstly, we barely clear a trillion dollars annually in income taxes now so the idea there would be a trillion dollar swing even if we reverted back to pre-JFK 90% tax rates is stupid and misinformed as you are. In the 21st century individual tax receipts have ranged between $793B and $1.39T (achieved in 2014 the most recent year captured, see link http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/statistics/amount-revenue-source). And once you correct both figures to constant 2001 dollars that $1.39T becomes $763B and $1.039T respectively. Or despite top tax rates that varied from 28% to 39.6% and economic conditions from the height of the dot com boom to the depths of the Great Recession, in constant 2001 dollars real tax receipts had a total spread of $276B.

Secondly, I already caveated the very statement you quoted by saying tax receipt impacts depend on the size of the cut, what level you're starting from, and perhaps more importantly than anything overall economic trends. Hell, Reagan lowered the top income tax rate from the 70% range down to 28% and tax receipts stayed fairly constant, from 19.1 percent of GDP in 1981 (when the GDP was already being dragged down by the 1980 and 1981 recessions) to 17.8% of GDP in 1989 (when GDP was growing at a rate above 4%, having come down from 7% growth earlier in his term). So the "cost" of 1.3% of GDP in tax receipts to enable lowering rates by 40% and doubling GDP growth to 4% sure seems like a prime example of a tax cut basically "paying for itself" to me. And this was despite the share of taxes paid by the top 1 percent going from 17.9 percent in 1981 to 25.2 percent in 1989.

Basically federal income tax receipts typically stay within a 1 sigma band except for when either you have a recession or a large tax cut event like the JFK or Reagan tax cuts. So thus achieving the higher growth and more fair distribution of taxes to be more "progressive" like you claim to support, you should support the lower marginal rate tax regime like I said in my post.

 

[fskimospy]

Firstly, we barely clear a trillion dollars annually in income taxes now so the idea there would be a trillion dollar swing even if we reverted back to pre-JFK 90% tax rates is stupid and misinformed as you are. In the 21st century individual tax receipts have ranged between $793B and $1.39T (achieved in 2014 the most recent year captured, see link http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/statistics/amount-revenue-source). And once you correct both figures to constant 2001 dollars that $1.39T becomes $763B and $1.039T respectively. Or despite top tax rates that varied from 28% to 39.6% and economic conditions from the height of the dot com boom to the depths of the Great Recession, in constant 2001 dollars real tax receipts had a total spread of $276B.

Sorry buddy but did you not realize that the chart you linked to was total federal tax receipts as a percentage of GDP, not income tax revenues? I pointed out that the swings in your chart covered about a trillion dollars in today's GDP. This is just math and there's no arguing it.

Secondly, I already caveated the very statement you quoted by saying tax receipt impacts depend on the size of the cut, what level you're starting from, and perhaps more importantly than anything overall economic trends. Hell, Reagan lowered the top income tax rate from the 70% range down to 28% and tax receipts stayed fairly constant, from 19.1 percent of GDP in 1981 (when the GDP was already being dragged down by the 1980 and 1981 recessions) to 17.8% of GDP in 1989 (when GDP was growing at a rate above 4%, having come down from 7% growth earlier in his term). So the "cost" of 1.3% of GDP in tax receipts to enable lowering rates by 40% and doubling GDP growth to 4% sure seems like a prime example of a tax cut basically "paying for itself" to me. And this was despite the share of taxes paid by the top 1 percent going from 17.9 percent in 1981 to 25.2 percent in 1989.

No, you're backpedaling by trying to limit this to not only individual rates, but the individual top marginal rate. More importantly though, you're trying to tie the large GDP growth in the 1980's to federal tax cuts which is woefully misinformed. There is zero evidence that Reagan's tax cuts paid for themselves, in fact all evidence points to them dramatically reducing federal revenue. What led to growth in the 80's is very simple, this:

So no, it sure doesn't look like an example of tax cuts paying for themselves in any way, shape, or form. If you think your interpretation of Reagan's tax cuts' growth effects are accurate please provide empirical research to this effect. And please no Heritage Foundation or any partisan crap like that. Real research.

Basically federal income tax receipts typically stay within a 1 sigma band except for when either you have a recession or a large tax cut event like the JFK or Reagan tax cuts. So thus achieving the higher growth and more fair distribution of taxes to be more "progressive" like you claim to support, you should support the lower marginal rate tax regime like I said in my post.

This is a nonsensical statement.

 

[glenn1]

Sorry buddy but did you not realize that the chart you linked to was total federal tax receipts as a percentage of GDP, not income tax revenues? I pointed out that the swings in your chart covered about a trillion dollars in today's GDP. This is just math and there's no arguing it.

You have a literal blind spot.

