MyDD :: We'd All Be 3 Times As Rich, If Not For Republicans!

We'd All Be 3 Times As Rich, If Not For Republicans!

by Paul Rosenberg, Wed Apr 27, 2005 at 04:02:12 PM EST

Okay, it's admittedly crude. But it's been well-documented--though completely ignored by RWCM--that Democrats are better for the economy. By a wide range of measures, the economy does better under Democratic Presidents, and when Democrats control Congress. There's a good summary of these, "DEMOCRATS v. REPUBLICANS on the issue of the U.S. ECONOMY" But how much better? Well, there's no way to say, since there are so many measures.

But, in order to grab attention to this broad phenomena, it does help to try and get some global sense. And the best cadidate for that is GDP growth under a president. There is GDP data from 1930 ($865.2 billion) through 2004 ($11,000.3 billion).

The average GDP growth over this time is 3.56% (I'm rounding off the actual numbers used). Under GOP presidents it was 1.83%, under Dem presidents it was 5.07%--that's 178% higher.

Smooth growth of 3.56% over this time would yield a higher 2004 GDP than actually occured, so I applied a "fudge factor" of -0.128985 (what the numbers look like when they're not rounded) to make the two match. Applying the same fudge factor to the Dem performance yields a growth rate of 4.94%. Plugging this in, the end result is a 2004 GDP of 32,236.7 billion--2.93 times that actual GDP.

That means that, roughly speaking, we'd be almost 3 times as rich if no Republican had been elected since Hoover--or rather, if Hoover had been replaced with a Democrat in 1930, and no Republican had served as President since then. [More added below the fold...]

Update [2005-4-27 19:28:46 by Paul Rosenberg]:

Let's complete the exercise I began above. Let's compare the GOP GDP the actual one. Again, I apply the fudge factor, for a growth rate of 1.70%. And we end up with a GOP GDP for 2004 of $3,059.7 billion. About the same as India in 2003--$3,033 billion in purchasing power parity in 2003, according to the CIA Factbook. That's just 27.8% of the actual US GDP. And it's a miniscule 9.5% of the Dem GDP!

HOLY SHIT!!!!! Over a 75 year period, a pure Democratic economy outperforms a pure Republican economy by an order of magnitude!

I gotta confess, even I had no idea that the differences would be this overwhelming. This has got to be the best kept secret in American politics. Why in the world don't we hear this sort of comparison every day of our lives?

Anything after that is bound to be anti-climactic. But another way to look at this data is in terms of when the same GDP levels would be reached. The actual GDP reached the GOP GDP in 1966, and will reach the Democratic GDP in 2036--a 70 year difference! That's right, it takes 70 years of actual growth to rise from the 2004 GOP GDP level to the 2004 DEM GDP level.

Saving Social Security

This suggests a very simple Democratic Plan on how to save Social Security: Elect Democratic Presidents from now until the end of time. That will ensure high levels of GDP growth, which will mean plenty of money in the Social Security trust fund, and absolutely nothing to worry about.

Tags: (all tags)

Permalink :: 43 Comments :: Post a Comment

History says that yes.. we would.. Look at stocks (none / 0)

and wages.. And consumer confidence..

All up in Dem adminstrations, down in GOP..

Its as if they were all suffering from Munchausens..

Heroically 'cure' the 'patient' - by killing them..

I will try to find some relevant URLs..
Did you see the social mobility study that came out yesterday?

Its all starting to add up...

by ultraworld on Wed Apr 27, 2005 at 02:44:29 PM EST

Sample size (none / 0)

And note that the shittiness of hoover and the economic growth of the 60s and 90s (which was sustained by polices which caused much of the problems that developed in the 70s and 00s--Eurodollars and the government not doing shit to regulate ANYTHING during the 90s).

the results are pretty interesting and very telling, but there have been only 19 presidential elections between today and 1930, so we hardly have a good statistical distribution from wich to say our results are valid.

Then again, THESE numbers are so extreme that they might be statistically significant. The scientist in me is screaming "be skeptical," however.

