And with that, I'm done. You're either intentionally misreading what I say or you can't read.
Shitty example and you know it. Yea, let's only study identical twins for this specific question, about gun control. Too bad we don't know which twins have guns. You have yet to give me an example of a "valid control group" to study this question.
Do you suffer from dementia? You never said I needed to give you a valid control group for this research question.
I answered your prior question to the point. Don't like it, that's your problem.
You're arguing for using prospective methods to study gun control. Please tell me how that's feasible. Keep digging this hole.
So more of your literacy problems. I never argued for prospective methods to analyse this question. When I say prior to applying the treatment, you can just re-word it to prior to when the treatment was applied.
I mean, you're obviously having a hard time following what I'm saying as what you quoted is a summarization of one of Clive Granger's contributions to time series analysis. And is just meant to show that regression analyses have real pitfalls.
I's okay to admit that you're talking out of your ass and you couldn't back it up when you were called out on it.
I never said it was a fact. Not once. Go through the comments and see. Just try to make sure you understand what you read. Difficult for you, I know.
Let me nip two things in the bud:
1. There's no moving of any goalposts.
When you said that I was moving goalposts by pointing out that using the poverty line is not a good measurement for living standards, it's because it isn't a good measurement (which I mentioned above but you didn't or chose not to see it).
The poverty line for different sized households is arbitrarily defined. Say you're in a single household: you can have $10 above that line and you wouldn't be counted in this study.
Now, anyone with half a brain, would look at that and say, hey, his living standards aren't really any better than someone whose income is $10 less.
Measurements matter. Tell any researcher differently and watch them, deservedly, laugh at you.
2. Me stating that I couldn't care less isn't any goalpost moving. What kind of daft statement is that?
I know you're emotionally invested in this policy but I don't care about the gun law. Every post in this thread has been about social science research and what policy should be based on (i.e. not bad research like this paper).