A strawman, Muirgeo, is the act of taking someone's argument and twisting or reducing it down to a weakest and inaccurate form to allow for a response that seems to refute the argument. But it doesn't refute the argument. It merely refutes a weak argument that wasn't really made….which is pointless.

You'll clearly want to mince details but most people are pretty clear of the obvious policy differences between the 2 parties.

The only one mincing details (and mincing them beyond recognition) is you.

Yes, there are some obvious policy differences between the parties. That by itself is meaningless to the point you want to make.

Because now we can come full circle and ask again and I'll pull something I already said upthread:

Over the decades, neither party's presidents, as a group, have anything broad and unifying about the policies they adopted.

Ditto for the GOP…

Raising/cutting taxes? No true pattern. Both parties raised and cut taxes.
trade liberalization vs.protectionism? liberalizing was mostly by Democrats….even though it's not something they campaign on or support. Protectionist measures were adopted by both parties over the years.
Regulation/Deregulation? Again, no pattern. Both parties have done both.

So when you look for partisan policy specifics…IOW, as Krugman said: “a controlling mechanism”, there's not much to be found to explain anything that you and others would like to point.

Now, monetary policy, business cycles and demographics and technology play a role as well…and it could very well be a much more influential role. And that is out of the hands of either party. Fed chairman, from the Dems and GOP alike, have done things, not done things, suggested things and been ignored and listened to with no real pattern. Again, what's the controlling mechanism?

Rhetoric and stereotypes don't cut it. What are the defining partisan policies formulated by the President in concert with Congress that empirically explain the theme you like to push? You say it's “obvious”. So what is it? From Truman to Bush 2…what is it? Let's hear it.

And yet at the state level, Republican-controlled states have shown decreases in inequality while Democratic-controlled states have shown increases.

There's lots of complicated effects going around that can be used to make an argument in many different directions, though, as Andrew Gelman points out.

“Is that really what I'm saying? No. It isn't. Once again, a strawman. I said there is no partisan cohesion to policy over the decades and nothing to point to across the board that substantiates such a trend.? John V

Well very good. I'm glad you clarified your claim As stated above it's very easy to disprove. There most definitely are consistent policies that explain the economic outcomes of the 2 parties. Quite simply Democratic regimes favor the middle class and the Republican regimes favor wealth.

From tax laws, to corporate and regulatory laws to education and support for labor the differences are clear.

There's simply little to debate here. You'll clearly want to mince details but most people are pretty clear of the obvious policy differences between the 2 parties. And anyone who looks a little deeper will see what are even more glaring differences.

A strawman, Muirgeo, is the act of taking someone's argument and twisting or reducing it down to a weakest and inaccurate form to allow for a response that seems to refute the argument. But it doesn't refute the argument. It merely refutes a weak argument that wasn't really made….which is pointless.

You'll clearly want to mince details but most people are pretty clear of the obvious policy differences between the 2 parties.

The only one mincing details (and mincing them beyond recognition) is you.

Yes, there are some obvious policy differences between the parties. That by itself is meaningless to the point you want to make.

Because now we can come full circle and ask again and I'll pull something I already said upthread:

Over the decades, neither party's presidents, as a group, have anything broad and unifying about the policies they adopted.

Ditto for the GOP…

Raising/cutting taxes? No true pattern. Both parties raised and cut taxes.
trade liberalization vs.protectionism? liberalizing was mostly by Democrats….even though it's not something they campaign on or support. Protectionist measures were adopted by both parties over the years.
Regulation/Deregulation? Again, no pattern. Both parties have done both.

So when you look for partisan policy specifics…IOW, as Krugman said: “a controlling mechanism”, there's not much to be found to explain anything that you and others would like to point.

Now, monetary policy, business cycles and demographics and technology play a role as well…and it could very well be a much more influential role. And that is out of the hands of either party. Fed chairman, from the Dems and GOP alike, have done things, not done things, suggested things and been ignored and listened to with no real pattern. Again, what's the controlling mechanism?

Rhetoric and stereotypes don't cut it. What are the defining partisan policies formulated by the President in concert with Congress that empirically explain the theme you like to push? You say it's “obvious”. So what is it? From Truman to Bush 2…what is it? Let's hear it.

And yet at the state level, Republican-controlled states have shown decreases in inequality while Democratic-controlled states have shown increases.

There's lots of complicated effects going around that can be used to make an argument in many different directions, though, as Andrew Gelman points out.

“Is that really what I'm saying? No. It isn't. Once again, a strawman. I said there is no partisan cohesion to policy over the decades and nothing to point to across the board that substantiates such a trend.? John V

Well very good. I'm glad you clarified your claim As stated above it's very easy to disprove. There most definitely are consistent policies that explain the economic outcomes of the 2 parties. Quite simply Democratic regimes favor the middle class and the Republican regimes favor wealth.

From tax laws, to corporate and regulatory laws to education and support for labor the differences are clear.

