[Mustang19]

Originally we were trying to explain to UT why the way he feels something is does not necessarily represent the way it actually is or even the way other people actually think it is. Now I dunno, he seems to have gone off on a tangent where if you use science you are evil?

But that's a basic question of epistemology. How do I know the outside world exists? How do I know what everyone else says is a lie?!

[General Battuta]

Originally we were trying to explain to UT why the way he feels something is does not necessarily represent the way it actually is or even the way other people actually think it is. Now I dunno, he seems to have gone off on a tangent where if you use science you are evil?

But that's a basic question of epistemology. How do I know the outside world exists? How do I know what everyone else says is a lie?!

YOU DON'T D:

(but if you're going to try to implement public policy, you might as well figure out what all those hallucinatory liars are telling you, so they don't lie you out of office and so you can act in accordance with their self-interested lies)

[Unknown Target]

oh snap a flaming giboon

Originally we were trying to explain to UT why the way he feels something is does not necessarily represent the way it actually is or even the way other people actually think it is. Now I dunno, he seems to have gone off on a tangent where if you use science you are evil?

No, that's not what I was saying.

The closest thing to that that I was saying was that science as part of it's nature has to accept the possibility of religion, and while religion makes you feel great, science grows a lot more food you can eat.

[General Battuta]

Since this thread desperately needs rescuing, I'm going to talk a bit more about how stupid voters are.

We (geniuses) have known for a long time that one of the primary determinants of a president's chances of getting re-elected (or plain elected, if he's the challenger) is the real disposable income growth that occurs in the country during his four years in office. This is a measure of the amount of income that becomes available to workers after inflation.

Now, voters are stupid about this on several levels. First off, they believe the president has control over the economy - this is a dubious prospect at best. Second, however, a rational voter would (probably) look at RDI growth over all four years of the president's term. It's possible that they would attribute the early years to the previous president's policy, but actual questions don't seem to suggest this is true - they don't even think about that.

So what do they do instead? Well, really they only seem to care about RDI growth in the election year. If the election year went well, they vote to re-elect. If the election year went badly, they vote to kick the bum out. They don't even think about the past three years.

And do presidents know this? Well, we're not sure. It's looking like they might; average historical RDI growth in election years is nearly double that in non-election years.

Voters might be cleverer than we suspect, too. We're going through cached polls as far back as the 1930s to try to spot questions asking about 'election year gimmicks' and related behaviors.

Interesting stuff. The general term for it is 'voter myopia'. We've even managed to replicate it in an experimental paradigm, using small amounts of money and an automated allocator the player can choose to keep or reject.

[Unknown Target]

Since this thread desperately needs rescuing, I'm going to talk a bit more about how stupid voters are.

Since we all can vote, how is it a rescue for us to talk about how stupid we are?

[Mustang19]

Well if candidates receive the largest part of their funding from corporations, doesn't it make sense that these companies will offer the incumbent the most funding in the years with highest RDI growth?

[General Battuta]

Well if candidates receive the largest part of their funding from corporations, doesn't it make sense that these companies will offer the incumbent the most funding in the years with highest RDI growth?

(Anything you say in this thread may be used in peer-reviewed papers, be advised)

That's interesting, I hadn't really thought about corporate donations. Are you suggesting that'd draw more votes through some intermediary, like better campaigning?

That should actually be pretty easily checkable coming from historical records. But I'm not sure it can explain why RDI growth tends to be higher in election years - can corporate donations explain that...?

[Kopachris]

Since this thread desperately needs rescuing, I'm going to talk a bit more about how stupid voters are.

Since we all can vote, how is it a rescue for us to talk about how stupid we are?

Who says we all can vote?

[Mustang19]

RDI growth must equal less taxes a lot of the time, and the rich pay the most taxes. So more RDI likely means less taxes on the rich, encouraging the rich to donate to the incumbent.

Are you suggesting that'd draw more votes through some intermediary, like better campaigning?

And you thought that was just window dressing.

But I'm not sure it can explain why RDI growth tends to be higher in election years - can corporate donations explain that...?

Taxes as mentioned above, plus more pork projects temporarily boosting GDP and employment.

[General Battuta]

So you're suggesting president drops taxes on the rich, shovels money into short-term programs, gets donations from the rich, and gets votes from the pork?

Could be. Doesn't that make the rich pretty myopic too, though?

[Unknown Target]

Since this thread desperately needs rescuing, I'm going to talk a bit more about how stupid voters are.

Since we all can vote, how is it a rescue for us to talk about how stupid we are?

Who says we all can vote?

Do you know anyone who can't?

[Mustang19]

That should actually be pretty easily checkable coming from historical records. But I'm not sure it can explain why RDI growth tends to be higher in election years - can corporate donations explain that...?

Also, politicians probably like to maintain unsustainable but popular policies that result in a crash just after election day, meaning low RDI growth in the first years of the next term. Look at Mexico in 1994, when the economy fell apart just after election day because of unsustainable expansionary policy in the years prior.

Could be. Doesn't that make the rich pretty myopic too, though?

Not if the poor bear the brunt of it and upper-incomes pretty much make the same (eg after the last financial crisis).

[General Battuta]

That should actually be pretty easily checkable coming from historical records. But I'm not sure it can explain why RDI growth tends to be higher in election years - can corporate donations explain that...?

Also, politicians probably like to maintain unsustainable but popular policies that result in a crash just after election day, meaning low RDI growth in the first years of the next term. Look at Mexico in 1994, when the economy fell apart just after election day because of unsustainable expansionary policy in the years prior.

Presumably RDI falls off after an election year when the presidential jiggering ceases. The question is whether that corresponds to a crash or just a correction. I'm not even sure of the mechanisms presidents would use to cook up this brief RDI spike so it's hard to know what the consequences would be afterwards.

