* Robert J. Chassell ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> * What would be the current GDP and median per capta US at the
> growth rate that Republican administrations achieved historically?
> Presume they were the only administration in power since 1948 (or
> whatever is the base year) and that they succeeded economically as
> well as they did.
>
> * What would be the current GDP and median per capta US at the
> growth rate that Democratic administrations achieved historically?
> Presume they were the only administration in power since 1948 (or
> whatever is the base year) and that they succeeded economically as
> well as they did.
On 2 May 2005, Erik Reuter wrote
The goal of any such analysis is likely to be to formulate a
future policy. ...
Actually, it is more likely to be used to choose which `clan' of
policy makers does better over generations.
... if the Democrats had been in power the whole 70 years, we
likely would have far overshot the sweet-spot on the liberal side
...
If that is the case, it would be a good idea to figure out the
overshoots. (I can think of several, such as commercial strip
developments, regional schools, ...)
Also on 2 May 2005, Maru Dubshinki wrote
... wouldn't it be almost impossible to untangle causation here?
Because the economy would run in cycles irregardless of which
party is in power, and voters would react accordingly; so a party
could get voted out on the basis of a normal cyclical downturn,
and voted in (or back in) on the strength of a economy they had
nothing to do with.
The check goes over 50 and possibly 70 years, so presumably economic
cycles that have nothing to do with politicians average out. Is it
fair to say that Dubshinki's argument suggests there would not be much
difference? (To put in a number, let's say that any difference less
than 10% is `not much'.)
JDG suggests a similar hypothesis. He said that
... the political party with the Presidency would probably be
somewhere just above sunspot activity ...
in creating economic growth. If the difference is less than 10%, then
this is suggestive evidence that the hypothesis is correct.
And let's not forget about long-term effects like research: how
should we credit the boom of the 90's? ...
That is true. But most of the short term changes seem to take no more
than two years.
As for long term changes: how do you measure that, other than by
looking at economic histories over the past two centuries and (if I
remember my economic history rightly) saying that
other than Great Britain,
* almost every currently rich country has gone through a generation
or so of fast growth (7% - 10% per year),
* almost every currently rich country has gone through a devastating
civil or foreign war within a generation or two of its fast spurt,
either before or after, and
* rich countries that emphasized education for the poor and for
women did a bit better than others ...
As for the US study, JDG said that this is `painting with an awfully
broad brush'. He is right. But the exercise does have the advantage
of looking over generations of time, so short term variations are
removed, except for politicians. And particular politicians do not
count either. I refered to `clans' of policy makers above; perhaps a
better notion is that of a `tradition' or `school of thought'.
If the difference is more than 10%, Then it would be worth considering
Erik Reuter's point. What overshoot do we expect? What were bad
policies? How have circumstances changed so that previously good
policies have turned bad?
--
Robert J. Chassell
[EMAIL PROTECTED] GnuPG Key ID: 004B4AC8
http://www.rattlesnake.com http://www.teak.cc
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
