QotNews Hacker News, Reddit, Lobsters, and Tildes articles rendered in reader mode.
American Economic Review (Top-tier peer-reviewed journal) "The US economy has performed better when the president of the United States is a Democrat rather than a Republican, almost regardless of how one measures performance"
The very wealthy do better under a Republican administration. They have lots of money to donate to Republicans candidates campaigns. Using the media and advertising they can disparage any opposing Democrats and promote themselves as the experts overseers of growth and prosperity. Facts are not checked, the truth never told.
The Dems are at a disadvantage due to the fact that the masses have little disposable income to donate to their campaigns. There is not a lot money to spend on glitzy ads.
The Citizens United ruling definately tilted the playing field in the Republicans favour. The judges obviously had to know that when they made the ruling. I don't see the political system changing until politicians are held accountable when they lie and mislead their constituents.
Citizens United ruling helps democrats more than republicans
According to data from the Brennan Center for Justice, dark money hit a record high of $1.9 billion. Groups boosting Democrats accounted for roughly $1.2 billion, while groups boosting Republicans accounted for about $664 million
This doesn’t matter. The popular belief is that the opposite is true. Democrats don’t make a big deal about any of the good that they do and end up hiding in their shells whenever any opposition comes forth to what they want to do. It’s why Republicans will keep winning and the economy will continue to suffer outside of the pockets of the wealthy
Wealthy people have safety nets to get through hard times. Working class people need to eat so they are willing to sell what assets they have / accept bad employment to put food on the table. That allows the wealthy to buy up the distressed assets and consolidate wealth. Or minimizes their need to bargain with employers.
Honestly there's two very different lessons that we (humans, et al) already learned (multiple times) that we are learning again, very harshly. The two lessons should not be able to exist at the same time, and the only reason they do is because the parents of the boomers established a system to prevent this exact shit from happening again.
Slavery or other kinds of extremely exploitive labor practices, like long working hours, constant churn of employees, and so on is bad for the employees and the employers as well as the business and the customers. Everyone loses.
A centralized system does not necessarily mean it has zero communication with a decentralized counterpart. A centralized system to manage, monitor and distribute public services makes sense. Why? Because "charity" when it is established through 69420 gajillion different foundations and 42690 individual trust funds, all of which exist primarily to dodge taxes and only do the public benefit part to the bare minimum... doesn't work, and leads to the previous point... with the additional wrinkle that now there's almost literally infinite money just sitting in accounts accumulating and doing nothing
And whether or not "primarily exists to dodge taxes" applies to each and every different charitable organization doesn't necessarily make a difference. It really doesn't matter because if they were all truthfully working as a public benefit, they would organize better and sort of spontaneously create a government. But they're not - the majority are tax dodges or other kinds of deceptive schemes. So the few that are actually trying to do good things are forced to be spread very thin - which is worse for the people trying to do good as well as the billions of us who are harmed by this stupid as fuck logic that is a result of cold war era all against all idiocy
No way, yes they do. Many speeches that a dem makes will have some acknowledgement of the success of their policies, because that's probably what happens a majority of the time when a politician makes a speech and such a statement is relevant, regardless of party.
The phenomenon is that a surplus of american voters just....believe it all happens differently than it does. In order to really see the data that dems are better for the economy you have a to a lot of reading, reflecting, comparing...nerdy shit. Not what your average american is super into apparently. And this is not to say they're dumb, they're just apathetic towards cerebral things, and put their stock in tangible things that they can feel with their hands. Things that hit them in the face like propaganda.
So people just sort of buy into this idea that the hard talkin', hard fartin', take no shit, tell it like it is cowboy that the republican portrays himself as is somehow gonna make us more money. Maybe they think that that guy only cares about money, so we'll all have more money. Then they think about the dems, "oh they're woke, they wanna give all the money to the poor. They wanna give all the money, my money, to people that are needy. Maybe those people should get better jobs. It's not my problem. It's MY money,"
It is just that people believe it all happens differently than it does. No matter how much you show, measure and document; people just believe differently.
Or people who are smart but stubborn, or proud of something, or love their family so much that they simply must believe what their family believes and don't think critically enough about these things. I don't know, I just know lots of people that are otherwise cool that buy into the whole "republicans are better for the economy" deal.
