Liberal Logic

[daveman]

Nope. Ive never once used that term before.

Your fellow travelers have. And I'm guessing you never chastised them for it.

 

[DBA]

It was 4.7% when Trump took office.

So wasn’t Trump touting a minuscule drop in unemployment?

26% is significant.

 

[Marener]

26% is significant.

Not always. There’s relative and absolute and when the absolute is small, and the relative is large, it’s not necessarily significant.

As an extreme example, say you have a one in a million chance to win the lottery.

So you buy two tickets and now you have a two in a million chance.

You’ve doubled your chances! But two in a million is still an extreme unlikely event.

In any event, Biden lowered unemployment more. A 30% drop.

 

[DBA]

In any event, Biden lowered unemployment more. A 30% drop.

Yeah, from pandemic levels. You aren’t comparing apples to apples and you know it.

 

[Marener]

Yeah, from pandemic levels. You aren’t comparing apples to apples and you know it.

Please explain. I’d like to hear your logic.

 

[OhPleaseJustQuit]

Not always. There’s relative and absolute and when the absolute is small, and the relative is large, it’s not necessarily significant.

As an extreme example, say you have a one in a million chance to win the lottery.

So you buy two tickets and now you have a two in a million chance.

You’ve doubled your chances! But two in a million is still an extreme unlikely event.

In any event, Biden lowered unemployment more. A 30% drop.

.




Straight out of the Kamala Harris school of How To Toss A Word Salad.

I'll take balsamic vinaigrette of the side







.

 

[Marener]

Straight out of the Kamala Harris school of How To Toss A Word Salad.

It’s funny. In ages past, someone like yourself would have acknowledged you’re not smart enough to understand someone who does know what they’re talking about.

In this day and age, the dummies all think they’re smarter than everyone else and anyone who disagrees with them, especially those with an actual education, are speaking nonsense.

I blame social media and the internet as well as the cultural effects of boomers having been in charge too long.

 

[DBA]

Not always. There’s relative and absolute and when the absolute is small, and the relative is large, it’s not necessarily significant.

As an extreme example, say you have a one in a million chance to win the lottery.

So you buy two tickets and now you have a two in a million chance.

You’ve doubled your chances! But two in a million is still an extreme unlikely event.

In any event, Biden lowered unemployment more. A 30% drop.

As for you statistical logic, you have a point. The problem is you have it backwards in the case of unemployment since, to “win”, it must reach 0, not 100. Using your lottery analogy, it would be more like you had a 1 in a million chance of winning with only 1 ticket, but you already had 96.5% of the tickets(96,500k) and then sold 25.5%(the decrease from 4.7 to 3.5) of them to leave you with only 71,892k tickets. That 25.5% decrease is a significant decrease in my chances of winning.

 

[OhPleaseJustQuit]

It’s funny. In ages past, someone like yourself would have acknowledged you’re not smart enough to understand someone who does know what they’re talking about.

In this day and age, the dummies all think they’re smarter than everyone else and anyone who disagrees with them, especially those with an actual education, are speaking nonsense.

I blame social media and the internet as well as the cultural effects of boomers having been in charge too long.

.





Translation -- "I'm out of balsamic vinaigrette. Will you settle for a splash of Caesar with a little irony? Stop picking in me."









.

 

[Marener]

As for you statistical logic, you have a point. The problem is you have it backwards in the case of unemployment since, to “win”, it must reach 0, not 100. Using your lottery analogy, it would be more like you had a 1 in a million chance of winning with only 1 ticket, but you already had 96.5% of the tickets tickets(96,500k) and then sold 25.5%(the decrease from 4.7 to 3.5) of them to leave you with only 71,892k tickets. That 25.5% decrease is a significant decrease in my chances of winning.

You’re torturing the analogy and it doesn’t really make sense since your unemployment rate does not constitute your chance to reach zero unemployment. It was simply an analogy to demonstrate the difference between absolute and relative.

To win is to be employed. Going from a 95% chance to be employed to a 96% chance isn’t very different.

And the goal is never to get to 0% unemployment. No one was looking at 4% unemployment as abysmal. I’ve said repeatedly that both Biden and Trump had good unemployment numbers. The difference is that MAGA regards Trump’s economy as some miracle and Biden’s as a disaster. They also regard Obama’s as a disaster despite many facts that run counter to that narrative.

 

[DBA]

You’re torturing the analogy and it doesn’t really make sense since your unemployment rate does not constitute your chance to reach zero unemployment. It was simply an analogy to demonstrate the difference between absolute and relative.

To win is to be employed. Going from a 95% chance to be employed to a 96% chance isn’t very different.

And the goal is never to get to 0% unemployment. No one was looking at 4% unemployment as abysmal. I’ve said repeatedly that both Biden and Trump had good unemployment numbers. The difference is that MAGA regards Trump’s economy as some miracle and Biden’s as a disaster. They also regard Obama’s as a disaster despite many facts that run counter to that narrative.

No matter how you spin it, a 26% decrease in unemployment is significant. If unemployment goes by 26% under Trump, I am quite sure you and your ilk will be the first to point it out.

 

[Marener]

No matter how you spin it, a 26% decrease in unemployment is significant. If unemployment goes by 26% under Trump, I am quite sure you and your ilk will be the first to point it out.

Oh okay. A 26% decrease in unemployment is significant.

Unless it happens under Biden of course. Then it's, uh, different.

Glad we have someone like you that really cuts through the spin and looks at things totally objectively.

 

[DBA]

Oh okay. A 26% decrease in unemployment is significant.

Unless it happens under Biden of course. Then it's, uh, different.

Glad we have someone like you that really cuts through the spin and looks at things totally objectively.

Right, it is quite different coming out of a black swan event like COVID. Use some common sense, if possible.

 

[Marener]

Right, it is quite different coming out of a black swan event like COVID. Use some common sense, if possible.

All that means is that Biden had a far more difficult task. He was coming out of an economic calamity.

Trump wasn’t.

 

[Delldude]

He was coming out of an economic calamity.

Trump was responding to an active threat from the virus and the media.

 

[Marener]

Trump was responding to an active threat from the virus and the media.

Okay. And? It’s still an economic calamity that Biden had to deal with.

 

[Delldude]

Okay. And? It’s still an economic calamity that Biden had to deal with.

So both had to deal with a crisis of epic proportions.

 

[Marener]

So both had to deal with a crisis of epic proportions.

I’m being generous and excluding the effect of the pandemic on Trump’s economic record, rather giving him the benefit of using the best he did over the course of the four years.

There was no economic calamity when Trump came into office. The economy was functioning quite well and he benefited from that.

 

[Delldude]

There was no economic calamity when Trump came into office. The economy was functioning quite well and he benefited from that.

So how'd it roll after March?

 

[Marener]

So how'd it roll after March?

What did what roll after March of what year?

Not sure what you’re talking about.