Skip to main content

View Diary: The Bush Tax cuts CAUSED the economic crisis (149 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Correlation does not imply Causation (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    badger, Dr Squid, coffeetalk

    "Correlation does not imply causation" is a phrase used in science and statistics to emphasize that correlation between two variables does not automatically imply that one causes the other (though correlation is necessary for causation and can indicate possible causes or areas for further investigation).

    The opposite belief, correlation proves causation, is a logical fallacy by which two events that occur together are claimed to have a cause-and-effect relationship.

    wikipedia

    •  so you believe it was all a HUGE coincidence (0+ / 0-)

      that at the moment when the Bush tax cuts took effect, the derivative market started to heat up.

      •  Pardon me, sir, but you have the burden of proof (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        badger, Deep Texan

        I have no burden to disprove your claims.

        Using one  fallacy in the attempt to defend another does not strengthen your case.  Indeed, it weakens it exponentially.

        •  And your argument also worked really well (0+ / 0-)

          for the tobacco companies when they were trying to convince people that smoking didn't cause cancer.

          I guess since most information on derivative investment isn't available to the public- I guess you could never really know.

          It cannot be argued that this century SOMETHING spiked a huge demand for derivative products.

          I make the case here ( apparently rather poorly) that this demand was fueled by the Bush tax cuts.
          rather than arguing that point, you have repeated this "causation and correlation" argument often used by charlatans trying to deflect attention from the facts.

          •  I find your style of thinking problematic (0+ / 0-)
            •  who cares about my "style of thinking" (0+ / 0-)

              why are you even making this about me?

              If, like others here, you don't think that Bush's tax cut helped fuel derivative speculation, give me another plausible explanation and we can discuss it.

              Or even better, give me a reason why the bush tax cuts couldn't have contributed, or a reason why this  contribution is unlikely

              setting a burden of proof standard that is impossible to meet is not an argument

          •  woops (0+ / 0-)

            You seem to think that it is ok to speculate about important matters.

            I do not.

            And there is a very good reason why: that kind thinking lends itself to the kinds of policies that Republicans pursue.  

            That kind of thinking is not reality-based. It's, as you have shown here, faith based.

          •  Oh, correction (0+ / 0-)

            You're not even speculating. You're making speculative claims.

          •  This is just about getting donut worthy (0+ / 0-)

            And your argument also worked really well for the tobacco companies when they were trying to convince people that smoking didn't cause cancer.

            Problem is that government-funded research had shown causation long before the tobacco companies finally gave up the ghost. In this case, you're the tobacco company.

            I make the case here ( apparently rather poorly)

            That much is true.

            If bin Laden owned an oil company, [the GOP would] be wearing long beards and shooting at US troops in Afghanistan.-Geekesque

            by Dr Squid on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 11:13:12 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  THATS easy enough then .... (0+ / 0-)

              so either I making a poor argument for something that is, in fact, true (which, given that i provide no evidence showing causation - has been effectively argued here)

              in which case- yea, the bush tax cuts Did contribute to the crisis

              or I am totally off in my thinking and the bush tax cuts had nothing to do with it.

              in which case it would be pretty easy to prove me wrong

              •  Doesn't matter anymore (0+ / 0-)

                Equating your opponents with the tobacco companies and global warming deniers tells me that you have no interest in making a good faith argument, and your insistence that this just can't be a coincidence, therefore you're right is skirting really close to Conspiracy Theory.

                If you get donuts, don't be surprised.

                To answer your question: Yes it is a coincidence.

                Prove. Me. Wrong.

                If bin Laden owned an oil company, [the GOP would] be wearing long beards and shooting at US troops in Afghanistan.-Geekesque

                by Dr Squid on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 11:40:06 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  if thats how you feel you need to deal with it (0+ / 0-)

                  I generally would rather engage in discourse than censorship

                  pointing out that the old "coincidence isn't causation" canard is often used by tobacco companies and global warming deniers is far cry from "Equating your opponents with the tobacco companies and global warming deniers"

                  people that have given me serious arguments against my assertion have been answered seriously.

          •  Not really, (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Noamjunior

            I guess since most information on derivative investment isn't available to the public- I guess you could never really know.

            .

            You can look up lots of facts here at the OCC's Quarterly Report on Bank Derivatives Activities
            Scary numbers when they are gambling on 10-100X the GDP of the whole world. You can probably root out some numbers and chronology to bolster your thesis here.

            Republicans: "Double your pleasure, double your fun, double your National Debt, and blame 'The One' "

            by Bluefin on Thu Sep 16, 2010 at 01:15:21 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  Again, wrong (0+ / 0-)

        the derivative market heated up with the passage of CFMA and FSMA (both in 1999).

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site