Comments on: The Left, the Right, and Income Growth

By: Gerard

Gerard — Tue, 02 Dec 2008 16:43:03 +0000

Yes this data absolutely holds up over time. Go to http://blueorred.atspace.com/email.htm to see graphs from 1948 to 2005 and from 1968 to 2007, both with very similar results to those posted here. And none of these are hand-picked years — the graphs simply use whatever data is available, and as you can see, whatever data is available always provides similar results.

At that same site you can also see graphs (again with similar results) for unemployment, national debt, GDP, corporate profits (yes, even corporate profits!), the stock market, etc. And all this data goes back to the 1940′s.

Perhaps most important: statistics professionals have found these results “statistically significant,” which means, in plain English, that the results are not the result of random chance. That outside variables (such as control of Congress, business cycles, etc.) cannot explain these results. That the results are scientifically proven to be correlated directly with who is in control of the white house. You can read more about the import of this statistical significance at http://blueorred.atspace.com/skeptic.htm

By: Free Markets and Labor « Vox Nova

Free Markets and Labor « Vox Nova — Thu, 01 May 2008 14:47:16 +0000

[...] So what the bishops and everyone else who isn’t an Austrian doesn’t know is that productivity improvements allow for an increase in the standard of living. The only problem is on the empirical side we aren’t seeing these productivity improvements being passed along to the workers in this country. During the Clinton years almost the entirety of the wage improvements among the poorest 40% were a direct consequence of the minimum wage hike. This was dispite massive productivity improvements. In England, incomes among the poor grew at the same rate or slightly better than the wealthy. (See here.) [...]

By: Bruce Steinback

Bruce Steinback — Sat, 23 Feb 2008 01:47:29 +0000

An interesting post, but for a different reason altogether. Please note that in England the quintiles have largely increased at similar rates for the past 30 years (especially during Labour control), while in the US the top quintile has pretty much exploded while the lower quintiles mostly rot. Even during the 90′s boom the richest made out like bandits. So much for trickle-down

By: K. Larson

K. Larson — Fri, 22 Feb 2008 07:14:48 +0000

Considering the extent to which policy impacts on income growth will be buried beneath business cycles and delayed by everything from price stickiness to implementation delays, it seems safe to discard this data for the purposes of determining which team is better on the economy. Factor in the variations in party control at different levels of government and the variation of policy viewpoints within parties (Clinton vs. LBJ?, Reagan vs. Bush?) and we’re plainly on a fool’s errand.

I DO find the data interesting for the commentary it makes on American voting trends as a response to economic conditions. Does rising income and stability engender a more socially conscious worldview amongst the electorate? Do lean times bespeak a popular preoccupation with ostensibly “tough-guy” leadership? This seems to be the relevant question to ask the data.

By: Mark

Mark — Wed, 20 Feb 2008 18:39:24 +0000

Is it really valid to do an analysis with a sample size of 3? Also, Clinton followed conservative economic policies, the proof of this being that Arthur Laffer is a big fan of his. So you have studied three economically conservative periods in order to compare conservative and liberal policies?

By: eightnine2718281828mu5

eightnine2718281828mu5 — Tue, 19 Feb 2008 02:37:55 +0000

—
I’m thinking the Dems (like me) might not come out looking so good.
—

Yeah, unless you compare them to the Republicans. Then they look great.

By: Steve Roth

Steve Roth — Tue, 19 Feb 2008 02:22:33 +0000

It’d be worth re-running this for control of House/Senate/both.

I’m thinking the Dems (like me) might not come out looking so good.

By: Noni Mausa

Noni Mausa — Mon, 18 Feb 2008 18:47:34 +0000

This topic is handled in detail over on the Angry Bear blog http://angrybear.blogspot.com/ . Contributor “cactus” has been assembling data mostly from the Bureau of Economic Analysis National Income and Product Accounts (NIPA) and laid it out showing the preformance of presidents since Ike, on various measures.

I gather a book is on the horizon, more info available here:
http://www.presidentialperformance.com/ The large, brightly coloured graphs make things easy to evaluate.

Noni

By: eightnine2718281828mu5

eightnine2718281828mu5 — Mon, 18 Feb 2008 15:44:53 +0000

—
In the US comparison you are forgetting the technology boom that occurred during the Clinton Administration.
—

You detract points from Clinton for a free-market expansion, but not for Bush’s socialist expansion built on 0% real interest rates and his massive expansion of the federal deficit.

By: Technologist

Technologist — Mon, 18 Feb 2008 14:49:55 +0000

In the US comparison you are forgetting the technology boom that occurred during the Clinton Administration. This event had very little to do with the Clinton Administration but completely changed the economy. One could probably argue that the boom took place because of the economic policies of the Reagon/Bush administration. As often the case, the evidence can be misleading here and perhaps a longer analysis of the two policies is necessary.

By: Noam

Noam — Mon, 18 Feb 2008 14:48:25 +0000

Very interesting! and certainly not what I would have predicted. Is there similar data that goes farther back. That would make the analysis far more compelling. As it is, its Clinton vs. the Bushies and Reagen. Certainly a worthwhile comparison, but one that is laden with confounds.