Yeah, and the people who did do the "a lot of reading, reflecting, comparing...nerdy shit" said this:
>We find that oil shocks, productivity shocks, and, depending on the sample, defense spending, foreign economic growth, or a measure of consumer expectations jointly explain as much as 70 percent of the partisan gap. Some, maybe all, of these might be considered blends of good policy and good luck. But our empirical analysis does not attribute any of the partisan growth gap to fiscal or monetary policy.
Yeah but the question isn't whether the democrat policies are "good for the economy", we're talking about how people associate republicans with "I'm gonna have more money". Also, can we just acknowledge that "good for the economy" is kind of nebulous and hard to prove or disprove?
This doesn’t matter because time and again, white america will prefer cutting off their nose to spite their face if someone nonwhite sniffs success along with the majority of white america.
It’s happened time and again. See public pools, public healthcare, see college education, see the GI Bill, see redlining, see the homestead act, see the electoral college, see the 3/5ths compromise, and the list goes on and on.
It’ll continue to happen unless white america rejects white supremacy.
The Democrats aren't earning the outperformance. It's caused by oil shocks, foreign developments and consumer expectations. (which are hard to pin down to claim a causal growth impact).
The GDP growth doesn't correlate with Democratic control of congress. Where legislation is written and passed into law.
It's specifically says it's not a result of policy. It's a garbage paper it's not news that there is a bit better gdp growth under Democratic presidents. It's been in political magazines forever. The authors tried to find a causal link and they couldn't. It doesn't mention anything about the Supreme Court.
It would make sense if the outperformance occured with Democrats controlling the house and the presidency. But their is no outperformance under those circumstances.
The Democrats are lucky and only slightly better. 1.8% better performance is not much to write home about.
People should really read the paper, because their conclusion certainly isn’t that it’s mostly policy driven, or that Dems always have great (or even better) policy. “We find that oil shocks, productivity shocks, and, depending on the sample, defense spending, foreign economic growth, or a measure of consumer expectations jointly explain as much as 70 percent of the partisan gap. Some, maybe all, of these might be considered blends of good policy and good luck. But our empirical analysis does not attribute any of the partisan growth gap to fiscal or monetary policy.”
They only looked at gross fiscal policy and monetary policy. What I mean by "gross" is that they simplified it to the amount of spending, not necessarily how it was distributed. Republicans like to focus on tax breaks and other things that benefit the wealthy. Democrats focus on spending on programs that affect the wider population. Plus, there are lots of policy decisions that are not strictly fiscal. How much and how an administration enforces regulations, for example, could have a big effect, especially on things like big financial scandals and the build-up of bubbles.
Plus, there's corruption. In my (possibly biased) view of the news over the decades of my life, Republican administrations have had more frequent and more serious corruption scandals. I think those sorts of things tend to get the economy into more trouble, too.
But they only tested fiscal policy broadly and not its specific allocations. They did not look at non-fiscal policies like regulations at all. That's fine. All papers have limits, and they were focused on eliminating possibilities.
The most important macroeconomic stuff happens at the federal level, though. Think of SEC, Treasury, things like that. The state and local governments aren't and can't do much about those things, and big businesses are always complaining about federal regulations. They're often there for good reason, though. They help to avoid bubbles and nonsense like the Savings and Loans crisis. Democratic administrations seem to take that role more seriously than Republican ones.
Do you seriously think the AER didn’t consider this?
As I said, most regulatory burden happens at the state level, and federal introduces an endogeneity issue.
But feel free to use their free resources to replicate in any way you feel fit. Open science is a grand thing. Especially if you have no need to worry about endogeneity.
Would like to see a 2029 version and see if the pattern holds.
Doubtful
If only we could return to the semi/mostly truth era of pre 2016 where we had Romneys, Obamas, McCains, Bushes, Gores, and Clintons as possible presidents.
I don’t think Romney or McCain would have been so irresponsible to combine steep tax cuts without meaningful spending cuts, tariffs, and restricting immigration while the country’s demographics are actively worsening.
If you remove the disasters that are W and Trump, fiscal policy should be much more rational between the two parties and largely more external shocks (both positive and negative) that boosts an economy when a democrat is in office vs republican. For example, H W Bush began the formal negotiations of NAFTA and the broad strokes of the deal were already negotiated before Clinton entered office, yet he oversaw the gains from freer trade of North America.