"You say the world has lost it's love I say embrace what it's made of" -Dar Williams

by Valatan on Thu Apr 28, 2005 at 02:19:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Sample size (none / 0)

The ones I've checked, stock-market growth and job growth, are statistically significantly better under Dems: see Phraxos for this and plenty more details. Because the economy does so whoppingly-much better under Dems, even with only 19 elections, the Dems are significantly better performers.

by conchis on Thu Apr 28, 2005 at 03:04:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Sample size (none / 0)

It's not just 19 elections. It's 75 years.

You've got to count the number of dependent variables. Otherwise, you could say, it's just 2 parties, and that would forever rule out attaining statistical significance.

by Paul Rosenberg on Thu Apr 28, 2005 at 12:14:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

That's right. (none / 0)

Who knows, a Democratic President might have beaten the average! Then we would be 8 times as rich!

Excuse me while I go talk to my lawyer. There are a few Republicans I want to sue.

by Sanity on Wed Apr 27, 2005 at 02:45:41 PM EST

You may be understating the difference (none / 0)

What if you factor in all of the lost ground that Democratic adminstrations allowed the American people to recover from? You should also factor in the actual negative losses that Republican adminstrations have cost the American people.

GDP will tend to understate this factor, because the majority of income growth under either a Democratic or Republican adminstration goes to the top 10%.

One example would be the minimum wage. If Democrats had been allowed to increase the minimum wage over the years, low income people would be significantly better off. The resulting upward pressure on wages would have improved the net income of all middle class Americans, and to a far lesser extent the income of high wage earners.

The result would be a much lessened level of inequality in wealth and a much kinder, more desireable political and economic climate. There probably would also have been a significant reduction in crime.

There definitely would have been far less dependence on oil and a far cleaner environment. In absolutely every way, Democrats perform better than Republicans. Their only drawback is that they are total idiots at campaigning and developing a message that compels American voters to vote Democratic.

With the exception of lower taxes and higher budget deficits, I can't think of a single criteria by which it can even theoretically be postulated that Republicans outperform Democrats.

by Gary Boatwright on Wed Apr 27, 2005 at 03:37:24 PM EST

Re: You may be understating the difference (3.00 / 0)

Republicans also magically improve on Democrats on one other index: lower inflation. The reason is that the economy is so sluggish that the demand for goods is held down. Thbe "R" in Republican, after all, stands for recession.

by David Kowalski on Wed Apr 27, 2005 at 03:55:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You may be understating the difference (none / 0)

Lest we forget each of these is more than counter-balanced by Republican foibles. Clinton lied about sex; Reagan led about US foreign policy (Iran-Contra). Teddy Kennedy's car "killed" one woman; W's war killed 100,000 (and counting) Iraqis under false pretenses (besides, if car kills are so big, you got Laura Bush and we got Teddy Kennedy, a tie brokem in South Dakota ...).

Let's get away from these phony personal moraslity things and get to results. Based on results, you'll go Democratic every time.

by David Kowalski on Wed Apr 27, 2005 at 04:25:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You may be understating the difference (none / 0)

Oh yeah, pardons. Gerald Ford pardonned Nixon. I'll balance that against the Puerto Rican terrorists any time.

Want to add Ike's indiscretions with his WWII car driver Kate Summersby? The wholesale looting of California consumers by Republican=connected Enron under Republican=passed deregulation (which not only looted California but put another Republican in the Governor's chair).

How about the looting under Harding and Grant. Local malfeasances like the NJ Motor Vehicles scam. etc.

Republicans are hardly a font of virtue! Get off your high horse!

by David Kowalski on Wed Apr 27, 2005 at 04:30:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You forgot about how (none / 0)

the Dems hate Jesus, eat babies, and are secretly arming terrorists.

Isn't propaganda fun?

In the meantime, the Reeps currently in power are burying their own crooked deals, running the economy into the ground, and trying to incite violence against judges. But you go on worrying about where Slick Willy's __ has been.

Yeah, I'm cynical.

by catastrophile on Wed Apr 27, 2005 at 04:39:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Truth is a cure for ideological blindness (none / 0)

At least you are becoming aware of your blind faith in Republicans jcassity. That is genuine progress. Unfortunately, you are still fixated on Clinton's minor transgression. Clinton lied about having oral sex, something nearly any husband who had not confessed his filandering to his wife would do. The popular comeback to this accusation is "Clinton lied, and no one died."

