Which Party is Better for the Economy?

[JohnStOnge]

I thought about trying to fit this into an existing thread but decided not to because I'm interested in seeing arguments on the subject. I saw a report on a poll result today whereby Republicans had a 15 percentage point among respondents on the question of which Party is better on the economy.

As I've said before I don't believe in voting on the basis of the economy. When I voted for Republicans in every race I ever voted on during 1976 through 2015 I never did it because of the economy.

But I know a lot of people do vote on the economy. You can Google around and see a general consensus that, historically over time and on average, the economy has done better when a Democrat has been President. I decided to just take a quick look at one measure myself. I found a list of annual real GDP growth rate at http://www.multpl.com/us-real-gdp-growt ... le/by-year. I considered the Party of the President for each year to be the Party of the President in office as of the end of the year.

The results: Average real GDP when Democrats were President is 4.70% and average GDP when Republicans were President is 1.76%.

So consistent with the conventional wisdom I've seen. That's not to say there was cause and effect. In fact here a Washington Post article that says the economy has been better on average when Democrats were President but we can't say it's cause and effect:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... 0de85b47fa

Still, they clearly say the economy has been better historically when Democrats have been President.

Why, then, do people think Republicans are better on the economy? If the real experience has been that the economy has been better historically when Democrats have been President, how did the idea that Republicans are better on the economy become established?

[93henfan]

Your reassignment is complete.

Congratulations!

[CID1990]

Your reassignment is complete.

Congratulations!

What's a fundamentalist christian social justice warrior to do?

Damn I used to think I didn't fit in anywhere but the trophy for sure goes to JSO


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JohnStOnge]

So I take it you guys don't disagree with the proposition that the economy has done better historically under democratic Presidents.

Here's an interesting effort to address the question:

https://wallethub.com/edu/which-party-i ... omy/24468/

Note that at the beginning of the article there's a reference to Republicans having the edge in terms of percentage people THINKING Republicans are better for the economy. But the results don't really support that. There are some mixed results because they look at a bunch of different things. But they have having a Democrat President as "better" for 11 of the 14 things; including GDP growth, employment, job growth, and income. And the over arching measure of the economy...GDP growth...has historically been best when there was a Democratic President and a Democratic Congress.

So, again: With that history, why do people tend to think Republicans are better for the economy?

[JohnStOnge]

Your reassignment is complete.

Congratulations!

I never supported Republican candidates because of the economy. And the reason for being against the Republican Party now isn't because of the economy. It's because of the dishonesty, corruption, and lack of integrity that became evident in association of its embrace of the vile atrocity that's in the President's position right now.

[93henfan]

Your reassignment is complete.

Congratulations!

I never supported Republican candidates because of the economy. And the reason for being against the Republican Party now isn't because of the economy. It's because of the dishonesty, corruption, and lack of integrity that became evident in association of its embrace of the vile atrocity that's in the President's position right now.

[JohnStOnge]

I never supported Republican candidates because of the economy. And the reason for being against the Republican Party now isn't because of the economy. It's because of the dishonesty, corruption, and lack of integrity that became evident in association of its embrace of the vile atrocity that's in the President's position right now.

Laugh as you will, but in the long term context the Republican Party is committing suicide. I'm somebody who voted in every election and always voted Republican during 1976 through 2015. I will never vote Republican again. My wife was a Republican who held Ronald Reagan victory Parties. As you know she worked her ass off to get onto the State Republican Central Committee as a "Tea Party" type recruited to beat the "establishment" candidate. Upon Trump's nomination she resigned her position and changed her Party registration from "Republican" to "Independent." Both of my kids were Republicans until Trump got nominated. Now they're both registered Democrats.

That's my immediate family. But it's well known that, though both Parties are shrinking as a percentage of the population, the Republican Party is shrinking at a faster rate:

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2 ... can-party/

A lot of the people calling themselves "Republican" now are not really Republicans. They are Trump cultists. And when the Trump thing is over they'll be gone. Meanwhile those who see the corruption, dishonesty, and lack of integrity associated with the Republican Party's embrace of an atrocity like Trump are not going to come back.

Principled Republicans wouldn't be supporting Trump. But what we've found is that there are an awful lot of Republicans who aren't principled.

[93henfan]

So principled Republicans should support Democrats. Noted.

We get it. You're all butthurt that a New Yorker won. It drives you batshit nutty.

Makes for great entertainment for the rest of us watching you work yourself into a repetitive lather. Keep up the good work.

[JohnStOnge]

So principled Republicans should support Democrats. Noted.

We get it. You're all butthurt that a New Yorker won. It drives you batshit nutty.

Makes for great entertainment for the rest of us watching you work yourself into a repetitive lather. Keep up the good work.

Fine. So, why do you think it is that a plurality of people think the Republican Party is better for the economy when history suggests otherwise?

Or do you disagree with the proposition that history suggests otherwise?