> I don’t think Romney or McCain would have been so irresponsible to combine steep tax cuts without meaningful spending cuts, tariffs, and restricting immigration while the country’s demographics are actively worsening.
Why do you think they would have been any different from any of the other Republicans in the last 50 years
How many times are you gonna get scammed by the same scam
Heck, when the DotCom Recession started kicking off in the final half of Year-2000 while Clinton was in Office, the Media was blaming Bush43 for all of it through the first 2 years of that Administration.
The Jimmy Carter Years of 79 and 80 nearly gave us another Great Depression. Definitely would have happened in 81/82 if Carter got reelected.
TBH, the whole talking point of "Economy is better under Democrats" is partisan political hack verbal diarrhea slop.
It's not just about the President. House, Senate, Judiciary, Bureacracy, and the Compositions of The State Governments have more long term impact on economics in the Country than the President.
Also; changes in Laws and other Policies by their nature produce various types of economic disruptions and shocks.
Does no one remember that time that George Bush cut taxes on rich people, ran up the debt, started a stupid and expensive war in the Middle East, and slapped tariffs on critical inputs?
We're gonna have to do all this shit again in eight years, aren't we. Americans are utterly incapable of learning.
Not really, he's done things republicans have done repeatedly. He's just not very good at long/medium term planning or at focusing on none thing at a time which makes his particular version of, say, reganomics, more obviously dumb but its still reganomics.
A similar thing happens in politics here in in Canada. It's a widely-held belief that electing the centre-left NDP would make for economic disaster, yet they're the party which has brought more balanced budgets than any other provincial party in this country.
The only metric that matters to the decision makers under capitalism is how much money flows from the working class to them. Who cares if they shed some excess human capital?
Given that the economy is and has been on a downward trajectory for decades in terms of growing living standards, maybe a better way to say this is that the economy is less bad under Democratic leadership than Republican.
i think this has been a long established trend, however the question remains- is it possible for a democrat to fix trumps economy? he has 25% of the total national debt under him, and years to go. he is an antiglobalist..which is not very good for trade! we have lost a generation of scientists and engineers. I sincerely do not believe a democrat wants to be held accountable for attempting to fix another economic disaster.
One interesting idea I heard wa that looking at just the president is naive. You need to consider the house and Senate. The actual bear performance occurred with a Democrat president and Republican Congress.
Democrats could perform better because they are more likely to experience a house and possibly Senate from their party. Republicans are unlikely to have a Republican house, and thus suffer much more gridlock.
Still a busted ass obsolete economy because it relies on endless profit and growth on a finite planet with finite resources, and more and more people are conscious of this objective reality and want to move past it
It also can't really compete well with the state-sponsored entities of China. There is massive value on having the government subsidize and control the entire supply chains of industries. If half the components in Intel's semi fabs were made by the government and given to Intel at below cost, and then the US also paid for 2/3 of those parts, it's pretty clear they'd have an advantage. That's what China has been doing for decades. Well, that and stealing tech for their companies to save on R&D costs. Capitalism can't compete with that sort of pseudo-capitalistic system.
I wouldn't call China's system Communism, and I don't think the US has a very healthy form of capitalism...not that China's is particularly healthy either. Honestly, I'm not sure how to answer your question. Personally, I prefer socialistic forms of capitalism, e.g. Scandinavia. But, I certainly wouldn't say that's most efficient or effective if the outcome is pure market domination and productivity. It's just the best when the goal is human happiness.
IntroductionOk9280 | 6 hours ago
The very wealthy do better under a Republican administration. They have lots of money to donate to Republicans candidates campaigns. Using the media and advertising they can disparage any opposing Democrats and promote themselves as the experts overseers of growth and prosperity. Facts are not checked, the truth never told.
The Dems are at a disadvantage due to the fact that the masses have little disposable income to donate to their campaigns. There is not a lot money to spend on glitzy ads.
The Citizens United ruling definately tilted the playing field in the Republicans favour. The judges obviously had to know that when they made the ruling. I don't see the political system changing until politicians are held accountable when they lie and mislead their constituents.