There's simply little to debate here. You'll clearly want to mince details but most people are pretty clear of the obvious policy differences between the 2 parties. And anyone who looks a little deeper will see what are even more glaring differences.

Personally, my explanation is this. The vast majority of people vote in their own self interests. For the poorest of the poor, this means voting for the person or party who says that they stand for redistribution. For the vast middle ground, and in particular, the high end of the vast middle ground, this means voting for the person or party that wants to leave your money in your hands. Then you get to the $110K+ crowd, and in particular, the $110k academic/social scientist/Ivy League crowd. They have the intellectual foundation, and the self-righteousness, to vote with their “conscious” rather than their self interest. And they can afford to do so.

Also, to whoever made the minimum wage comment: I think that the realities of its effect have little bearing on how it affects who will vote for who, and here's why. Those lowest skilled people, whose unemployment is actually increasing, are worried about getting a paycheck. As you said, they're lower skilled, thus probably not an education in the theoretical and empirical workings of economics and politics. They see a promise to make more money per hour. They don't see that this in fact is probably worse for them. Therefor, they are still, in the end, more likely to support a politician who supports raising the minimum wage, even if they will be worse off.

http://thezspot.today.com
http://gamingtips.today.com

Is that really what I'm saying? No. It isn't. Once again, a strawman. I said there is no partisan cohesion to policy over the decades and nothing to point to across the board that substantiates such a trend. That's a different claim than the strawman claim you keeping wanting fight.

I'm not going to get out a yard stick and explain it all to you on a blackboard. Go back, read what I said and see for yourself. Otherwise, don't bother. Because all you're doing is changing the discussion parameters as you go along.

The rest is simply a furthering of the imaginary discussion you think you're always having no matter what the topic.

Try again.

I read your debate with Bruce Wilder on Economists View and he defended the same position as I ( although much better). Over there and as here you claim a desire to believe policy doesn't effect economics or distribution.

That is your position which for some reason you WANT to believe. But it is frankly absurd.

From North Korean policy to Swedish policy to that of Brazilian policy… policy is the big picture item that drowns out the significance of the business cycle.

The idea that there is no difference is policy effects from conservative American policies and Liberal/progressive American policies is simply some desire on your part to elevate the importance of the business cycle. For as one who believes free markets are the best answer you must negate the significance of “minor policy differences” to defend and provide a base for your own ideology. Particularly if the minor party policy differences favor slightly leftward solutions. Best just to obscure and muddle up the data the same way global warming deniers do. (And coincidentally for the same reason… to defend libertarianism).

Don't tell us you have non-partisan interest in the subject. That's only true in that their are no libertarians that exist in power but if they did boy would you ever support them in a partisan manor as you do here.

Nope your position on these inequality and policy issues is simply a defense of you own partisan position. Of course there is NO DATA on your position just theory and belief.

“But if you do reply at least be a man and attempt a counter point rather then to lamely throw names and labels about with no back up for you assertions.“

Practice what you preach.

Go read my long post above and be critical of yourself and ask yourself what you really responded to. The answer is nothing and you know it.

You have self-control to stay on topic because you have no idea what you're talking about. You dig up something, make a vacuous claim…then I explain why and you go off on tangent. Same story. You have no facts or data….just a silly study that liberal economists don't give much weight to. I've said plenty on this thread and the link provided above and you've said NOTHING, I repeat NOTHING in direct response.

You're a waste of time.

I wrote plenty up there. If you want to respond to what I wrote, go ahread and I will address the substance. But I'm taking any bait to engage you worthless strawmen. It's old news.

Again: Respond to what I wrote. Not what you want to interpret from what I wrote..no…WHAT I WROTE.

Your only defense is to claim straw man or troll. I think everyone reading can clearly understand that.

There is nothing straw-man about me asking on what factual basis you propose a libertarian economy as some how superior. The fact is you can't answer the question outside of polemics and hand-waving. You have no data to even present such as the data I present which you like to simply deny with a wave of the hand.

I can give logical , factual, data driven, historical and theoretical reasons for why I believe demand side economics works as well as why libertarianism is a faith based belief.

You have nothing but trolls and straw men to defend your pitiful self. You have no supporting data so all you are left with is to deny the data that does exist as imperfect.

John if you don't like what I write and you can't defend yourself skip my post and don't reply. But if you do reply at least be a man and attempt a counter point rather then to lamely throw names and labels about with no back up for you assertions.

I don't have the link at the moment, but there was a New York Times article a while back that analyzed districts by income inequality and political affiliation. Districts with high income inequality (that is, within one district) tended to vote Democratic; districts that were homogeneous in income voted Republican. (The proximity thing is interesting. Do rich people care more about the plight of the poor if they live near them? Does living near rich people create envy and more desire for redistribution? Are homogeneous communities more traditional-minded?) If I remember correctly, Republican districts also tended to be middle-income, while the very rich and very poor were Democratic.

That doesn't in itself mean that higher inequality will produce more Democratic wins, though. The evidence was about relative differences and doesn't tell us what will happen if overall inequality increases.