Bush, on the other hand, has lied repeatedly about everything from WMD to Social Security going bankrupt to the latest whopper this morning:

DeLay said he and Bush talked about the local Ellington Field airport, Social Security and the federal budget.

Asked about reports that a lobbyist had paid for DeLay's overseas travel, he said: "I didn't know that that went on."

I'm not sure what to think about that. Are we supposed to believe that Shrub is so uninformed and ignorant about the latest charges against DeLay that he is not aware that one of DeLay's trips was charged to Abramoff's credit card? Maybe it's easier being President if you are oblivious to reality.

If you want to compare Clinton's administration or personal integrity to Bush, Bush loses on all counts. Show me anything during the Clinton administration that compares to:

34 scandals during Bush's first four years (watch 60 second ad for day pass)

Here is an itemized break down of the corruption documented in two movies and 26 books just for starters. I haven't even been able to get through the rest of the evidence. This is a mind boggling compilation.

Since most Republicans are bound to bring up Whitewater, let me remind you that absolutely nothing in any of the "Whitewater" investigations was ever linked to Clinton. He is without question the most honest President we have had since President Carter. The evidence linking Bush to Enron is much stronger than any of the trumped up Whitewater accusations.

As far as the notorious Chappaquiddick accusation against Sen. Kennedy, if you or anyone else has evidence of murder, there is no statute of limitations. You should probably present your evidence to the local or state prosecutor. In fact, if any of this were genuine evidence, I guarantee there would be a half a dozen law firms willing to handle the case pro bono.

On the topic of manslaughter, Laura Bush was the driver in a fatal automobile accident that killed her boyfriend of the time. Is Laura Bush a murderer? Why not? Exact same situation.

You lost me on the Puerto Rican terrorist jcassity. I'm afraid I am not up to date on all of the unsubstantiated freeper accusations against the most honest President since Jimmy Carter. Could you fill in the details?

by Gary Boatwright on Wed Apr 27, 2005 at 05:20:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

More cure for ideological blindness (none / 0)

Just in case that wasn't enough, there is far, far more.

How about the cover up of the worst environmental disaster since the Exxon Valdez spill?

Don't forget about corruption in Iraq.

Then there was the pharmaceutical pork bill that was such an abomination it required blackmail to get passed.

I'm far from done yet jcassity. I'll be back in a little while with some more goodies.

by Gary Boatwright on Wed Apr 27, 2005 at 06:23:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

20/20 Vision (none / 0)

This should just about wrap up most of the known corruption in the Bush administration so far. Of course, with their fetish for secrecy, we have no way of knowing for certain that the list is complete. In any event, I think you will agree that the level of corruption in the Bush administration exceeds Warren G. Harding, another Republican president, which makes this the most corrupt administration in American history. With three years to go, Bush has already left a legacy that will be difficult to match.

Here's a scandal I don't even remember. Courtesy of The Peking Duck a rundown on the appointment of L. Jean Lewis as chief of staff of the Defense Department's inspector general office, as chronicled by Orcinus. Since perjury is such a bugaboo in your eyes, I'm sure you will appreciate this detail:

Lewis' numerous phone calls to U.S Attorney Banks' office also struck him as "unusual. I saw no need for the sense of urgency except for who the witnesses were [the Clintons] ... so it caused me to be very circumspect about it." The calls "came between early September and Oct. 16," said Banks. Assistant U.S. Attorney Floyd Mac Dodson recalled that Lewis made these calls "between the first of September and probably November, around election time ... I got the impression she thought I was not moving fast enough."

Lewis later swore under oath that she hadn't contacted the FBI or Banks' office until after the election, in December 1992 -- a statement that was refuted by the testimony and contemporaneous notes of Irons, Banks and numerous other federal law enforcement officials.

It's always worth remembering that the Whitewater case was itself built on perjured testimony. And that wasn't Lewis' only bit of perjury:

A far more serious threat to Republican plans occurred in July when the RTC finally drew up charges against Lewis and Iorio for an agency investigation, among them improper disclosure of confidential documents, secretly taping RTC employees (Lewis said the recorder "turned itself on"), keeping confidential documents at home and using government equipment for personal gain.

One can only marvel at the irony, considering the key role Lewis played in Ken Starr's Whitewater investigation.

