Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : The Trump Presidency -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: i-node who wrote (65580)	4/9/2018 12:53:46 AM
From: bentway	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 364671

>>speed of recovery is normally related to speed of the crash<< LOL! Like the Great Depression, right?

To: i-node who wrote (65580)	4/9/2018 8:17:03 PM
From: GPS Info	2 Recommendations Recommended By bentway J_F_Shepard Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 364671

One of the most common gimmicks to manipulate the minds of readers is to shorten bar charts to show differences but to omit critical context. It is statistical trickery used to create large differences from small ones. It is combined with a scaling factor that misrepresents data. Often referred to as truncated graphs. It seems like you are saying that by zooming into the changes in the data, we may omit the larger context. I think this is why we need to start with context before we refocus on any subset of the data. The chart that I posted was focused on Obama’s presidency where he takes office in January of 2009 through his last full year in office which was 2016. The chart shows the full range of GDP values during that time. The chart was not intended to show other administrations, so this limits the horizontal axis to 2008 through 2016. The vertical axis typically shows the minimum and maximum values plus a little padding to provide clear increments, and in this case $1 trillion increments. This “truncation” is not done for manipulation, but for clarity. This is something Excel would do for you automatically. If we wanted to place the start of the vertical axis at zero, we wouldn’t clearly see as much change in the year-to-year increases in GDP. Only if we were trying to compare modern GDP to those of the thirteen original colonies would be need to set the vertical axis to zero. That was not the intent of the chart. Another approach to avoid manipulation is to place the approximate GPD values on top of the columns, as done in the chart, reposted: Larger context: My post referred to the 2003 cuts which WERE properly targeted and resulted in a surge in revenue. The Legacy of the 2001 and 2003 “Bush” Tax Cuts UPDATED October 23, 2017 Policymakers enacted the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts with the promise that they would “pay for themselves” by delivering increased economic growth, which would generate higher tax revenues.[11] But even President Bush’s Treasury Department estimated that under the most optimistic scenario, the tax cuts would at best pay for less than 10 percent of their long-term cost with increased growth.[12] Evidence suggests that the tax cuts — particularly those for high-income households — did not improve economic growth or pay for themselves, but instead ballooned deficits and debt and contributed to a rise in income inequality.[13] In fact, the economic expansion that lasted from 2001 to 2007 was weaker than average. A review of economic evidence on the tax cuts by Brookings Institution economist William Gale and Dartmouth professor Andrew Samwick, former chief economist on George W. Bush’s Council of Economic Advisers, found that “a cursory look at growth between 2001 and 2007 (before the onset of the Great Recession) suggests that overall growth rate was … mediocre” and that “there is, in short, no first-order evidence in the aggregate data that these tax cuts generated growth.”[14] From zzpat's reference, I think: cbpp.org