The 1980 Presidential Election sure validates this guys theory (yeah, right)!
Posted on 10/20/2004 7:55:09 AM PDT by No Surrender Monkey
Exactly 16 years ago, Lawrence Summers and I argued on this page that modern Democratic presidents, in statistical terms, had been better for American business than their Republican counterparts. We further predicted that these superior Democratic results would continue. And we questioned why the U.S. business community, in light of this record and this outlook, remained overwhelmingly Republican.
Another presidential election is at hand, and this is the right moment to review those predictions. In the interim, we have conveniently experienced eight Republican presidential years and eight Democratic ones. Mr. Summers, as president of Harvard, cannot debate these issues now. Fortunately, the statistics speak for themselves. In fact, the long-term comparison, as well this latest 16-year one, is no contest.
According to Federal Reserve Board data, from January 1952 through June 2004 the average after-tax return on tangible capital was 4.3% under Democratic presidents and 3.2% under their Republican counterparts. As my table shows, the past 16 years provide an even more stark comparison, with after-tax return on capital at 3.9% under the Clinton presidency, and just 2.5% under the Bush presidencies. Moreover, on the most basic economic measures of all -- growth, jobs and household income -- the Democratic presidential advantage over the past 16 years is enormous. On the business indices -- investment, return on capital and stock prices -- the advantage also is strong. And, of course, the Federal budget comparison is dramatic. Yes, earnings per share rose slightly more during the Bush periods, but shareholders obviously benefited more under Bill Clinton.
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
Tell it all, brother!!
Roger C. Altman is a campaign adviser for John Forbes Kerry: U.S. Presidential Campaign 2004.
Altman is Chairman and co-founder of Evercore and was, in the wake of the Iran-Contra scandal, Vice Chairman of The Blackstone Group. He is also a member of the Council on Foreign Relations.
FROM CNN.Com "Roger Altman: Formerly deputy Treasury secretary, Altman resigned Aug. 29, 1994 following revelations he tipped the White House off to criminal referrals made by Resolution Trust Corp. investigators related to Madison Guaranty. Altman, a college friend of Clinton's, angered both Republican and Democratic senators after giving conflicting testimony about White House-Treasury contacts."
This guy is an idiot.
Not to mention the economic boom that Bush41 handed Slick.
The article is very selective, to be charitable.
But the Democratic argument comes down to this, in a nutshell: Central Planning, including heavy taxation and restrictive regulations, is the way to a great economy.
It's a wonder anyone takes it seriesly.
I think you have to be an academic or a useful idiot.
There will always be the business cycle for people like Altman to blame on the Republicans. But what about:
Carter - double digit inflation, oil crunch
Reagan - fought the Evil Empire, reduced taxes
Bush I - S&L bailout, fought Gulf War
clinton - largest tax increase in history, croneyism at its worst in the most corrupt administration in history
Bush II - fighting terrorism, reducing taxes
I think the S&L crisis was a bipartisan scam, but it's still the only blot on Republican administrations.
Very naive on Mr. Altman's part having this article published for the WSJ. Their readers are among the most business-savvy on the planet and this just reinforces how full of crap the dems are.
Exactly. Also, since fiscal policy has an 18-24 month lag effect we must credit the appropriate Republican administrations for most of the robust economies from 1980 through 1994.
Also, this whole discussion is "nuts" right now. We are at War. Ushering in a "surrender monkey" Democratic administration would have disasterous effects not only on our economy but also on our very National security and survival. If nothing else, 9/11 should have taught us that terrorist attacks can have a very detrimental impact on our economy.
Altman is grasping at straws. Another sign that DemoRats are desperate.
Clinton presided over a classic stock bubble, which began its burst while he was still in office.
Giving credit to Clinton to such a dubious thing as a bubble, while blaming W for it popping would be outrageous if it weren't so transparent.
I'm far from an economist or investment expert, but I can see some things for myself.
Yeah, I think most WSJ reader will not be too impressed with this, probably not even the Democrats who read it.
and for years demoRats have been saying republicans "are in the pocket of big business" and that big business is "bad."
