DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post

**EbrsaRynleot** · 09-05-2008, 05:47 PM

Originally posted by Patroklos
More similar /= relevantly similar. Given that the comparison is being made of what happened when certain parties were in power, what powers those parties had to use to influence the economy is a very relevant point.

He was pointing out you purposely excluding periods that debunk the trend for no academic reason.

A 20 year period that saw the biggest swings in our modern economic history is less instructive than a 50 year period (which is what is being discussed in the article) in which we haven't had any economic meltdowns. After all, as Republicans keep trying to say, the slowdown during the W Presidency hasn't been that bad.

Why? Why not? The man is comparing presidencies. Perhaps he sould have gone 1949 instead, the true beginning of Truman's second term, which still leaves out the war related issues of his first term.

09-05-2008, 05:47 PM	#11
EbrsaRynleot Join Date Nov 2005 Posts 543 Senior Member	Originally posted by Patroklos More similar /= relevantly similar. Given that the comparison is being made of what happened when certain parties were in power, what powers those parties had to use to influence the economy is a very relevant point. He was pointing out you purposely excluding periods that debunk the trend for no academic reason. A 20 year period that saw the biggest swings in our modern economic history is less instructive than a 50 year period (which is what is being discussed in the article) in which we haven't had any economic meltdowns. After all, as Republicans keep trying to say, the slowdown during the W Presidency hasn't been that bad. Why? Why not? The man is comparing presidencies. Perhaps he sould have gone 1949 instead, the true beginning of Truman's second term, which still leaves out the war related issues of his first term.
	Quote