[HI54UNI]

[Chizzang]

John,
Due to confirmation bias run rampant
All threads with counter intuitive articles linked will be dismissed

Note to self

[CAA Flagship]

JSO is talking about the economy again?

[SeattleGriz]

What year span are you basing your GDP on?

[GannonFan]

You know, JSO likes to present himself as a thoughtful, reasoned opinion giver, but the reality is, he's just as blind to his partisan latherings as any partisan out there. He used to be a Republican zealot and is now flipped and is a Democratic zealot.

As for this particular argument, there's no way to correlate if any one party is better for the economy than the other. There's too much noise in the data and that skews it (a Republican was in office when the Depression started, and when the Great Recession started, but those market trends were already moving in those directions irrespective of the person sitting in the White House. And then you have Democrats who happen to come in after the markets have swung downward so of course the trend would be upwards after that - that's what markets do. And you have a Democrat in office during one of the largest military buildups in our country's history in WWII, and you have a Democrat in office that inherited the peace dividend from the Cold War ending). Too few data points and some are greatly skewed by outside events that may or may not have been directly related to the person in the White House. Statistically, you could never use this data the way JSO is trying to use it. But that's also what partisans do.

[AZGrizFan]

So I take it you guys don't disagree with the proposition that the economy has done better historically under democratic Presidents.

Here's an interesting effort to address the question:

https://wallethub.com/edu/which-party-i ... omy/24468/

Note that at the beginning of the article there's a reference to Republicans having the edge in terms of percentage people THINKING Republicans are better for the economy. But the results don't really support that. There are some mixed results because they look at a bunch of different things. But they have having a Democrat President as "better" for 11 of the 14 things; including GDP growth, employment, job growth, and income. And the over arching measure of the economy...GDP growth...has historically been best when there was a Democratic President and a Democratic Congress.

So, again: With that history, why do people tend to think Republicans are better for the economy?

Same reason immigrants and minorities tend to think they're better off voting Dem.

[89Hen]

Is the answer a pajama party?

[Pwns]

There's zero chance that JSO wouldn't show some skepticism about Donks being better for the economy if Jeb Bush or Marco Rubio were president. Seems like he is spending more time on Raw Story and Salon trying to find anti-Trump talking points for the last couple of years.

I'll say, though, that I really don't doubt that a policy of low taxes and high spending (which has been ongoing non-stop since Clinton was in office) typically will grow the economy more than low taxes and low spending. Trump has increased spending and cut taxes and on top of that there's been hurricane relief in the hundreds of billions of dollars the last couple of years so of course a lot of the indicators are up.

The question is how long is this sustainable? I don't really know, but I don't think we can just keep this up forever.

In any case, what the hell kind of sales pitch is "the donks will build a better economy that everyone including the rich will benefit from, but we need to oppose them because liberteh"?

[JohnStOnge]

You know, JSO likes to present himself as a thoughtful, reasoned opinion giver, but the reality is, he's just as blind to his partisan latherings as any partisan out there. He used to be a Republican zealot and is now flipped and is a Democratic zealot.

As for this particular argument, there's no way to correlate if any one party is better for the economy than the other. There's too much noise in the data and that skews it (a Republican was in office when the Depression started, and when the Great Recession started, but those market trends were already moving in those directions irrespective of the person sitting in the White House. And then you have Democrats who happen to come in after the markets have swung downward so of course the trend would be upwards after that - that's what markets do. And you have a Democrat in office during one of the largest military buildups in our country's history in WWII, and you have a Democrat in office that inherited the peace dividend from the Cold War ending). Too few data points and some are greatly skewed by outside events that may or may not have been directly related to the person in the White House. Statistically, you could never use this data the way JSO is trying to use it. But that's also what partisans do.

Did you not note my statement about not being able to say there is cause and effect?

But there is correlation. Your statement about "no way to correlate" is not correct. What you need to go with is not "there is no correlation." You need to go with "correlation is not necessarily causation."

What I'm talking about is this: The correlation is such that, overall, the economy has been better when Democrats have been President. That's the experience. So why is it that, with that experience, more in the population think Republicans are better at the economy?

[Ivytalk]

You know, JSO likes to present himself as a thoughtful, reasoned opinion giver, but the reality is, he's just as blind to his partisan latherings as any partisan out there. He used to be a Republican zealot and is now flipped and is a Democratic zealot.

As for this particular argument, there's no way to correlate if any one party is better for the economy than the other. There's too much noise in the data and that skews it (a Republican was in office when the Depression started, and when the Great Recession started, but those market trends were already moving in those directions irrespective of the person sitting in the White House. And then you have Democrats who happen to come in after the markets have swung downward so of course the trend would be upwards after that - that's what markets do. And you have a Democrat in office during one of the largest military buildups in our country's history in WWII, and you have a Democrat in office that inherited the peace dividend from the Cold War ending). Too few data points and some are greatly skewed by outside events that may or may not have been directly related to the person in the White House. Statistically, you could never use this data the way JSO is trying to use it. But that's also what partisans do.