I'm sure you've heard the classic expression "If you don't think Cheney is President, you don't know Dick!" Since Vice President Gravitas is probably making more decisions than Bush himself, we can't ignore the corruption charges filed against Cheney by Judicial Watch.

Following the maxim "it takes a thief to catch a thief," Bush appointed Deputy Atty. General Larry Thompson, to clean up corporate America. Thompson's new anti-corruption task force was barely up and running when he was sued for fraud. Thompson was accused of dubious accounting practices and insider trading while on the board of Providian.

I think we can all agree that Republicans in general, and Bush in particular, are peerless in the category of political corruption.

by Gary Boatwright on Wed Apr 27, 2005 at 07:43:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You may be understating the difference (none / 0)

When the Repugs are presented with facts they do not like, they change the subject. Their subjects are petty, mean spirited and unhelpful to the common man. See Exhibit A above.

by SRconbio on Wed Apr 27, 2005 at 09:46:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

We would all be richer (none / 0)

For a lot of other reasons too. Dems are better for the economy and stock market because their policies favor consumption and stimulus. Easier money (lower interest rates) and fiscal policies that stimulate the economy. Fewer favors and market skewing for big business.

Republicans favor concentration of wealth, and keeping wages down and money tight, therefore holding down spending. During the period from 1980 to now, we had only the Clinton (boom) years to remember what Democrats mean to the economy, and the Reagan (1982) Bush I(1992) and Bush II (2001) recessions.

I am always amused that Wall Street supports Republican presidents, because it isn't really good except for the top .5%.

by Mimikatz on Wed Apr 27, 2005 at 04:38:02 PM EST

That's true. (3.00 / 1)

The recession did indeed start in late 2000. It was almost as if somebody in a position to do so had stepped on the brakes of the economy.

Of course, it's not as if anyone could have seen that a recession would result from that action.

And it would be absurd to think that the person in charge, a Reep appointee who's bent over backwards to play apologist for Gee-Dub's economic and fiscal policies, would have any motive to send the economy into recession under a Dem President in an election year. I can't imagine why anybody would think that.

Yeah, I'm cynical.

by catastrophile on Wed Apr 27, 2005 at 06:21:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

a real moron . . . major league idiotic. (none / 0)

There are lots of things you could call a Dem President who gutted welfare, got union-busting "free trade" through, pushed the media deregulation that's given us these misinfotainment conglomerates, and maintained the Reep policy of blowing the crap out of Iraq on a regular basis.

Some would call him a moron. Others might call him a Reep in disguise. Or a great uniter. Or a shameless opportunist. Or even a politician. There's a fair bit of infighting here on this and collateral issues.

Whatever he was, you have to admit that Clinton seemed quite proud of himself for working with Reeps, and they seemed quite proud of themselves for f@cking with him.

Yeah, I'm cynical.

by catastrophile on Thu Apr 28, 2005 at 12:46:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The buck always stops someplace else (1.00 / 0)

Bush is never responsible for anything, yet wants to take credit for everything. When the Korean nuclear proliferation talks broke down, wingnuts were even blaming Carter. Since everything that goes wrong is the responsibility of a Democrat, even though Republicans control all three branches of government, perhaps they should also be given credit for everything that goes right.

Assuming anything ever goes right under the malfeasance of the Bush administration. Are there any bright spots in the last five years that Bush has had anything to do with?

by Gary Boatwright on Wed Apr 27, 2005 at 08:08:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The Red Sox Won The World Series (3.00 / 1)

Are there any bright spots in the last five years that Bush has had anything to do with?

'Cause if he hadn't become President, he'd have become Baseball Commissioner, and destroyed the game before the Sox could win!

by Paul Rosenberg on Wed Apr 27, 2005 at 08:50:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Time Frame Is Too Long (none / 0)

Looking back to the start of the Depression is way too far -- the prosperity of the past 60 years is a product of the WWII industrialization, and the baseline should begin in 1945 or 1946.

Then you will have an accurate model.

by ck on Wed Apr 27, 2005 at 04:41:18 PM EST

I Used The Longest Consistent Time Series (3.00 / 0)

Rather than make an arbitrary decision, I used the entire time series from the BEA.

