Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

> And whatever it is in the culture that uses liberty to zealously oppose regulation of fire arms and corporations but lets this stand for almost a generation.

I think if you talked to the people who opposed firearm regulation (not their representatives, not a media portrayal, and not some vocal minority), you would find that most also opposed this watch list. Hence the existence of the NRA, the EFF and the ACLU.

>not their representatives

Right, so why do these people let themselves be represented by those figures?

I have the same question for the vast majority of the conservative voter base.

Why does anyone end up represented by any imperfect person? That question is just as applicable on both sides of the political spectrum. If you're American, why did you let yourself be represented by President Trump?

I like Trump better than the alternative, and history has agreed.

We have record low unemployment for Blacks and Hispanics. Retirement accounts (401ks) are fat, good news for retirees. We have had rising wages for the working class for the first time in many years.

That's why I let myself be represented by President Trump. He isn't perfect, but he's done very well for most of America.

> history has agreed

I'm not sure where you get that idea. A 2018 poll of political scientists ranked him dead last, and a 2018 poll of presidential scholars ranked him third-to-last:


I meant the excellent economic statistics.

Let's give it a little time, then see how he is ranked.

He was also handed an economy with all those trajectories, the best a President has been given in decades. Wait to see how his run ends to see how his policies are working.

He’s also seen record foreclosures on farmers as his trade war has killed markets for them, US manufacturing shrank for the first time in a decade [1] due to cost increases from Trump trade war.

He’s also added to the deficit, heading towards 1 trillion annually, in a good economy when it wasn’t needed.

[1] https://fortune.com/2019/08/22/us-manufacturing-sector-shrin...

About the trajectories, that makes it all the more impressive, doesn't it?

It's easier to show growth (improved metrics in unemployment, positive changes in wage growth, higher stock market) after a crash, right? When things are bottomed out, it's not so difficult to show improvements (after the initial proper steps are taken.) Along those lines-- I do give Obama credit for making the right moves immediately after the crash. He just ran out of ideas after a few years, thus the 'jobless recovery'.

But after things are improved for a while, then it gets harder to make incremental improvements.

If you're walking, it's not hard to change to running. But if you're already running, it can be pretty hard to move faster.

About giving it some time to evaluate, I agree this is a good idea.

It’s not more impressive when a significant part of his problems are self made. There’s a reason trade wars are not fought, and protectionism has (had) died out. It empirically has been demonstrated to cost an economy many multiples of any hoped for benefits. This is Econ 101. The US was last this dumb with Smoot-Hawley, and we’d learned our lesson for almost 100 years.

Next, instead of paying down the debt, he ran the deficit up willingly during good times. Also bad Econ, no matter the party.

Steel and aluminum tariffs have raised the price of either in the US far above outside markets. As a result high tech industries that used to take that and turn it into precision instruments are losing foreign markets, many of which will never come back. Who wants unstable trading partners. And for what? Nothing but a handout to a few steelworkers at a large long term cost to consumers and producers alike.

The net result of all this nonsense is not making the US better off; Trump is running record trade deficits, despite saying he isn’t (easy to check). This is all unnecessary and only hurting the economy.

There’s a reason we (and most other countries) don’t do this type of nonsense anymore. It simply ruins economies. He was handed a strong one, still on an upswing. These choices will likely wreck it before it would have, through simple bad decisions.

I am very much a cynic. Show me references to data and let's do the math. This is HN after all.

I look forward to this exercise. I have a family of Trump supporters and I get percentages and perceptions like these from them in debate but have trouble getting them to point to those things as products of solid unbiased sources of statistical analyses.

Well, let's start with the record low unemployment for African Americans and Hispanics.

Can you agree that's a great accomplishment?

So I'm still here. Cite your sources. I am curious because I've heard that before in articles without references. Is it BoL statistics?

Again I've read flattering headlines but not sure where raw data comes from, and I also said to a parent unemployment rates do not signify a lot to me as an adult as a positive absolute measure where underemployment and real social issues are brushed under the rug as part of number shuffling to stroke political egos. Hence I want to know data points.

I think we can agree the disinterest or avoidance on both sides of the American political spectrum in analyzing factual data and not leaning on sound bites is a problem.

Please reference your sources. I am interested.


Glad you're still here.

[1] an easy to read chart from data.bls.gov

[2] is an article from Black Enterprise, just for good measure

Black unemployment really is at record low levels. Trump's economy has been good for African Americans. (Rising wages help, too.)

[1] https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000006

[2] https://www.blackenterprise.com/black-unemployment-rate-fall...

So the article references the graph.

Where is the raw data? This gets back to the data literacy issues. How do we empower people like you and me to know if the BKS got those numbers accurately and from where? I'll look on their site for taw data inputs. I couldn't find easily, but I am sure they have. But also let's find what kind of employment they have and see what it gets them. A graph doesn't tell me that.

Also in the article it has been going down 107 months (so approaching ten years, not just since 2017 at the start of his tenure). I did not think he has been president that long, and if we look at just the graph, except for increases in the end of 2009, it seems to have been going down with some consistency since then at similar rates. Just look at the graph. So what are we crediting whom for? Why do we assume if it happened in 2017 it is an immediate consequence of presidential action at that same time that year? Also kind of dubious to me.

Do you ever worry that your opinions motivate how you see data, not the other way around? I do a lot and why I also generally worry about political administrations in all countries who reference their success with correlation and not causation in this way. These kinds of conversations keep telling me they have won the perception game and we do not care to run a government like a business project and measure our success. Maybe if anything a weird ad campaign where we throw money at problems and if people's behavior changes we are certain it is the ad campaign in a vacuum and without real evidence.

I hope you understand why I'm not sold on your example. Thanks.

I meant BKS to be BLS and taw to be raw. Stupid phone.

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact