PDA

View Full Version : Democrats better at Economics



Cigar
08-27-2012, 12:50 PM
80-YEAR STUDY: Democrats BETTER At ECONOMICS


When it comes to which party is better for the economy, Republicans talk the talk, but it's Democrats who deliver the goods according to an unusual 80-year study of the impact presidents have on growth, personal wealth, the stock market and even 401ks. The bottom line, according to Bulls, Bears and the Ballot Box: Of the five best economic presidents since Herbert Hoover, only one is a Republican. The paydirt finding: $100,000 invested during the 40 years Republicans had the White House would be worth $126,027. The same amount invested in the stock market during the Democrat's 40 years would be $3,912,210. "Our book is a myth buster," said financial planner Bob Deitrick who co-authored Bulls, Bears with CPA and educator Lew Goldfarb.

Goldfarb blamed the conventional wisdom that Republican presidents are better economic managers on the inability of Democrats to tell their story. "Democrats stand on their message so poorly," he said. "Republicans, on the other hand, win the salesmanship merit badge every single year."

The duo stumbled on their conclusions while working on a different issue. Researching the impact of politics on stock market trends, Deitrick realized that in the last 80 years, Democrats and Republicans have held the White House 40 years each, minus President Obama's term. They came up with a ranking system based on stock market returns, personal income, economic growth and business prosperity.

The best period was during the Kennedy-Johnson years, the worst Herbert Hoover, who presided over the Great Depression. In order, the rankings are: JFK/LBJ, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Bill Clinton, Dwight Eisenhower, Harry Truman, Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Jimmy Carter, Richard Nixon/Gerald Ford, George W. Bush, and Hoover. Carter was the only Democrat in the bottom half of the list.


http://washingtonexaminer.com/80-year-study-democrats-better-at-economics/article/2505194

Peter1469
08-27-2012, 01:55 PM
Better at destroying the economy....

birddog
08-27-2012, 02:05 PM
When I see most of what Cigar posts, I think of Bovine Scatology! It makes a big pile, and it stinks!

Cigar
08-27-2012, 02:07 PM
Good, then it's working :)

Surely you didn't expect me to make things comfortable for you?

Mainecoons
08-27-2012, 02:42 PM
Surely you don't believe that you influence anyone here?

If so, it would appear you have the same inflated ego as your Messiah.

Mister D
08-27-2012, 02:54 PM
Surely you don't believe that you influence anyone here?

If so, it would appear you have the same inflated ego as your Messiah.

That's the best thing about him. He thinks he holds his own. :laugh:

Captain Obvious
08-27-2012, 04:32 PM
The one flaw that I see with this study, several flaws actually is that the impact is measured on economic performance during said incumbents terms. That suggests economic strategies are short term in the sense that they are only for the duration of the incumbents office term.

Reality is that economic performance is long term - ie: strategies put in place during POTUS terms have longer impact than just the terms which they were implemented.

Another consideration is voting trends. Why presidents are elected and/or voted out of office. If a president is elected because the economy sucks, that president is likely to be hacking through a depressed economy. The real impact of that presidents economic strategies are likely to be enjoyed (or suffered) by successive presidents.

The other key flaw is that Obama's term was excluded. But again, my theory above still applies.

Mainecoons
08-27-2012, 04:48 PM
The other big flaw is that economic policy changes designed to improve the economy take a number of years to actually show up on the bottom line. The figure I've seen for this is 4-8 years. Clinton obviously benefitted from Reagan's changes just as Bush benefitted at first from Clinton's and the Republican Congress' budget balancing. Later, Bush got torpedoed by the housing and finance policies that happened under Clinton, plus of course, his own stupid war.

I realize that this level of understanding economics is well beyond Cigar's capacity so he believes the OP. Of course, the dismal economy under Obama was Bush's fault, so he doesn't believe the OP all the time, just when it works for the purpose of partisan hacksmanship.

Captain Obvious
08-27-2012, 04:54 PM
The other big flaw is that economic policy changes designed to improve the economy take a number of years to actually show up on the bottom line.

What I said, no?

Mainecoons
08-27-2012, 04:57 PM
Yes you did. I just said it another way. Neither will be understood by the OP.

:grin:

Captain Obvious
08-27-2012, 04:58 PM
Agreed

MMC
08-27-2012, 07:05 PM
Yes you did. I just said it another way. Neither will be understood by the OP.

:grin:

This may be the Case......but then the issue isn't really about the one who is behind the OP. Is it?

Chris
08-27-2012, 07:32 PM
Democrats BETTER At ECONOMICS

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."
~FA Hayek

So I think what you said is a malapropism.




Obvious, I couldn't agree more on your observation about short and long term strategies, and that politics is focused on the short when economic performance is long term. This sort of time preference is an attribute of democracy, especially social democracy, and why we're in trouble.

The Iroquois are aid to have considered the impact of their policies out to the seventh generation.