Business, Economics, Media Criticism, Political Commentary

Republicans And The Economy

12 Comments

This is a pretty strong correlation.

[Update a few minutes later]

Yes, I know that Republicans didn’t take control of Congress in 2010. The point is that the removed control of it from the Dems. That was all that was necessary. But it will also help to oust Harry Reid in November.

12 thoughts on “Republicans And The Economy”

    2. The rapid rise in oil prices was because of the subprime crisis. And the price collapse was also due to the lending crisis. Money has to go somewhere. It left the stock market and fannie/freddie and went into commodities. Then it left commodities as traders realized oil prices would drop because of the economic slowdown.

      Most democrats think money just appears out of thin air, but it has to come from somewhere.

      1. Money has to go somewhere.

        Wealth isn’t matter or energy, ruled by Newtonian conservation rules. It comes and goes, but not always from somewhere nor to anywhere. Thinking of it that way leads to things like Marx’s claim that profit is stolen from the workers.

      2. Most democrats think money just appears out of thin air, but it has to come from somewhere.

        It’s created, yes. They think it just happens and that the people who created it “didn’t build that.”

      3. One problem with trying to illuminate small aspects of a large subject is that when you’re responding to remarks about different small aspects, they can seem contradictory.

        The Democrats are erroneous when they assume that effort isn’t required to have wealth. They also err when they act like wealth is a zero-sum resource, which a person who has more must be depriving others of. These are errors in different directions, illustrating their lack of comprehension of the subject. Their ignorance enables them to hold contradictory ideas without noticing the contradiction.

        1. I agree that wealth is created, and it isn’t a zero sum game. But the markets are constantly shifting. You’ll see money move from the stock market to bonds to commodities. That is what I mean when I say it has to go somewhere.

  2. Control of the House is what matters in stuff like this (I think), with spending bills originating there.

    I’ve also seen a similar trend with deficits, with Democrats correlated with high variability, and Republicans associated with straight, steady decreases. I’m not sure how to show it mathematically. It’s more pronounced if you offset it by 2 years (elected in 1994, pass a budget in 1995, fiscal year ends in 1996). The only exception was the increase in 2003, but there was a steady decrease from then to 2008.

  3. “Nothing to do with the Subprime mortgage crisis, or the rapid rise in oil prices at the time?”

    I’m sure the Obamabot Eloi think these were caused by the mythical “Bush de-regulation.”

  4. I tend to be fairly impatient with these kinds of things. Use presidents instead of Congress, and you get mostly opposite results. As liberals do a lot. There are a lot of confounding variables, and looking for one that explains everything is not gonna work.
    Which is not to say that bad policies don’t make things worse.
    Plus, liberals can do conservative things, and conservatives can do liberal things. Nixon was a big regulator. Carter, along with a lot of bad things, did one excellent thing: he got rid of some very important regulations, and the positive impact was enormous. We can afford airplane flights today because of him.

  5. If you look back further you see unemployment falling in the late 90s and rising in the early 00s, all with a GOP House. If you go even further you see unemployment going up and down (including some very strong periods) while the Democrats had the House from the 1957 to 1995. And if you look at the White House instead you find that there’s much better GDP and job growth under Democratic presidents. If you really wanted to vote on the basis of this sort of correlation you might end up voting for a Republican congressman and a Democratic president. And, funnily enough, that’s what we’ve had for 13 of the last 21 years, and what we may well have for the next 11.

    1. Yep, it’s easy to predict a democratic victory when your strategy is to get everyone dependent on the government teat. Pretty cynical strategy.

Comments are closed.