The Klan grew from single digit thousands in 1916 to a peak of millions in 1925 then for the next few years its membership had a half-life of six months. If you are going to argue that Klan activity has something to do with inequality, I would expect to see some kind of decade-long extraordinary boom around 1915 and the Great Depression starting four years earlier than it did.
What level of precision must I use to object that Klan activity collapsed while inequality remained high, or that your proposed Socialist party membership metric peaked during a period of historically low inequality?
The Klan grew from single digit thousands in 1916 to a peak of millions in 1925 then for the next few years its membership had a half-life of six months. If you are going to argue that Klan activity has something to do with inequality, I would expect to see some kind of decade-long extraordinary boom around 1915 and the Great Depression starting four years earlier than it did.
This is an excessive expectation for precision in a socio-cultural phenomena.
What level of precision must I use to object that Klan activity collapsed while inequality remained high, or that your proposed Socialist party membership metric peaked during a period of historically low inequality?