When are they going to get their story straight?
Of course they are! Businesses thrive when they are taxed to the underpants and regulated up the kazoo and have to pay astronomical workmans comp insurance and are opened to further frivolous lawsuit liabilities and yadda yadda. Everybody knows that.
And when the legacy media tells the American public that the economy is the worst since the great depression under Republicans, while under any Democrat they call it 'happy days are here again', well, that might have an effect too.
The Republicans have not pounded this point enough for my liking. The largest source of jobs creation in this country is small businesses. By raising taxes on people making $200K it means the "millionaire next door" suddenly has less money to spend on new hiring. This is economics 101.
Remember how Gold was around 900 dollar an ounce, and how the Hunt Brothers In Texas were hording silver to increase it's value.
Well, the Dem position is that we are better off when money is put into the econony by the government rather than by individuals. They think that that way, it can be spent under cental direction for the good of all (rationalism and central planning). A perfect example of the success of this thinking is the USSR, and to a lesser extent, Europe, which is socialist, but not to the degree that the commie countries were. Yet.
Aside from the practical disaster of implementing this type of thinking, the philosophic disaster is that it will destroy the very ideals of freedom on which our country was founded. Which is cool with Democrats, I guess.
Here is where I find some common ground with Objectivism, although Rand was not the first to realize it: The well off do more to help the poor by selfishly spending on themselves than by altruistically donating to charity. Because spending on themselves creates jobs, eliminating the need for charity and puts money into the economy, causing a self sustaining cycle. Giving to charity, OTOH, while helpful to some degree, is more like pouring money down an endless hole, you have to keep pouring just to stay even. In fact, it's easy to argue that such giving can worsen poverty.
These arguments, centuries old, are anathema to the Left, and not even particularly popular on the right. To me, that is evidence that we are already living in a socialistic society, at least to some extent.
This guy has never traveled west of the Mississippi, apparently.
The state of Kalifornia is hurting from a million directions businesswise, because the overwhelming Demorat legislatures in the past years have hammered business with every tax, fee, requirement that they could possible think of.
We have requirements for trans-gender persons to be shielded by their employer from any "discomfort" from retail customers who might be offended or at least startled by the she/he or he/she who just stepped up to serve them. Then this issue gets even better when you have to provide "appropriate" bathroom facilities, and the question of what box they check on the health insurance form gets dicey.
This is after the REQUIREMENT that all companies with 20 or more employees MUST provide good health insurance at NO MORE than a 20% premium portion for the employee is sitting on the current ballot. If that prop passes in Kalif, look for massive layoffs, splitting of companies into multiple divisions, or just mass exodus.
Workmen's comp insurance problems have been building for decades, and the DIMS have laughed at the business owners when they complained. They are also in love with the concept of a "living wage" in San Fran and it is spreading.
What is a living wage for me and what is the same for Donald Trump is way different, me thinks. A couple I know seems to have a hard time living on over $250,000 a year, and I live on less than 10% of that.
Republicans don't treat employers like this. They have learned much more than the DIMS about how hard you have to work to have the responsibility of signing the FRONT of the paychecks on payday.
And there you have it.
You have to factor in any time lag from government action to results of that action, if government has much impact at all. That conceivably would benefit a follow on administration from the work of a prior administration. The free market is what really makes a difference. In the 90's the internet and the growth of networking was just picking up. The internet boom created who knows how many new busineses, to say nothing of making existing businesses more efficient. Is government to blame when the bubble burst? No the free marker adjusted.
This guy is an idiot.
22 posted on 10/20/2004 8:14:36 AM PDT by wjcsux (Don't be a girly man! Vote Republican!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
Right you are. And does anyone have the figure for how much a dollar is worth after it gets massaged by the federal government and sent back to the states?
By all rights, those layoffs should be attributed to Clinton, as should the economic downturn of 2000-2001. However, in these simplistic assessments, the sitting president gets credit and blame for the continuing policies of his predecessor.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.