Liberals BTFO as always
>>>/pol/
>>>/leftypol/
GDP isn't a good measure of standard of living in a nation.
>tfw literally just learned this on my macroeconomics homework 20 minutes ago
>>1378066
>economic policy isn't /biz/
>>1378071
Nice strawman
>>1378072
>The president controls the economy
Well, I guess /biz/ is full of retards so at least you'll fit in.
>>1378076
>the President has no effect on the economy
Looks like /biz/ is full of you
>>1378078
Implying that there are only two opposite positions to be taken is seriously ridiculous. However, the president's effects on the economy are not in the ballpark of as direct or drastic as you're implying. The Fed and Congress have nearly all the policy-making power when it comes to the economy, and the president can only impact those indirectly and in a limited capacity. For instance, the success you think Reagan had with the economy was actually almost entirely the result of blessed Paul Volcker, peace be upon him.
>>1378086
Perhaps you have heard of Obamacare
>>1378088
durrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
Who wrote and passed the affordable care act durrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
>>1378260
>Obama had nothing to do with his signature legislation
Is this the line Dems are going with?
go back to /int/ or /pol/ you faggot cuck
sage
>>1378260
>being this much of a libtard
>>1378065
Calculate the variance, SD, and variance of error to see if your data is worth a shit. Then calculate the variance and covariance of your two data sets to see if correlation actually exists before you make a claim of it.
>>1378066
Why do I keep seeing links to pol on this board?
Same guy doing it?
>>1380808
Yeah same one who also spams "try r9k"
>>1378074
Do you know what a strawman is
>>1381044
Making up a point that nobody mentioned and shooting it down. Just like you did
>>1378065
>>1381677
>>1381678
I don't see why anyone tries to argue otherwise, it's widely known that GDP growth and market performance has grown mainly under democrats, especially because of WW2, Dotcom, and the 2008 Financial Crisis
>by end of Obama era GDP grew 5.4%
>by end of Reagan era GDP fell 6.1%
>showcasing GDP change on the bottom of the list, with reagan era GDP fluctuating at 7.9%, as if it's a good thing
am I being massively trolled here or is everyone on /biz/ supremely retarded?
>cut tax revenue
>increase military expenditure
>surprisingly end up with increased public debt for some reason
Nixon will be remembered as the last sane republican president [he just failed in actually getting caught in his corruption]
>>1381677
>>1381678
Stocks =/= the economy. The fact that interest rates have been held low enough to create this bubble speaks volumes towards stagnant economic growth
>>1381684
See picture. Bill Clinton is the only case where this is close to true. Or are you referring to Jimmy Carter's years of booming economic growth lol? Reagan's years blew even Clinton out of the water without creating a bubble. Try arguing your case instead of just shilling without statistics or facts
>>1381687
Lmao learn to read a chart idiot.
>>1381725
>be Obama
>double the national debt
>shills on the internet still try to blame Bush
Sad, really
The last time we came near 10% gdp growth in a quarter was Reagan, so your Nixon comment makes no sense whatsoever.