You can argue that it's unfair, but FDR's presidency is the defining presidency of the modern Democratic Party. It would be highly arbitrary and historically misleading to eliminate it. What's more, you can't simply assume that Republicans would have gotten us to the same place by 1945-50. There is absolutely no reason to believe this, particularly if you go back and read the history of the time.

In fact, if the GOP had maintained power, there is no guarantee that the US would have survived as a democratic Republic, much less that we would have been in any shape to mobilize to fight WWII. The country was facing a deep crisis of confidence, and there was real fear that a fascist-style dictatorship could come to power. Or, OTOH, a Communist revolution.

Furthermore, the GOP was pretty strongly opposied to getting involved in WWII. If they'd been in power, accomodation with Japan & Germany would have been highly likely. So, no massive military-industrialization in that scenario. And two powerful industrial giants--Japan and Germany--dominating the globe afterwards. No, that doesn't sound too good.

Can I say for sure that this would be the outcome? No, of course not. But it is a real live possibility. Hence, you cannot simply throw out the FDR data, just because you think it would be "more accurate" to do so.

You are simply assuming what you would like to prove--that liberal Democratic policies don't make a profound difference in people's lives.

by Paul Rosenberg on Wed Apr 27, 2005 at 06:40:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

FDR Is The Greatest (none / 0)

Don't get me wrong -- I believe FDR is the greatest President EVER. But his contributions were so extraordinarily transformational, they set the stage for the creation of modern America.

But the changes from the start of the Depression to the end of the War were so profound, they defy imagination. For that reason, a comparison from 1945 on would be informative.

Truth be told, we NEED a Transformational Progressive Democrat, like FDR. LBJ tried, but his deal with the Devil in Viet Nam brought the reactionaries to power, and they have been ascendant ever since.

by ck on Thu Apr 28, 2005 at 01:14:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Most Republicans Don't Act Like Republicans (3.00 / 2)

While Republicans are supposedly known for supporting less government intervention, both in wealth transfers and in government services they rarely live up to that reputation as much as they claim. Usually about the only thing they have guts to do is lower taxes. If they do cut government it is usually only replaced by other government, such as Reagan shifting tons of money to military spending. Result? Huge deficits that we end up paying for eventually in both taxes and economic growth. Also why many Republicans often run up the 'free-market' banner they also structure policy that instead of truly 'freeing' the market, only favors big business. Republicans are generally bad policy makers, and that is true whether you really believe in the 'Republican' doctrine or not, simply becuase they rarely have the guts to really implement conservative policy.

by Freedom Fighter on Wed Apr 27, 2005 at 04:51:25 PM EST

Republican is for Recession: (none / 0)

Republicans are for big government that benifits the super rich and shifts the tax burden from the rich to lower and middle income persons. Republicans purposely try to bankrupt the federal government so that social programs are unifordable.

Councilman Bill Painter

by Painter2004 on Wed Apr 27, 2005 at 05:08:32 PM EST

Re: Republican is for Recession: (none / 0)

ohhhhh.....that's a goodin'!!!!!!!!!!!!

by Nazgul35 on Wed Apr 27, 2005 at 05:10:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

What's the drag of the Repug Congress? (none / 0)

We need that as well....

Consider how much better Clinton would have done with a Democratic House....

What's the impact of the combination of both a R President and an R Congress?

Inquiring minds want to know....

by Nazgul35 on Wed Apr 27, 2005 at 05:09:41 PM EST

Of course... (none / 0)

...there's much less data on that, since the House and Senate had been mostly in Democratic hands throughout the twentieth century.

by Geotpf on Thu Apr 28, 2005 at 11:57:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]

In Terms of the Dow (none / 0)

I have read about 12% per annum for Dems, about 2% for Republicans. But this does not keep the dumb, overpaid SOBs on Wall St. from being overwhelmingly Republican.

by Bob H on Wed Apr 27, 2005 at 05:27:10 PM EST

Wall Street is not dumb (none / 0)

Wall Street makes money regardless of which way the market goes. Consider the huge amounts of money Merrill Lynch made from the Orange County bankruptcy here in California. In spite of clear malfeasance by Merrill Lynch, they are bidding for some new bond financing business currently in front of the Orange County Board of Supervisors.

