Economic sage Alan Blinder asks Is History Siding With Obama's Economic Plan?
The stark contrast between the whiz-bang Clinton years and the dreary Bush years is familiar because it is so recent. But while it is extreme, it is not atypical. Data for the whole period from 1948 to 2007, during which Republicans occupied the White House for 34 years and Democrats for 26, show average annual growth of real gross national product of 1.64 percent per capita under Republican presidents versus 2.78 percent under Democrats.
Like they say, “If you want to live like a Republican, vote Democratic.”
One could just as easily argue that the economic policies of one administration take time to work through the system and so the credit / blame for certain periods of growth is misplaced.
Regardless I think you’re giving too much credit to the CinC. While they have some means of steering the economy, when you’re heading straight into a hurricane (our growing federal deficit, huge unfunded entitlement program expenses, 30 years behind on our energy policy) the next few presidents will be doing all they can to keep the ship afloat, let alone tacking in one particular direction.
Or, this has been discussed extensively over many years at various economics blogs, and the issue you raise has been discussed extensively as well. The problem is that the trend is so consistent. There’s been particular discussion of it at Angry Bear. The author of the bulk of those posts, however, left the blog to write a book on the subject, here: http://presidentialperformance.com/
Did you even bother to read the second paragraph I wrote Melinda?
No matter who our future president(s) is/are, they’re facing a number of factors that are going to direct our economy far more than a president could ever hope to.
Headline: Alcohol Makes You Happier than Water!
But the morning after alcoholic debauchery, everyone drinks water and swears they’ll never do it again.
I’m too lazy to google this guy but is this blog really run by a law professor or just an undergrad poli-sci student?
Damn! You’ve figured out my secret identity!
“No matter who our future president(s) is/are, they’re facing a number of factors that are going to direct our economy far more than a president could ever hope to.”
Or, you’re committing the same fallacy as those who say that there’s no reason to worry about human impacts on global warming because natural processes contribute more to global warming than humans do. Just because one input is large doesn’t mean that all other inputs are irrelevant. In fact, when outside factors put a system closer to the edge, the factors we can control become even more important. If I was up to my neck in a swimming pool, I’d care quite a bit how much more water someone was going to pour into the pool.
Or, despite any evidence to the contrary, I am not willing to accept any argument that challenges my preconceived notions about which party is more interested in economic growth. You could just as easily argue that any ignorant individual could poke holes in such a theory in a couple throw-away sentences on a blog. Its just too difficult to say, there is too much going on to isolate one factor.
Indeed, I am even unwilling to investigate any such discussions or investigations. The threat to my sense of order to the universe is just too serious to even contemplate.
Melinda, please note that my second paragraph precludes any attempt at so-called logical argument or information on where to find more substantive discussion, so you needn’t bother, thanks.
One might point out that trickle-down theory has been discredited, or that free-market economics is roughly equal to crony capitalism in practice, but that wouldn’t be prudent, now would it.
I am a libertarian who believes in personal freedom, small government, and fiscal sanity. That’s why I always vote for the GOP.
Thank you.
My 401K LOVES Bill Clinton.
My Money says…. vote for Democrats !