This is just another black-and-white example of propaganda rather than news. Some respectable rag, that NYT.
In scientific terminology, this is a good example of the difference between correlation and causation. It is also an example of a logical error that no college student should ever make, it is so basic and obvious.
It is true that if we measure productivity and amount of sunlight, there is a strong, positive correlation. The ignorant might associated increased UV rays with higher economic productivity. Of course, UV rays don’t make people productive, it simply happens that people work during the daytime more than they work at night.
The true causes of economic growth can be found in other factors such as technological innovation that enhances the gap between productivity and costs and other more direct influences. Yes, it is possible that Dem presidents can increase economic activity by spending more funds but that ignores the inflationary impact and the longer term economic dampening that occurs due to debt service costs.
Correlation ignores dynamic effects such as lags between policy and economy responses.
Obama seems less knowledgable and less interested in economic issues than any president in my lifetime. Many of his policies create economic uncertainty, reduce business growth, discourage hiring, penalize capital investment, punish success, and in general work against economic health.
Many economic policies take a long time to have an economic benefit. Unless you can trace the path from policy to economic activity, these articles that tout the positive effects of Dems on the economy are nothing more than propaganda for the gullible.
Sort of like which tribe does the best rain dance based on when they get rainfall.