Strange-Maize9536 | 9 minutes ago
Citizens United ruling helps democrats more than republicans
According to data from the Brennan Center for Justice, dark money hit a record high of $1.9 billion. Groups boosting Democrats accounted for roughly $1.2 billion, while groups boosting Republicans accounted for about $664 million
GameDoesntStop | 3 hours ago
The economy does best under a Dem president and a GOP house.
The economy does worst under a GOP president and Dem house.
YodaForceGhost | 7 hours ago
This doesn’t matter. The popular belief is that the opposite is true. Democrats don’t make a big deal about any of the good that they do and end up hiding in their shells whenever any opposition comes forth to what they want to do. It’s why Republicans will keep winning and the economy will continue to suffer outside of the pockets of the wealthy
Franklin_le_Tanklin | 7 hours ago
Really it’s cause the media has been co-opted by billionaires.
They only report on stuff good for billionaires not regular people.
crowcawer | 6 hours ago
“The people with more money do better when the US economy is weak,” sounds like it should be an oxymoronic statement.
PhysicsCentrism | 5 hours ago
Consider the power asymmetry.
Wealthy people have safety nets to get through hard times. Working class people need to eat so they are willing to sell what assets they have / accept bad employment to put food on the table. That allows the wealthy to buy up the distressed assets and consolidate wealth. Or minimizes their need to bargain with employers.
23rdCenturySouth | 4 hours ago
Try:
"Owners love a weak labor market and workers desperate to work for subsistence wages"
Decoyx7 | 5 hours ago
Where do you think all the money goes?
irrelevantusername24 | 3 hours ago
Honestly there's two very different lessons that we (humans, et al) already learned (multiple times) that we are learning again, very harshly. The two lessons should not be able to exist at the same time, and the only reason they do is because the parents of the boomers established a system to prevent this exact shit from happening again.
Slavery or other kinds of extremely exploitive labor practices, like long working hours, constant churn of employees, and so on is bad for the employees and the employers as well as the business and the customers. Everyone loses.
A centralized system does not necessarily mean it has zero communication with a decentralized counterpart. A centralized system to manage, monitor and distribute public services makes sense. Why? Because "charity" when it is established through 69420 gajillion different foundations and 42690 individual trust funds, all of which exist primarily to dodge taxes and only do the public benefit part to the bare minimum... doesn't work, and leads to the previous point... with the additional wrinkle that now there's almost literally infinite money just sitting in accounts accumulating and doing nothing
And whether or not "primarily exists to dodge taxes" applies to each and every different charitable organization doesn't necessarily make a difference. It really doesn't matter because if they were all truthfully working as a public benefit, they would organize better and sort of spontaneously create a government. But they're not - the majority are tax dodges or other kinds of deceptive schemes. So the few that are actually trying to do good things are forced to be spread very thin - which is worse for the people trying to do good as well as the billions of us who are harmed by this stupid as fuck logic that is a result of cold war era all against all idiocy
Tall-Log-1955 | 6 hours ago
Most people get their news on social media these days, not from billionaires
DrTreeMan | 6 hours ago
Remind me again who owns the top social media companies and controls their algorithms?
SonofHondoBelmondo | 7 hours ago
"Democrats don’t make a big deal"
No way, yes they do. Many speeches that a dem makes will have some acknowledgement of the success of their policies, because that's probably what happens a majority of the time when a politician makes a speech and such a statement is relevant, regardless of party.
The phenomenon is that a surplus of american voters just....believe it all happens differently than it does. In order to really see the data that dems are better for the economy you have a to a lot of reading, reflecting, comparing...nerdy shit. Not what your average american is super into apparently. And this is not to say they're dumb, they're just apathetic towards cerebral things, and put their stock in tangible things that they can feel with their hands. Things that hit them in the face like propaganda.
So people just sort of buy into this idea that the hard talkin', hard fartin', take no shit, tell it like it is cowboy that the republican portrays himself as is somehow gonna make us more money. Maybe they think that that guy only cares about money, so we'll all have more money. Then they think about the dems, "oh they're woke, they wanna give all the money to the poor. They wanna give all the money, my money, to people that are needy. Maybe those people should get better jobs. It's not my problem. It's MY money,"
And so on
BG-DoG | 6 hours ago
It is just that people believe it all happens differently than it does. No matter how much you show, measure and document; people just believe differently.
Sad but true.
heyhayyhay | 6 hours ago
Propaganda is very powerful with stupid and uneducated people.