Of far more importance to Wall Street than the direction of the market, is unfettered freedom from government regulation. As long as they have the freedom to fleece their customers, Wall Street is happy. Republicans are much more tolerant of corporate corruption. In fact, you could say that Republicans encourage corporate corruption. Birds of a feather and all that.

by Gary Boatwright on Wed Apr 27, 2005 at 05:45:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What about Economy by Congressional Control? (3.00 / 1)

Control of the House:

1901-1911 Republicans
1911-1917 Democrats
1917-1933 Republicans (nice try about the depression)
1933-1947 Democrats
1947-1949 Republicans
1949-1995 Democrats
1995-present Republicans

by Nazgul35 on Wed Apr 27, 2005 at 05:41:04 PM EST

Re: What about Economy by Congressional Control? (3.00 / 1)

GDP per year:

http://www.bea.gov/bea/dn/nipaweb/TableView.asp#Mid

Year    GDP    change    CongCombo
1929    103.6    -      R-R
1930    91.2    -12.4    R-R
1931    76.5    -14.7    R-R
1932    58.7    -17.8    R-R
1933    56.4    -2.3    R-R
1934    66    9.6    D-D
1935    73.3    7.3    D-D
1936    83.8    10.5    D-D
1937    91.9    8.1    D-D
1938    86.1    -5.8    D-D
1939    92.2    6.1    D-D
1940    101.4    9.2    D-D
1941    126.7    25.3    D-D
1942    161.9    35.2    D-D
1943    198.6    36.7    D-D
1944    219.8    21.2    D-D
1945    223.1    3.3    D-D
1946    222.3    -0.8    D-D
1947    244.2    21.9    D-D
1948    269.2    25     R-R
1949    267.3    -1.9    R-R
1950    293.8    26.5    D-D
1951    339.3    45.5    D-D
1952    358.3    19     D-D
1953    379.4    21.1    D-D
1954    380.4    1     D-R
1955    414.8    34.4    D-R
1956    437.5    22.7    D-D
1957    461.1    23.6    D-D
1958    467.2    6.1    D-D
1959    506.6    39.4    D-D
1960    526.4    19.8    D-D
1961    544.7    18.3    D-D
1962    585.6    40.9    D-D
1963    617.7    32.1    D-D
1964    663.6    45.9    D-D
1965    719.1    55.5    D-D
1966    787.8    68.7    D-D
1967    832.6    44.8    D-D
1968    910    77.4    D-D
1969    984.6    74.6    D-D
1970    1,038.50    53.9    D-D
1971    1,127.10    88.6    D-D
1972    1,238.30    111.2    D-D
1973    1,382.70    144.4    D-D
1974    1,500.00    117.3    D-D
1975    1,638.30    138.3    D-D
1976    1,825.3    187    D-D
1977    2,030.9    205.6    D-D
1978    2,294.7    263.8    D-D
1979    2,563.3    268.6    D-D
1980    2,789.5    226.2    D-D
1981    3,128.4    338.9    D-D
1982    3,255.0    126.6    D-R
1983    3,536.7    281.7    D-R
1984    3,933.2    396.5    D-R
1985    4,220.3    287.1    D-R
1986    4,462.8    242.5    D-R
1987    4,739.5    276.7    D-R
1988    5,103.8    364.3    D-D
1989    5,484.4    380.6    D-D
1990    5,803.1    318.7    D-D
1991    5,995.9    192.8    D-D
1992    6,337.7    341.8    D-D
1993    6,657.4    319.7    D-D
1994    7,072.2    414.8    D-D
1995    7,397.7    325.5    D-D
1996    7,816.9    419.2    R-R
1997    8,304.3    487.4    R-R
1998    8,747.0    442.7    R-R
1999    9,268.4    521.4    R-R
2000    9,817.0    548.6    R-R
2001    10,128.0    311    R-R
2002    10,487.0    359    R-R
2003    11,004.0    517    R-R
2004    11,735.0    731    R-R

by Nazgul35 on Wed Apr 27, 2005 at 06:31:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

These numbers are so old as to... (none / 0)

...be completely useless, IMHO.

by Geotpf on Thu Apr 28, 2005 at 12:04:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

More GOP Lies (none / 0)

Of course, the economy was quite poor throughout the 30's until WWII

The Depression continued, of course, because the hole the GOP dug was so deep. But the growth rates from 1932-1940 were nothing short of stupendous: a 60.6% increase in GDP. The avegage annual growth was 6.25%.

