Slashdot Mirror
Scott Adams's Political Survey of Economists
Buffaloaf writes "Scott Adams, the creator of Dilbert, wanted to have unbiased information about which presidential candidate would be better for the economy, so he financed his own survey of 500 economists. He gives a bit more detail about the results in a CNN editorial, along with disclosure of his own biases and guesses as to the biases of the economists who responded."
its actually surprising how forthcoming he was about his own biases too. A nice change from the majority of statistics that show up on the internets.
How about this (according to Michael Kinsley, Larry Bartels, etc.): Democratic presidents have consistently higher economic growth and consistently lower unemployment than Republican presidents. If you add in a time lag, you get the same result. If you eliminate the best and worst presidents, you get the same result. If you take a look at other economic indicators, you get the same result. There's just no way around it: Democratic administrations are better for the economy than Republican administrations.
Unless you are already independently wealthy, you will do better under a Democratic administration than a Republican one. Plain and simple. And if you are independently wealthy, well then you probably don't really care about a GDP percentage here or there. Bottom line, if you are voting "with your feet" on the economy, a Democratic vote is the clear choice, according to historic performance.
It's a racist epithet referring to black people.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
All universities teach Keynesian economics because it was a leading theory of economics at one time. But monetary policy and supply-side economics are taught as well. That doesn't nearly explain why most economists are Democrats. Since the 1950s, Keynesian economics has fallen out of favor as Monetary Policy under Friedman took a more prominent role. In the 1980s the rage was supply-side (Reaganomics) which most critics dismiss as woefully incomplete. Previous Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan has followed a more monetarist view in his tenure as Chairman.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Maybe, long-term, Democrats have been better for the economy
There's certainly evidence for that.
To summarize:
Since 1933, Republican administrations have averaged 1.25% annual job growth, while Democrat administrations have averaged 3.25%. Even after removing FDR's terms the Democrats still average 2.9% annual growth.
Since 1978, Republican administrations have increased government spending by an average of 3% annually, while Democrat administrations have averaged 2.5%.
Since 1978, Republican administrations have increased the national debt by an average of 9.1% annually, while Democrat administrations have averaged 1%.
Since 1978, Republican administrations have increased the GDP by an average of 2.7% annually, while Democrat administrations have averaged 3.1%.
It's quite a testament to the GOP's marketing skill that the average American associates them with smaller government, stronger economic growth, and more jobs.
How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
A "fucking cartoonist"?
How many books have you written? Have you started your own food company yet?
Wealthy people don't get that way by being lazy, son.
They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock
Not the way we do it. In the Keynesian model a country is supposed to only run a deficit during times of recession while during periods of economic prosperity a country is supposed to pay off any debt they have accrued and maybe save a little money for the next bust period. Our model goes more along the lines of running a deficit all the time.
I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
This is a joke, right?
The only presidents since 1963 to have ever submitted balanced budgets to Congress are Johnson and Clinton. At no time since 1945 when Republicans have been in charge of both Congress and the White House have they ever reduced spending.
The vast majority of the national debt to date was accrued during the Presidencies of three men: Reagan, Bush I and Bush II, all Republicans. In Reagan's case, he was working with a Republican Senate for his first 6 years in office, and Bush had Republicans controlling both houses for 6 years as well.
The Bush II years have seen tax cut after tax cut that were, in theory, supposed to result in increased growth and therefore reduced deficit. Instead, he has posted record deficits year after year. And still, the fiction that large tax cuts will somehow reduce the deficit persists.
The idea that Democrats are the big spending party and Republicans are fiscally responsible is pure fiction, and it boggles the mind why people continue to believe it despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Even the "big spending" LBJ was more fiscally responsible than the Republicans of the past 28 years.
If people would treat politics less like religion maybe they would make decisions based on actual historical data rather than what their party keeps telling them is the truth.
The 1998, 1999, 2000, and 2001 budgets had total spending for the year lower than total income for the year, not based on any sort of future payoff. Those were the first surplus budgets since 1969's small surplus. The deficit returned as soon as Clinton left office, as all of Bush's budgets have been in deficit.
See the CBO data, the past 15 years of which Wikipedia nicely graphs.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Clinton never had a surplus. My numbers indicate that he wasn't even close. Despite that, the numbers are extremely favourable for democrats.
Since the end of WWII, Democrats have been in office for 26 years, Republicans 36.
Since the end of WWII, Democrats have increased the debt by 2407 inflation adjusted million dollars, Republicans 7994.
Since the end of WWII, Democrats have increased the size of the budget by 687 inflation adjusted million dollars, Republicans 1450.
Thus, adjusted for inflation, every year the Democrats were in office, they increased the budget by 26 million inflation adjusted dollars, and the debt by 92 million inflation adjusted dollars, every year they were in power.
The Republicans have increased the budget by 40 million inflation adjusted dollars, and the debt by 222 million inflation adjusted dollars, every year they were in power. My numbers are charitable in that they don't take the wars in Iraq and Afganistan into account.
Here are the calculations, done with data available commonly off the Internet.
It's incredible to realise that the Republicans are incredibly fiscally irresponsible. They NEVER cut spending. They HATE cutting spending. They ALSO hate taxes. Basically, you're looking Republicans creating MORE government than Democrats, then NOT PAYING FOR IT.
It's been a long time.
The thing that tips economists is, I suspect, the same thing that tips most other analytical minds: the Republican party has been steadily tightening ties to the religious right. While religion is not uncommon among thinkers, secularism is more common, and evangelicalism is generally distrusted as too prescriptive and intolerant
nope, as a degreed economist, the thing which tips competent economists is the republican attachment to reaganomics.
reaganomics attacks the consumption side of the GDP equation, which also happens to be the largest portion.
It places implicit trust in agents who have no real liability, and are subject to moral hazard which republican economic policy-makers ignore.
It ignores the long-term consequences of allowing producers to put the squeeze on their labor (hint: you become unable to sell what you make, and... and this is a very relevant one today... people are financially unable to support a home purchase)
There are numerous other aspects of economic policy which incompetent politicians on both sides ignore: such as the fact that offshoring as a multiple-round game results in destruction of the middle class, but that's a discussion for another time.
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!