Did you not note my statement about not being able to say there is cause and effect?

But there is correlation. Your statement about "no way to correlate" is not correct. What you need to go with is not "there is no correlation." You need to go with "correlation is not necessarily causation."

What I'm talking about is this: The correlation is such that, overall, the economy has been better when Democrats have been President. That's the experience. So why is it that, with that experience, more in the population think Republicans are better at the economy?

Because Republicans have been seen as the party of limited government and low taxes, and the Donks are seen as the party of state control and high taxes. It’s a simple answer, really. But now you’re an advocate of more government and less personal freedom, given your lockstep support of the Democrat party for the past two years.

[Ivytalk]

JSO is talking about the economy again?

Is that Alan Greenspan in front?

[JohnStOnge]

Because Republicans have been seen as the party of limited government and low taxes, and the Donks are seen as the party of state control and high taxes. It’s a simple answer, really. But now you’re an advocate of more government and less personal freedom, given your lockstep support of the Democrat party for the past two years.

But the argument is ultimately about which approach leads to a better economy. And the association has been such that, overall, the economy has done better when Democrats are in charge.

I'm not talking about a question of personal freedom. I'm just talking about how the economy has historically done. People have experienced better economy when Presidents have been Democrats. And they've experienced stuff like the Great Depression and the Great Recession (the 2008/2009 thing) starting when Republicans have been President.

Why on earth would their experience make them think that having a Republican in the White House is better for the economy?

[AZGrizFan]

But the argument is ultimately about which approach leads to a better economy. And the association has been such that, overall, the economy has done better when Democrats are in charge.

I'm not talking about a question of personal freedom. I'm just talking about how the economy has historically done. People have experienced better economy when Presidents have been Democrats. And they've experienced stuff like the Great Depression and the Great Recession (the 2008/2009 thing) starting when Republicans have been President.

Why on earth would their experience make them think that having a Republican in the White House is better for the economy?

lag time.

[Ivytalk]

But the argument is ultimately about which approach leads to a better economy. And the association has been such that, overall, the economy has done better when Democrats are in charge.

I'm not talking about a question of personal freedom. I'm just talking about how the economy has historically done. People have experienced better economy when Presidents have been Democrats. And they've experienced stuff like the Great Depression and the Great Recession (the 2008/2009 thing) starting when Republicans have been President.

Why on earth would their experience make them think that having a Republican in the White House is better for the economy?

lag time.

AZGF FTW!

[CAA Flagship]

But the argument is ultimately about which approach leads to a better economy. And the association has been such that, overall, the economy has done better when Democrats are in charge.

I'm not talking about a question of personal freedom. I'm just talking about how the economy has historically done. People have experienced better economy when Presidents have been Democrats. And they've experienced stuff like the Great Depression and the Great Recession (the 2008/2009 thing) starting when Republicans have been President.

Why on earth would their experience make them think that having a Republican in the White House is better for the economy?

lag time.

Absolutely. The most recent tax cut included incentives for companies to reinvest into their business for expansion, upgrades, automation, etc. The positive outcomes may not be seen for another 6-7 years.

[GannonFan]

You know, JSO likes to present himself as a thoughtful, reasoned opinion giver, but the reality is, he's just as blind to his partisan latherings as any partisan out there. He used to be a Republican zealot and is now flipped and is a Democratic zealot.

As for this particular argument, there's no way to correlate if any one party is better for the economy than the other. There's too much noise in the data and that skews it (a Republican was in office when the Depression started, and when the Great Recession started, but those market trends were already moving in those directions irrespective of the person sitting in the White House. And then you have Democrats who happen to come in after the markets have swung downward so of course the trend would be upwards after that - that's what markets do. And you have a Democrat in office during one of the largest military buildups in our country's history in WWII, and you have a Democrat in office that inherited the peace dividend from the Cold War ending). Too few data points and some are greatly skewed by outside events that may or may not have been directly related to the person in the White House. Statistically, you could never use this data the way JSO is trying to use it. But that's also what partisans do.

Did you not note my statement about not being able to say there is cause and effect?

But there is correlation. Your statement about "no way to correlate" is not correct. What you need to go with is not "there is no correlation." You need to go with "correlation is not necessarily causation."

What I'm talking about is this: The correlation is such that, overall, the economy has been better when Democrats have been President. That's the experience. So why is it that, with that experience, more in the population think Republicans are better at the economy?

Dude, correlation without causation is absolutely worthless, and even worse, can lead people, like yourself, to draw conclusions that have no basis in the data. If you're not going to acknowledge that the underlying data does not support your conclusions, why would you even make those conclusions in the first place? I am worried about you, you wouldn't have made such a crass and unsupported conclusion before Trump got elected. TDS is real.