Except for the impact of WWII industrialization, we haven't seen anything like that since. 8-year GDP growth rates peaked at 117% in 1946, due to WWII spending. Even before the WWII growth rate bulge disappeared from the data, in 1950, the 8-year growth rate fell to 58.9%. The next great peak was 1960-68, 49.1%, followed by 1963-71, 47.1%. The famed "Reagan Boom" (1980-88) was a pathetic 24.7%. Clinton (1992-2000) did only mildly better 27.5%.

We can only dream of economic growth as poor as that in the 30s.

As for the late-30s recession: The GDP in 1936 exceeded that of 1929. Feeling that the Depression was over, FDR reverted to his instinctive desire to balance budgets, The result was a one year recession, reflected in 1938 GDP. Roosevelt realized his mistake, corrected it, and had a higer GDP in 1939 than in 1937--an unprecedented bounce-back from a sharp recession.

Growth rates dropped from 5.14% in 1937 to -3.45 in 1938, a wholloping drop of 8.59%. Growth then exploded back to 8.07% in 1939, for an astronomical 11.52 increase in growth rate. This is the most dramatic demonstration in history of how well deficit spending works.

by Paul Rosenberg on Thu Apr 28, 2005 at 12:10:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What about Economy by Congressional Control? (3.00 / 1)

Control of the Senate:

1919-1933 Republicans (again, nice try on the depression)
1933-1947 Democrats
1947-1949 Republicans
1949-1953 Democrats
1953-1955 Republicans
1955-1981 Democrats
1981-1987 Republicans
1987-1995 Democrats
1995-present Republicans

by Nazgul35 on Wed Apr 27, 2005 at 05:46:41 PM EST

Re: What about Economy by Congressional Control? (none / 0)

look again....

I posted the yearly data above....even during the 70s the economy grew....

During the 20s the economy collapsed.....

I am sure if you brought in the late 1800s it would get even worse for the Republicans....

by Nazgul35 on Wed Apr 27, 2005 at 06:34:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Minor correction (none / 0)

You forgot about the tied Senate after Jeffords' switch.

by Geotpf on Thu Apr 28, 2005 at 12:05:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

It's even WORSE than you say; (none / 0)

since the republicans have run up about 90% of our debt with their budgets, we'd not have had to pay all that interest (over 6 trillion since 1980) and we'd have been able to afford TWICE the tax cuts Bush II gave us PLUS universal healthcare for 50 years, PLUS keeping Social Security solvent for 100 years PLUS ...well, you get the idea.

by PBJ Diddy on Wed Apr 27, 2005 at 05:58:05 PM EST

S&P 500 by Congress: (none / 0)

Democratic Senate: 10.5% growth
Democratic House: 10.9% growth

Republican Senate: 9.4% growth
Republican House: 8.1% growth

Councilman Bill Painter

by Painter2004 on Wed Apr 27, 2005 at 05:59:32 PM EST

Please Note My Update (3.00 / 0)

Just to underscore how dramatic the difference is, I've added a comparison to pure GOP performance. If anything that's even more astonishing.

by Paul Rosenberg on Wed Apr 27, 2005 at 07:33:57 PM EST

Typical wingnut waste of bandwidth (1.00 / 0)

Absolutely unbelievable! First you have to establish that there is even a minor causal connection between partisan control of Congress and economic growth. The problem with that assumption is that the Executive proposes and Congress disposes.

Without the authority to actually generate economic legislation, there is no valid argument that Congress is responsible for economic growth. That's like giving someone's excretory system credit for that person's decision to consume a healthy diet.

by Gary Boatwright on Wed Apr 27, 2005 at 08:15:21 PM EST

We'd All Have Health Care (none / 0)

if we'd never voted for a GOoPer.... I know that. And no one would ever stick in a crappy job just because they need the medical insurance. That's not my case right now, but damn, other people have to make that choice.

That is a crappy choice to have to make.

SquareState.net - Colorado Politics

by pacified on Thu Apr 28, 2005 at 02:47:28 AM EST

I liken this theory (none / 0)

to the one that, if you feed a child three
meals a day of equal proportion, 2% more
than you had, his growth chart will linearly
climb to a height 10% taller than yourself.

