A history lesson

[callmeslick]

....from Forbes:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/adamhartung ... -democrat/

[Spidey]

I had to stop reading when I got to the chart that had Carter at #6.

[Tunnelcat]

The correlation's not so quite so black and white slick.

http://www.factcheck.org/2015/10/clinto ... democrats/

[vision]

The correlation's not so quite so black and white slick.

Actually it is. Factcheck does not deny the existence of a gap. It exists, period. While both Factcheck and the authors of the study in question attribute a fair percentage of that success to luck, the remaining gap is almost certainly due to policy, though which policies contributed is not clear and probably will never be because there are so many interdependent laws in this country. However, it does imply a healthier political platform, if only marginally.

[Spidey]

The economy is better under Democratic presidents (the branch with little affect on the economy) but nobody can point to any specific policies that may be the reason. How convenient is that.

Not very scientific, maybe it’s magic.

Looking at the issue through that prism, without considering what the rest of government, federal and local was doing at the time is useless, except for political purposes. You also have to consider lag times between when a policy or law goes into affect and when it starts to actually change things, all leaving the idea that the health of the economy can actually follow any given presidency kind of dumb.

What really affects the economy:

The federal reserve banks
Local government policy
Congress (the branch that can actually make laws)
Consumers
Business
World & local events
Technology
Resources
ETC…

Get the picture?

Sure tax policy, spending surges and such can have a short term affect, but basically the economy works in cycles unrelated to such things in the long run.

Now with all of that said, I’m not going to discount the idea that a president with a great vision for the future can’t influence the economy in a positive way for the long run, and vice versa. But again these things would be long term, and not likely to cycle in sync with who is in office.

[vision]

What really affects the economy:

The federal reserve banks
Local government policy
Congress (the branch that can actually make laws)
Consumers
Business
World & local events
Technology
Resources
ETC…

Get the picture?

Correct, and the authors of the paper actually mention that Federal Reserve Chairmen appointed under Democratic presidents managed banks better than under Republicans. Clearly some of the other things you mentioned would also be influenced by sitting presidents. The fact that a single set of policies can't be identified isn't surprising, but also a little irrelevant to the point when we are simply looking at data in aggregate. "Which policy" is a different question for a different study.

Policy lag is important for sure, but an 8 year term is long enough to see the effects of some policies, especially if it means things like war spending, the creation of energy pipelines, and foreign trade deals.

Though really, both parties are essentially the same when it comes to screwing people over, so I don't really care either way.

[Lothar]

What's really interesting is that the best performance seems to be a Democrat president with a Republican congress.

It's almost like that thing I keep saying about "changing the rules" and "pushing through an agenda" being bad for the economy actually has some basis in fact.

[Spidey]

That is a good point, because left unchecked the Democrats would over burden business with every regulation and social service under the sun, and the Republicans would have no regulation at all.

But it seems that a middle ground can happen with a divided government.