Not if the poor bear the brunt of it and upper-incomes pretty much make the same (eg after the last financial crisis).

Hrm. That relies on the very wealthy being able to swing a disproportionate number of votes. I buy it intuitively but I'm not sure the models support it. Do incumbents consistently receive more donations from the wealthy than challengers?

****, we need data.

[Mustang19]

Hrm. That relies on the very wealthy being able to swing a disproportionate number of votes. I buy it intuitively but I'm not sure the models support it. Do incumbents consistently receive more donations from the wealthy than challengers?

It doesn't matter, all they need is more donations when RDI grows fast than when it doesn't for fast RDI growth to be advantageous to the incumbent.

Presumably RDI falls off after an election year when the presidential jiggering ceases. The question is whether that corresponds to a crash or just a correction. I'm not even sure of the mechanisms presidents would use to cook up this brief RDI spike so it's hard to know what the consequences would be afterwards.

Federal reserve interest rates (the president appoints the chairman of the fed), government insured mortgages, infrastructure projects. Expansionary monetary and fiscal policy in general. When all these programs end GDP falls back to normal or less.

[Mustang19]

Going to war can also boost RDI in the short run thanks to the one-time boost to defense production.

[General Battuta]

Hrm. That relies on the very wealthy being able to swing a disproportionate number of votes. I buy it intuitively but I'm not sure the models support it. Do incumbents consistently receive more donations from the wealthy than challengers?

It doesn't matter, all they need is more donations when RDI grows fast than when it doesn't for fast RDI growth to be advantageous to the incumbent.

Sure, but for your previous explanation (of how the wealthy aren't myopic) to hold up, the wealthy have to do well off the RDI growth and then not suffer from the RDI decline afterwards. If the wealthy figure this pattern out, RDI growth stops being advantageous to the incumbent.

Federal reserve interest rates (the president appoints the chairman of the fed), government insured mortgages, infrastructure projects. Expansionary monetary and fiscal policy in general. When all these programs end GDP falls back to normal or less.

It's a model we can test, at least. Apparently this is called the Electoral Business Cycle, and this lit review is pretty good.

Going to war can also boost RDI in the short run thanks to the one-time boost to defense production.

We need F-22 Raptors to serve as mobile IED jammers. The most mobile IED jammers.

[Unknown Target]

That should actually be pretty easily checkable coming from historical records. But I'm not sure it can explain why RDI growth tends to be higher in election years - can corporate donations explain that...?

Also, politicians probably like to maintain unsustainable but popular policies that result in a crash just after election day, meaning low RDI growth in the first years of the next term. Look at Mexico in 1994, when the economy fell apart just after election day because of unsustainable expansionary policy in the years prior.

Presumably RDI falls off after an election year when the presidential jiggering ceases. The question is whether that corresponds to a crash or just a correction. I'm not even sure of the mechanisms presidents would use to cook up this brief RDI spike so it's hard to know what the consequences would be afterwards.

Not if the poor bear the brunt of it and upper-incomes pretty much make the same (eg after the last financial crisis).

Hrm. That relies on the very wealthy being able to swing a disproportionate number of votes. I buy it intuitively but I'm not sure the models support it. Do incumbents consistently receive more donations from the wealthy than challengers?

****, we need data.

Hold on, I think I can find you some if I can remember where. There are websites where you can look at who's donating to which Representatives above $200.


EDIT: Yea, here's one of them, it's really good.

http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/index.php

We had to look this stuff up for one of my teachers this quarter.

[General Battuta]

That should actually be pretty easily checkable coming from historical records. But I'm not sure it can explain why RDI growth tends to be higher in election years - can corporate donations explain that...?

Also, politicians probably like to maintain unsustainable but popular policies that result in a crash just after election day, meaning low RDI growth in the first years of the next term. Look at Mexico in 1994, when the economy fell apart just after election day because of unsustainable expansionary policy in the years prior.

Presumably RDI falls off after an election year when the presidential jiggering ceases. The question is whether that corresponds to a crash or just a correction. I'm not even sure of the mechanisms presidents would use to cook up this brief RDI spike so it's hard to know what the consequences would be afterwards.

Not if the poor bear the brunt of it and upper-incomes pretty much make the same (eg after the last financial crisis).

Hrm. That relies on the very wealthy being able to swing a disproportionate number of votes. I buy it intuitively but I'm not sure the models support it. Do incumbents consistently receive more donations from the wealthy than challengers?

****, we need data.

Hold on, I think I can find you some if I can remember where. There are websites where you can look at who's donating to which Representatives above $200.

Awesome!

[Unknown Target]

Check my previous post, I put it up.

On this note:

We need F-22 Raptors to serve as mobile IED jammers. The most mobile IED jammers.

I have a question...if we don't want to lose lives in conflict, and we typically don't like to get involved, and we don't have a lot of money, and it's probably that a lot of money is lost to inter-departmental bureaucracy? Why do we have 4 little mini militaries instead of one that we can fund more easily?

[Mustang19]

Sure, but for your previous explanation (of how the wealthy aren't myopic) to hold up, the wealthy have to do well off the RDI growth and then not suffer from the RDI decline afterwards. If the wealthy figure this pattern out, RDI growth stops being advantageous to the incumbent.

The wealthy need not suffer declining RDI at all. A recession lends itself to expansionary fiscal policy (in other words more spending, less taxes), so the most taxed people may well gain from a recession. For instance Bush gave out big tax cuts after the recent recession so the wealthy may not have minded at all. Also, it's impossible for anyone to predict exactly when and how bad the decline will be, plus there's all that behavioral economics risk bias jazz.

A recession also means less inflation which is nice if a large part of your income comes from investments, which is true for the wealthy.