Americans love celebrity, how else did Reagan ever get into office? Or Trump for that matter.

Please go take a look at inflation rates under each presidents. Democrats have usually raised them relative to their corresponding Republicans predecessors, and republicans have usually lowered them after their democrats predecessors.

Learn to actually read instead of just googling for keywords to support your point.

hehe why don't you support your own points with data?

Like supa said right here?

Oh the irony.

I don’t even need to look for it. It said right there in the link he posted. That’s why I said he needs to learn to actually read the whole thing instead of googling on keywords as he’d miss the whole context.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S....arty#Inflation

First paragraph:

Blinder and Watson found that since 1945 the average inflation rate was higher under Republican presidents than under Democrats, though inflation tended to rise under Democrats but fall under Republicans

Indeed.

hehe, read the actual source from that wiki paragraph. the cover page of the article linked says this:

Presidents and the US Economy: An Econometric Exploration
Alan S. Blinder
Mark W. Watson

Abstract
The US economy has performed better when the president of the United States is a Democrat rather than a Republican, almost regardless of how one measures performance. For many measures, including real GDP growth (our focus), the performance gap is large and significant. This paper asks why. The answer is not found in technical time series matters nor in systematically more expansionary monetary or fiscal policy under Democrats. Rather, it appears that the Democratic edge stems mainly from more benign oil shocks, superior total factor productivity (TFP) performance, a more favorable international environment, and perhaps more optimistic consumer expectations about the near-term future. (JEL D72, E23, E32, E65, N12, N42)


this is your actual source, not mine.

If you actually took Econ 101, please explain the relationship of real and nominal.

When you induce inflation like crazy and only measure economy by GDP, of course the data will look better when Dems take place.

That’s why it’s usually the Republicans cleaning up after the Democrats. To balance the inflation.

And if you actually bothered to read actual data rather than rely on googling (hence using Wikipedia as source) you will see the trend of republicans taking policies to reduce inflation while Dems take on policies to induce inflation.

again, this is YOUR source buddy.

I want to point out, this is not a source I trusted. I merely pointed out that Supa was actually supporting my very point with a source that he thought proved his point.

But I think this is what happened.

He saw my post about Reps always cleaning up after Dems, went batshit crazy in disbelief, and googled "which US parties had higher inflation?" or something along that line as a rebuttal.

He then saw the first sentence "Blinder and Watson found that since 1945 the average inflation rate was higher under Republican presidents than under Democrats" then he jizzed and came back to call me a lying shit bag thinking that he found the perfect evidence.

I kept using that because that very source he used, the Wikipedia page said the very thing I said originally, where Reps are usually Dems' mess cleaner.

No apology anywhere even though I pointed out that the very source he used to call me a "lying shit bag" proved my very point.

So again, read instead of just taking points to support your argument/narrative.

Hey dumbass do you know WHY inflation goes up? It's not covered in Econ 101 but it is covered in 201.

https://www.rba.gov.au/education/res...in%20inflation.

Under Democrats inflation increases b/c employment is going up driving up demand resulting in rising inflation. Under Republicans employment decreases and lowers demand resulting in falling inflation.

That average inflation is lower under Democrats is indicative of better financial management - the rise is signal of increased economic performance.

if you're going to quote that source in an argument against someone else (me) then you are taking ownership of that source. you can't have it both ways.

Maybe hehe can explain the economics of why Trump held a rally in Howell, Michigan yesterday... a population of 10,000 people.

I mean, what are the economics there? Why is a 10,000 people town so important that it gets its own rally from a presidential nominee? Michigan has 10,000,000 people in it, so why go to a town that represents 0.1% of the population for a rally? That seems a bit weird doesn't it?

I wonder why he chose that place?

Oh yah, it's because it's been a hub for KKK actions since the 1970's.

But... economics.

Oh yeah. Not only I did 201, but also 365 and 415.

To give you a short version of why inflation is created is when money generation happens at a quicker pace than real economic output.

And who can generate money out of nothing? The government or the central bank depending how you look at things be it Keynesian or Neo Keynesian.

And the very link you posted, if you follow back to its source and read it as well as many of its own source materials, it will then tell you that Dems have a history of spending money quicker than the economy can produce while reps did the opposite.

Therefore inflation tends to rise under Dems and drops under reps

I've never heard a person make a credible argument that Republicans are better for the economy, every statistic and economist I've listened to, book read, have always said the exact opposite.