No, you're backpedaling by trying to limit this to not only individual rates, but the individual top marginal rate. More importantly though, you're trying to tie the large GDP growth in the 1980's to federal tax cuts which is woefully misinformed. There is zero evidence that Reagan's tax cuts paid for themselves, in fact all evidence points to them dramatically reducing federal revenue. What led to growth in the 80's is very simple, this:

You think a trailing economic indicator caused growth? And honestly think that low rates were the direct causal factor of GDP growth? Hell, rates have been on the decline for 30 years and GDP growth has declined right in parallel with it. And prior to that growth increased with rates. You're not only wrong, you're 180 degrees opposite of correct.

So no, it sure doesn't look like an example of tax cuts paying for themselves in any way, shape, or form. If you think your interpretation of Reagan's tax cuts' growth effects are accurate please provide empirical research to this effect. And please no Heritage Foundation or any partisan crap like that. Real research.[/quote]

I already provided you the actual tax revenues figures by year for every year since 1934. You're the one who doesn't seem to want to acknowledge actual data that conflicts with your worldview. Income tax receipts went up from $289.5B when Reagan took office and ended at $445.6B So despite lowering rates from 70% to 28% receipts went up and on a real, per capita basis.

This is a nonsensical statement.

You not understanding something doesn't make it nonsensical, it just means you lack the capacity to absorb things that conflict with your worldview. To make it simpler for you, income taxes paid by the wealthy have gone from an under 20% share to nearly 40%. You have the progressive taxation you want already.

 

[fskimospy]

You have a literal blind spot.

You think a trailing economic indicator caused growth? And honestly think that low rates were the direct causal factor of GDP growth? Hell, rates have been on the decline for 30 years and GDP growth has declined right in parallel with it. And prior to that growth increased with rates. You're not only wrong, you're 180 degrees opposite of correct.

So no, it sure doesn't look like an example of tax cuts paying for themselves in any way, shape, or form. If you think your interpretation of Reagan's tax cuts' growth effects are accurate please provide empirical research to this effect. And please no Heritage Foundation or any partisan crap like that. Real research.

I already provided you the actual tax revenues figures by year for every year since 1934. You're the one who doesn't seem to want to acknowledge actual data that conflicts with your worldview. Income tax receipts went up from $289.5B when Reagan took office and ended at $445.6B So despite lowering rates from 70% to 28% receipts went up and on a real, per capita basis.

You not understanding something doesn't make it nonsensical, it just means you lack the capacity to absorb things that conflict with your worldview. To make it simpler for you, income taxes paid by the wealthy have gone from an under 20% share to nearly 40%. You have the progressive taxation you want already.[/QUOTE]

Holy shit are you actually trying to say that reducing the federal funds rate acts inversely to growth? You need to go back to school.

 

[glenn1]

Holy shit are you actually trying to say that reducing the federal funds rate acts inversely to growth? You need to go back to school.

And you need to look at actual data. The trendlines for both rates and growth have both been trending down for 30+ years. Growth was at 7% in the Reagan era while interest rates were still double digits. Since then we've reduced rates to ZIRP and growth has still been terrible. I am quite frankly at a loss how you can look at the actual results and say that reducing interest rates lead to growth.

 

[agent00f]

And you need to look at actual data. The trendlines for both rates and growth have both been trending down for 30+ years. Growth was at 7% in the Reagan era while interest rates were still double digits. Since then we've reduced rates to ZIRP and growth has still been terrible. I am quite frankly at a loss how you can look at the actual results and say that reducing interest rates lead to growth.

Volcker raise rates to combat inflation, the discontinued expectation of which is what led to resumed growth. The initial rate increase actually led to a recession, as more astute observers might've notice in that graph. Volcker was fired for his troubles by Reagan for not playing along with the subsequent dereg regime, btw. Of course conservative revisionists love to take credit for the Carter appointee, not that they know anything about econ in the first place outside of right wing blogs parroting their "think" tanks.

You not understanding something doesn't make it nonsensical, it just means you lack the capacity to absorb things that conflict with your worldview. To make it simpler for you, income taxes paid by the wealthy have gone from an under 20% share to nearly 40%. You have the progressive taxation you want already.

Just wondering, do you feel obliged as a temporarily embarrassed capitalist to carry water for your more successful peers? Let's hoping it's in return for the tax burden they've relieved you of not out of misplaced kindness.

 

[fskimospy]

And you need to look at actual data. The trendlines for both rates and growth have both been trending down for 30+ years. Growth was at 7% in the Reagan era while interest rates were still double digits. Since then we've reduced rates to ZIRP and growth has still been terrible. I am quite frankly at a loss how you can look at the actual results and say that reducing interest rates lead to growth.

I have no idea what sources you are using but here is FRED. Your charts are sloppy and in the second case, irrelevant.

The trends are pretty obvious, a slightly delayed inverse correlation. I'm frankly at a loss that you think reducing interest rates doesn't lead to growth. What you're basically saying is that you know better than the entire federal reserve because they are certainly laboring under that delusion, haha.

Interest rates don't operate in a vacuum. Having high growth with double digit interest rates doesn't mean anything by itself, the important part is the change in interest rates from before. At the start of Reagan's presidency rates were near 20%. During his presidency they were cut by something like 1,200 basis points. That led to high growth. This isn't really special or controversial, it's just basic macroeconomics.

