As you now very clearly admit, you have a net loss on the DJIA during the Reagan and Bush's administration.
Are you hallucinating, I said nothing that vagely resembles that statement.
Tim, the amount lost under Bush II on the DJIA was 2647 points, a loss of about 25%.
1 - A little less than that in percentage terms, but close enough. Much closer than most of your other results.
2 - A loss of 2647 from a base of 3421 is a loss of almost 77.4%. If the DJIA under Bush II lost 77.4 % than the net change for the last three Republican presidents would be a loss, but during Bush II's time in office the DJIA only lost about 22%.
Either out of ignorance of mathematical principles, our out of dishonesty, you keep trying to find different ways to calculate the percentage loss that results from a loss of 2647 points from a base of 3421, but Bush II lost 2647 points from a base of 10,578.24, not from a base of 3421.
In simple terms you are using a fundamentally flawed calculation procedure. You can dance around it from all different directions, provide superficially similar but distorted or irrelevant examples, and generally waste everyone's time, but those things don't correct the major error in your methodology.
If you don't address the flaw, or come up with something truly new, rather than repeating the same flaw in different ways, then there probably isn't any point in continuing the conversation. I've demonstrated again and again how your wrong. If you can't accept that, well at least everyone else reading the conversation can recognize reality. |
