//
you're reading...
Commentary and Opinion, Uncategorized

Are Democratic Presidents Really Better for the Economy than Republicans?

According to Richard J. Carroll in a Bloomberg.com Op-Ed piece promoting his new book, the answer is yes:

In “The President as Economist: Scoring Economic Performance From Harry Truman to Barack Obama,” I compare the 12 presidents since World War II using 17 economic indicators, including growth in gross domestic product, rate of unemployment, inflation, population below the poverty line, increase in the Dow Jones Industrial Average, savings and investment rates, exports and trade balances, federal budget growth, and debt and federal taxes as a share of GDP…

if we take the average for Democratic and Republican presidents we can make a head-to-head party comparison. The Democratic presidents scored substantially higher than the Republican presidents, with a score of 26.95. Republican presidents scored -26.95.

Whether or not I would agree with it, I am sure that someone could provide a reasonable comprehensive analysis of which party has been better (or worse) for the economy.  Make no mistake, Carroll’s article is no such thing.

A review of the comments to the article  reveals some of the obvious flaws of Carroll’s analysis including one reply that observes:

If only correlation proved causation how simple the world would be to understand. There is nothing quite like a business journal passing simplistic correlative analysis of an extremely complex system off as some kind of truth.

James Pethokoukis,  in his piece at The American Blog also takes aim and notes that:

Another big reason later presidents score worse than earlier ones is Carroll’s tilt against big government: Unfortunately, more recent presidents are therefore penalized for presiding over much larger government than their predecessors in the 1950s and 1960s — even though it was some of those very same predecessors — particularly Johnson and Nixon — who rigged the time bombs that have exploded into bigger and more intrusive government. Medicare should count against LBJ, for instance.

Now in Carroll’s defense, in his book  perhaps Carroll discusses or rationalizes his methodology and conclusions in a more convincing manner. Having said that I am not sure I am intrigued enough to put this one into the summer reading queue.

Click here to request a proposal from Barnhart Investment Advisory

DISCLAIMER: Nothing in this article should  be construed as a personal recommendation or investment advice.  Nor should anything in this article be construed as an offer, or a solicitation of an offer, to sell or buy any particular investment security.   Investors should conduct their own due diligence and seek the advice of a financial and/or investment  professional before making any investment decisions.

Discussion

No comments yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Receive notifications of new posts by email.

To subscribe enter your e-mail address and then activate via a confimation e-mail sent to the address provided.

%d bloggers like this: