PeakTrader.com Forum Index PeakTrader.com
Economics, Portfolio Optimization, and Technical Analysis
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
Log inFast Charts

Presidential Administrations Economic Performance

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic     PeakTrader.com Forum Index -> Articles
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
administrator
Site Admin


Joined: 28 Dec 2005
Posts: 11966

PostPosted: Fri Feb 06, 2015 6:00 am    Post subject: Presidential Administrations Economic Performance Reply with quote

PeakTrader:

There aren’t enough observations to make it statistically significant.

It may be coincidence, inheritance, and/or luck.

Yet, Keynesian economics has a positive effect on growth.

Democrat Presidents may spend and borrow more from the future causing faster growth in the current period.

Republican Presidents may spend and borrow less from the future causing slower growth in the current period.

And, I suspect, if Democrats had their way, taxes and regulations would be too high, and if Republicans had their way, taxes and regulations would be too low, influencing living standards, not necessarily captured or reflected in GDP and other economic data.

---

CB:

Your claims about borrowing and spending sound truthy, but are they?

The chart above shows that of the top five borrowing administrations, four are Republican administrations, and only one is Democratic.

As for spending growth, the inflation adjusted spending growth rates of each administration show that it’s a little less cut and dried: of the top five spending growth administrations, three were Democratic but two were Republican.

So I’m not sure how your premise holds up as a blanket statement.

---

PeakTrader:

CB, it’s likely, more spending takes place in recessions, whether there’s a Democrat or Republican President.

Here’s a table on annual (fiscal year) federal receipts and outlays:

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=200

Also, I may add, perhaps, Republican Congresses are more likely to constrain Democrat Administrations spending?

And, it should be noted, in economic expansions, tax revenues rise and spending on the unemployed falls.

---

Macroduck:

CB is generous with “truthy”.

It is simply untrue that Republicans in general borrow and spend less. Not only that, but the chart offered above is pretty clear in making that point. Anyone, really, anyone who has paid any attention to economic policy knows that Reagan and Bush Jr. drove up the deficit greatly, even in times of expansion. Those who don’t bother to know the simplest facts, or pretend not to know facts i convenient to their own views, can’t be trusted to be part of an honest discussion.

---

PeakTrader:

macroduck, someone who doesn’t even know the difference between deficits and spending cannot be trusted.

Lower tax rates can reduce government revenues to increase budget deficits.

---

Spencer:

There should be another indicator on this list– the Federal budget as a share of GDP.

Since WW II every democratic administration left office with a smaller deficit than they inherited.

In contrast, every republican administration left office with a larger deficit than they inherited.

---

PeakTrader:

Spencer, your statement is misleading, e.g. for reasons I stated above.

For example, Wilson and Roosevelt – both Democrats – from the beginning to the end of their terms had much larger budget deficits / GDP, because of WWI and WWII (the largest by far in the 20th century).

---

Spencer:

Peak
Trader, you need to work on your reading skills. I specifically said since WWII so Wilson and Roosevelt are not included in the comparisons.

---

PeakTrader:

Spencer, you need to work on your reading skills. I specifically said:

“…e.g. for reasons I stated above,” which included “There aren’t enough observations (i.e. Presidential Administrations) to make it statistically significant.”

Moreover, I may add, magnitude can have similar importance as frequency, over time.

---

Macroduck:

Peaky,

You have suggested that spencer has made a misleading statement. In doing so, you are dispicable and arrogant, both in one rhetorical gesture.

Spencer’s point is true. Pure and simple. Your objections may be worth considering, but only in a foot-note sort of way. You are pretending to have invalidated spencer’s point, but have done no such thing. The simple fact that you have made a point does not make that point important. There’s the arrogance. The dispicable part is that you’ve tried do discredit spencer – “misleading” – rather than debate him.

Analysis doesn’t stop just because of a limited sample. We can still exercise judgement even when we can’t make claims about statistical significance. The record spencer reports is a pure dichotomy, with all post-WWII Republican administrations on one side,all Democrats on the other. Falling back on sample size as an excuse for ignoring that stark fact is pathetic.

---

PeakTrader:

macroducky, you’re either incapable of understanding why his statement is misleading or want to remain ignorant.

For example, if tax rates were cut to zero, budget deficits would increase.

Making nonsense doesn’t help your case.

---
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic     PeakTrader.com Forum Index -> Articles All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by PeakTrader 2.0.8 © 2001, 2002