Posted on 08/06/2014 12:33:05 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
Though I typically resist, my wife often tries to get me to put down the laptop and enjoy the Zen of gardening with her. So you can imagine her surprise when she returned from a trip to find a beautiful clump of nonwild flowers planted in her garden. She loved the welcome-home gift and was ready to bestow upon me many valuable (and increasingly elusive) good-husband points.
The thing is, I have no idea how those flowers got there. And like George Washington, I could not tell a lie. But had I in fact been an actual president, I probably would have taken credit.
This incident came to mind upon reading the provocative new paper by the economists Alan Blinder and Mark Watson that rigorously examines how the economy has performed under presidents since the 1940s. Their main questions are: Which party’s presidents preside over better economies and why?
Their answer to the first question is clear: The American economy has grown faster — and scored higher on many other macroeconomic metrics — when the president of the United States is a Democrat rather than a Republican.
The two looked at key macroeconomic variables averaged over 64 years (16 four-year terms), from Harry Truman to Barack Obama. Mr. Blinder and Mr. Watson focus mostly on the 1.8 percent annual difference in real G.D.P. growth. That is, over the full study, real G.D.P. growth averaged 3.33 percent per year. But under Democratic presidents the economy grew 4.35 percent and under Republicans 2.54 percent.
Under Democratic presidents, the economy also spent fewer quarters in recession; added more jobs and more hours worked; and posted larger declines in unemployment and higher corporate profits than under their Republican counterparts. Stock market returns were a lot higher under Democrats as well
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
bullcrap....it’s who hold congress that matters....
cross reference the unemployment rate with party control of congress and that will open your yes.
Democrats do well after a Republican has turned the economy around first.
It takes a little bit of tie for seeds to grow and be harvested. Policy and investment tikes time to come to fruition.
Of course it does because they lie!
This doesn’t include Barry Soetoro right? If it does, their theory is wrong right off the bat.
the inflation grows faster due to money printing leaving our retirement accounts limp and useless under dhimmicrat _residents...
“luck and little mystery” = Media lying
The writer trumpets the conclusion loudly in the title and then spends the rest of the article explaining in fine print that the economic data implied by the title are meaningless.
Dems spend, spend, spend. Then, when things are utterly screwed up, Republicans get elected and need to dig the country out of the hole.
It's easy to look successful if you have snowshovelfulls of $100's to toss around.
That rain sure feels warm!
Republican President = Good economy, MSM says its bad.
Democrat President = Economy sucks, MSM puts on knee pads.
Fact of life. Bush created 400k jobs, MSM reports worst economy since Hoover. Obama created 47 million new wards of the state and the economy is humming along.
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.
As violence falls in Iraq, cemetery workers feel the pinch
Republicans just can't win with journalists.
-PJ
Blinder’s a known liar.
This study fails the basics:
1. Cherry-picked dates. Why start at Truman? Truman benefits from the end of WW2 when every industrialized nation except us was a mess.
2. Nonsense data Part A. A President’s first term doesn’t start until well into the 2nd year when he gets his budget and policies implemented.
3. Nonsense data Part B. They didn’t build that. The economy isn’t run by American Presidents and there are so many variables that no President can truly own his economy, perhaps FDR could be an exception.
Look at Clinton’s term. What did he do to make the economy hum? He spent the Reagan/Bush I peace dividend. Started the RE bubble with his interference in RE markets and policy allowing up to $250K or $500K for marrieds to be tax free on the sale of RE every two years. Then got reigned in by GOP Congress and Newt Gingrich.
That’s the truth. The study is meant to deceive, just like the headline. Bumper sticker politics for the LIVs.
I'm dubious, though. Much of the difference has to do with heating (and overheating) up the economy in the Kennedy-Johnson years.
Add the tech boom of the Clinton Nineties and that accounts for much of the difference between the parties.
People who lived under Truman and Carter weren't too happy about economic conditions (inflation, etc). That goes for Nixon too, though.
Nixon ended the Vietnam War and opened trade with China, but Carter squandered the peace dividend and got hit with the oil embargo. Then Carter turned his attention towards Iran and gave us Khomeini.
-PJ
No one ever mentions that the dot com crash occurred at the end of Clinton’s term, and that Bush inherited it. I don’t BLAME it on Clinton, but there is no reason to blame the real estate collapse on Bush, either, yet Dems and the press DO blame him. NO policy passed during the Bush admin had anything to do with the real estate crash.
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.