Republicans, most notably the modern neo-conservative flavor are a net negative to the economy, and that's proven by any statistic. If you can prove the opposite, cite that then, Hehe.

You can't, because you're full of shit.

Look how wonderfully bad the Conservatives have run the UK economy over the last 14 years.

I mean it's totally missing the point... economic arguments are NOT the basis of this election.

Electing someone who is going to tear apart human rights, potentially get rid of elections entirely, promote racist agendas, take away women's rights and impose penalties for being anything but white are some of the issues of this election.

I couldn't care less if there's even a 5% difference in unemployment or 10% inflation gap between a couple of candidates and their policies when that other shit's on the table. The fact that there isn't that economic gap just makes it an even more of a nothingburger topic.

100 percent. My four American cousins, all women, hate Trump for what he stands for. Cheeto is a liar when he says that he knows nothing about "Project 2025".

Project 2025 would destroy American democracy and potentially make the fat Orange a dictator:

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c977njnvq2do

-from the article:

The Project 2025 report was unveiled in April 2023, but liberal opposition to the document has ramped up now that Trump has extended his polling lead.
The Republican nominee himself has distanced himself from the proposal.

"I know nothing about Project 2025," he posted on his social media website, Truth Social. "I have no idea who is behind it.

"I disagree with some of the things they're saying and some of the things they’re saying are absolutely ridiculous and abysmal."

But the team that created the project is chock-full of former Trump advisers, including director Paul Dans, who was chief of staff at the Office of Personnel Management while Trump was president.

Did you miss the part where it said the average is still lower under Dems even when accounting for increases? You're selecting the slimmest of facts to make a claim that Republicans are better at running the economy and citing the one period of high inflation with Jimmy Carter (when inflation was high globally) to make a point that is patently false.

Under Democrats the economy:
- Has higher GDP growth
- Has lower unemployment
- Has lower inflation
- Has higher individual income growth
- Smaller deficits (who's doing the borrowing of money and driving inflation here? Republicans. Who's cleaning up the mess of deficits? Dems)
- Higher stock market returns (11% vs 6% - no small amount)
- Higher corporate profits (13% vs 2%)
- Fewer recessions (10 out of 11 Republicans had one)

Your best friend even chimed in on this:

What kind of dumbass are you that you would side with the party that makes you poorer? That causes your stock portfolio to grow slower? To slow your income growth?

You are missing the point entirely. Neo Keynesian believes that market will adapt and auto correct/balance itself. And it’s what US/CA has been doing. Take turn between liberal/left and conservative/right governments.

But the fact has usually been that Dems or liberals are the one who spend money (raising inflation) and Reps/Conservatives who cut the money output (cutting inflation) to balance the equation.

If you are too confused to understand that concept, I suggest to take more Econ classes. They help. Anything from Econ fundamentals to advance game theory have discussed this topic to death. Just because a statistic is higher or lower doesn’t mean they are better than one another.

You can check all Econ books out there, whether it’s Keynesian or neoclassical oriented, but the fact doesn’t change; Dems tend to raise inflation when they are in power while reps clean up for them so that Dems can spend again on social programs.

In fact, when talking economic growth vs inflation, where you get a sense of real economic growth, Dems have not done much better when their economic growth is deep in the negative region (when inflation did not account for same growth comparing to gdp increases, creating a negative real economic growth)

Ahhh, Keynesian economics.

Now you're parroting talking points from thinktanks like the Fraser Institute or Heritage Foundation, quite a dated way of thinking, Hehe.
Boring.

How old are you, out of curiosity?

Oh shit if this is real!!!

https://i.ibb.co/BB3fcL7/ttt.webp

https://i.ibb.co/5974jyr/bbb.webp

The “surprise” visit by Oprah.. someone only slightly less of a POS than Trump but it’s for da libssssss

You are comparing a person who grew up poor pregnant at 14 who became a billionaire to a guy born with a gold spoon up his ass and somehow bankrupted a casino. How the fck do you run a casino into the ground?

DNC had prior Republican Party members at their convention, giving speeches on stage, and supporting Kamala. They were able to pull together Democratic members that have been in the party for decades to show their support. Why? Because they're a true party, unlike the cult of personality that has become the Republican party.

The RNC didn't have a single Democrat, much less a Republican that has served in office for more than a term show their support.

Let that sink in.

She's more successful but she's still a terrible person.