On 5/6/05, Erik Reuter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > * Erik Reuter ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > > Productivity data is from: > > http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/OPHPBS/2/Max > > > > You can see a graph of productivity growth here: > > http://erikreuter.net/econ/ophpbs.png > > > > *I did not include years 1953, 1961, 1969, 1977, 1981, 1993, or 2001 in > > the calculation of average annualized productivity growth for obvious > > reasons. > > I've added some more economic variables to the calculation. All data > is from the St. Louis Fed website given above, covers the period > 1947-2004 but does not include the years given above. All data are > average annualized growth rate in percent, and all numbers are "real" > inflation-corrected numbers. > > -------------------------------------------------------- > Rep Dem Statistic > ======================================================== > 4.7 7.2 Non-residential Investment > 0.9 1.7 Hours worked business sector > 1.7 1.6 Civilian Workforce > 1.2 1.3 Population > 3.4 4.6 Output business sector > 2.5 2.8 Output per Hour business sector > 3.2 4.0 Disposable Personal Income > 2.5 4.8 Compensation, wages and salaries > 3.2 4.3 Real GDP > 2.0 2.9 Real GDP per capita > 3.6 3.3 Inflation (personal consumption expenditure) > -------------------------------------------------------- > > In addition to the Democrats doing better than the Republicans across > the board, two things are worth mentioning: > > * Investment grew significantly faster under Democratic presidential > terms than Republican. This argues against the idea that the Democrats > are getting credit for long-term improvements made during Republican > terms. If investment pays dividends many years down the road, then it > would actually be the Republicans who would be getting "unfair" credit > from the Democrat's rapidly increasing investment. > > * Hours worked increased faster than the civilian workforce under > Democrats, but hours worked lagged growth in the civilian workforce > under Republicans. Democratic policies seem to make better use of the > available workforce. > > -- > Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ >
This is very good and similar studies have been done with slightly different assumptions, including the first year or not, doing a similar analysis with the binary variable the control of the House or Senate, variable lag times, etc. The conclusions are the same. 1. The GOP is not as good for the economy - they have a set of economic beliefs they apply that have individual benefactors but are not good for the economy as a whole. 2. Presidents generally apply brakes and fix things the first year or so and then increase government spending, employment, tax breaks, and add other stimulus to increase economic well-being for more people for reelection. I like what you are doing. (I am wondering if that is as true for the GOP since Reagan. They don't seem to believe that policies increasing employment and tax breaks for the non-rich stimulate the economy and instead use trickle-down theories that don't have as strong a stimulus affect. That was what happened to George the 1st. Any stimulus he applied for reelection came in too late. By contrast, Clinton took a lot of heat from the Democratic base for concentrating on the economy, making it the priority at the expense of policies Democrats would have loved to roll out immediately. The result was a great economy with investment tax credits for the new industries that create jobs and by the time they turned to health care the opposition was well-organized and well financed against it. The emphasis on newer parts of the economy, high-tech and entrepreneurs is also generally Democratic. The GOP seems to emphasize agriculture, mining, and old established cash-cow dividend paying businesses like utilities along with military technology.) As I explained in a reply to JDG the well-known spurious correlation for two or more increasing time series does not apply in this case. This is one time-series with one independent binary variable - the party in power. Each party has had a set of economic prescriptions and theories it believes in. The GOP set doesn't work as well. - Gary Denton Easter Lemming Blogs http://elemming.blogspot.com http://elemming2.blogspot.com _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