So if you modelled under, lets say,
FDR - the costs of government would
have set our tax rate to 45%. FDRs
new deal policies would have long
bankrupted our country - they were
set in motion to deal with the
depression. The policy was removed,
when it was no longer necessary.

Policy ebbs and flows, conservative
to democrat, and back - in the service
of the people.

The flat growth proposition is what holds
up this argument. Lets do it for Clinton's market economy.

That would trend Coke to 200.00 a share, Pepsi to about 210.00 a share, and Red Hat Linux would be selling at 500.00 a share.

In Rosenburgs case, he makes an innocuous 1.7%
assumption of growth. Note that he chose it low.
Compile the trend numbers in a spreadsheet
and you find they exponentiate.

Why choose a lower growth
rate than the historical average under
these presidents?

Because his assumption creates exponential
growth trendlines. He had to pull back
to 1.7% because the numbers sounded
too silly.

A well sharpened axe to grind, this post is.

I would recommend an empirical approach
if you want to get at why the Dems seemed
to have better performance.

Look at predominantly democratic
nation states, in Europe, and
go over their growth pattern. Their
growth rates are far lower that
the rates of Fascist countries.

Thats right folks, like China.
Which is growing at 16% per year.
(China regularly seizes land and hands
it over to businesses. Outwardly they
are communist but inwardly they are fascist)

Mann, in his letter that railed against
the nazis - made clear that the
Academics allowed the fascists to come
to power.

The line of inquiry here, where you
make that key assumption - is
incorrect. And following it leads
to the conclusion that strong government
- can be strengthened exponentially I am sure.

Heil, Rosenburg!

>:)

by turnerbroadcasting on Thu Apr 28, 2005 at 10:09:00 AM EST

Unbounded Ignorance (none / 0)

By now, all careful readers on this site must know that TB has a low signal-to-noise ratio, and this post is no exception. But there's also the problem that the signal is often just plain wrong. And again, this post is no exception.

Obviously, TB has confused the Great Depression with World War II. (Hint: Here's how you tell them apart. In the movies, Shirely Temple ended the Great Depression by dancing, and John Wayne ended World War II by being John Wayne. Got it?)

% of GDP
Year Receipts Outlay Icon
1930    4.2    3.4 Shirley Temple
1931    3.7    4.3 Shirley Temple
1932    2.8    6.9 Shirley Temple
1933    3.5    8.0 Shirley Temple
1934    4.8    10.7 Shirley Temple
1935    5.2    9.2 Shirley Temple
1936    5.0    10.5 Shirley Temple
1937    6.1    8.6 Shirley Temple
1938    7.6    7.7 Shirley Temple
1939    7.1    10.3 Shirley Temple
1940    6.8    9.8 Shirley Temple
1941    7.6    12.0 Shirley Temple
1942    10.1    24.3 John Wayne
1943    13.3    43.6 John Wayne
1944    20.9    43.6 John Wayne
1945    20.4    41.9 John Wayne

(From Table 1.2, available on the webpage "Budget of the United States Government: Historical Tables Fiscal Year 2005".)

Policy ebbs and flows, conservative to democrat, and back - in the service of the people.

This is the comic book version of the myth that my figures refute. Stupendously low growth does not serve the people.

Why choose a lower growth rate than the historical average under these presidents?

Because the historical avergage produces a higher current GDP value than the real one. That's because of the quick-and-dirty methodolgy used--which I admitted to up front. The Democratic growth rate was lowered by the same amount, btw.

These figures are still a whole lot more rigorous than anything you'll get from the Bush Administration, as any regular reader of reports from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities will know.

Look at predominantly democratic nation states, in Europe, and go over their growth pattern. Their growth rates are far lower that the rates of Fascist countries.

Such as that well-known economic powerhouse, Franco's Spain, right?

The line of inquiry here, where you make that key assumption - is incorrect. And following it leads to the conclusion that strong government - can be strengthened exponentially I am sure.

The old Road to Surfdom canard. Seventy-one years later, and not one democratic welfare state has turned into a totalitarian state. Not one! Who's not being empirical here?

Heil, Rosenburg!

Ooops! Goodwin's Law! You lose!

by Paul Rosenberg on Thu Apr 28, 2005 at 11:23:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.