Again, if you would like to argue that you know better than the Federal Reserve and that growth during Reagan was due to tax policy and not interest rate reductions please cite empirical research to that effect.

 

[glenn1]

I have no idea what sources you are using but here is FRED. Your charts are sloppy and in the second case, irrelevant.

The trends are pretty obvious, a slightly delayed inverse correlation. I'm frankly at a loss that you think reducing interest rates doesn't lead to growth. What you're basically saying is that you know better than the entire federal reserve because they are certainly laboring under that delusion, haha.

Interest rates don't operate in a vacuum. Having high growth with double digit interest rates doesn't mean anything by itself, the important part is the change in interest rates from before. At the start of Reagan's presidency rates were near 20%. During his presidency they were cut by something like 1,200 basis points. That led to high growth. This isn't really special or controversial, it's just basic macroeconomics.

Again, if you would like to argue that you know better than the Federal Reserve and that growth during Reagan was due to tax policy and not interest rate reductions please cite empirical research to that effect.

Let's look at that.

But perhaps it's just a small sample size and looking at longer trends and more economic cycles will help. Let's check the scatter plot:

Yep, that sure supports your idea that Volcker lowering the Fed rate was the cause of growth. Or we can compare fed funds trends during various presidencies to see if there is a correlation:



http://ibblog.wpengine.com/wp-conte...-Funds-by-President-Different-Scaled-Axes.jpg

1948-1952 (Harry S. Truman, Democrat), +4.82%
1953-1960 (Dwight D. Eisenhower, Republican), +3%
1961-1964 (John F. Kennedy / Lyndon B. Johnson, Democrat), +4.65%
1965-1968 (Lyndon B. Johnson, Democrat), +5.05%
1969-1972 (Richard Nixon, Republican), +3%
1973-1976 (Richard Nixon / Gerald Ford, Republican), +2.6%
1977-1980 (Jimmy Carter, Democrat), +3.25%
1981-1988 (Ronald Reagan, Republican), 3.4%
1989-1992 (George H. W. Bush, Republican), 2.17%
1993-2000 (Bill Clinton, Democrat), 3.88%
2001-2008 (George W. Bush, Republican), +2.09%

So rates were reduced consistently during Bush1 and Ford admins yet they had the worst growth. Rates went up during the LBJ administration yet he experienced the best growth.

 

[fskimospy]

Let's look at that.

But perhaps it's just a small sample size and looking at longer trends and more economic cycles will help. Let's check the scatter plot:

Yep, that sure supports your idea that Volcker lowering the Fed rate was the cause of growth. Or we can compare fed funds trends during various presidencies to see if there is a correlation:



http://ibblog.wpengine.com/wp-conte...-Funds-by-President-Different-Scaled-Axes.jpg

1948-1952 (Harry S. Truman, Democrat), +4.82%
1953-1960 (Dwight D. Eisenhower, Republican), +3%
1961-1964 (John F. Kennedy / Lyndon B. Johnson, Democrat), +4.65%
1965-1968 (Lyndon B. Johnson, Democrat), +5.05%
1969-1972 (Richard Nixon, Republican), +3%
1973-1976 (Richard Nixon / Gerald Ford, Republican), +2.6%
1977-1980 (Jimmy Carter, Democrat), +3.25%
1981-1988 (Ronald Reagan, Republican), 3.4%
1989-1992 (George H. W. Bush, Republican), 2.17%
1993-2000 (Bill Clinton, Democrat), 3.88%
2001-2008 (George W. Bush, Republican), +2.09%

So rates were reduced consistently during Bush1 and Ford admins yet they had the worst growth. Rates went up during the LBJ administration yet he experienced the best growth.

I sincerely don't know what to say other than holy shit you're incredibly ignorant about economics. You are also repeatedly confusing the real rate of interest with the fed funds rate. Your scatter is the second time you've done this. Why are you linking images you don't understand? Furthermore, your fed funds rate chart is incredibly misleading as every chart uses a different scale. Reagan looks no different than anyone else despite the cut in rates being many times larger than what other people experienced.

I just want to be clear on this so please don't ignore it again. By saying all else being equal, that lowering interest rates does not increase GDP growth you are claiming that the entire basis for Federal Reserve policy and that basically the entire field of modern macroeconomics when it comes to monetary policy is wrong. This is a breathtaking claim that I've asked you repeatedly to provide empirical research to back up. So far you haven't provided anything other than misleading charts that you don't appear to understand. Why? I can provide you with as much research on the topic as you require so let me know.

By the way if you are right you can literally make billions in the markets with this as a basis for your investment strategy. This is not a joke. A relationship between the fed funds rate and economic growth is almost certainly a part of most trading models. You would wipe the floor with them.

As a quick primer though please feel free to read this explainer on the fed funds rate.

http://www.investopedia.com/articles/stocks/09/how-interest-rates-affect-markets.asp