SonofHondoBelmondo | 6 hours ago
Or people who are smart but stubborn, or proud of something, or love their family so much that they simply must believe what their family believes and don't think critically enough about these things. I don't know, I just know lots of people that are otherwise cool that buy into the whole "republicans are better for the economy" deal.
empty_graph | 6 hours ago
Yeah, and the people who did do the "a lot of reading, reflecting, comparing...nerdy shit" said this:
>We find that oil shocks, productivity shocks, and, depending on the sample, defense spending, foreign economic growth, or a measure of consumer expectations jointly explain as much as 70 percent of the partisan gap. Some, maybe all, of these might be considered blends of good policy and good luck. But our empirical analysis does not attribute any of the partisan growth gap to fiscal or monetary policy.
SonofHondoBelmondo | 6 hours ago
Yeah but the question isn't whether the democrat policies are "good for the economy", we're talking about how people associate republicans with "I'm gonna have more money". Also, can we just acknowledge that "good for the economy" is kind of nebulous and hard to prove or disprove?
TS3Ronin | 5 hours ago
Op should post this in Trump sub-reddit or conservative one and see if what they say. Pretty sure OP would get banned.
Engrish_Major | 3 hours ago
This doesn’t matter because time and again, white america will prefer cutting off their nose to spite their face if someone nonwhite sniffs success along with the majority of white america.
It’s happened time and again. See public pools, public healthcare, see college education, see the GI Bill, see redlining, see the homestead act, see the electoral college, see the 3/5ths compromise, and the list goes on and on.
It’ll continue to happen unless white america rejects white supremacy.
Nom_de_guerre_25 | 6 hours ago
The Democrats aren't earning the outperformance. It's caused by oil shocks, foreign developments and consumer expectations. (which are hard to pin down to claim a causal growth impact).
The GDP growth doesn't correlate with Democratic control of congress. Where legislation is written and passed into law.
It's specifically says it's not a result of policy. It's a garbage paper it's not news that there is a bit better gdp growth under Democratic presidents. It's been in political magazines forever. The authors tried to find a causal link and they couldn't. It doesn't mention anything about the Supreme Court.
It would make sense if the outperformance occured with Democrats controlling the house and the presidency. But their is no outperformance under those circumstances.
The Democrats are lucky and only slightly better. 1.8% better performance is not much to write home about.
EconomistWithaD | 7 hours ago
This is not new.
People should really read the paper, because their conclusion certainly isn’t that it’s mostly policy driven, or that Dems always have great (or even better) policy. “We find that oil shocks, productivity shocks, and, depending on the sample, defense spending, foreign economic growth, or a measure of consumer expectations jointly explain as much as 70 percent of the partisan gap. Some, maybe all, of these might be considered blends of good policy and good luck. But our empirical analysis does not attribute any of the partisan growth gap to fiscal or monetary policy.”
realnanoboy | 7 hours ago
They only looked at gross fiscal policy and monetary policy. What I mean by "gross" is that they simplified it to the amount of spending, not necessarily how it was distributed. Republicans like to focus on tax breaks and other things that benefit the wealthy. Democrats focus on spending on programs that affect the wider population. Plus, there are lots of policy decisions that are not strictly fiscal. How much and how an administration enforces regulations, for example, could have a big effect, especially on things like big financial scandals and the build-up of bubbles.
Plus, there's corruption. In my (possibly biased) view of the news over the decades of my life, Republican administrations have had more frequent and more serious corruption scandals. I think those sorts of things tend to get the economy into more trouble, too.
EconomistWithaD | 7 hours ago
Yes. And any test they are able to do for policy leads them to be unable to conclusively state its policy driving the results.
realnanoboy | 7 hours ago
But they only tested fiscal policy broadly and not its specific allocations. They did not look at non-fiscal policies like regulations at all. That's fine. All papers have limits, and they were focused on eliminating possibilities.
EconomistWithaD | 6 hours ago
Uh. Because a lot of regulatory apparatus is state level and likely endogenous?
realnanoboy | 6 hours ago
The most important macroeconomic stuff happens at the federal level, though. Think of SEC, Treasury, things like that. The state and local governments aren't and can't do much about those things, and big businesses are always complaining about federal regulations. They're often there for good reason, though. They help to avoid bubbles and nonsense like the Savings and Loans crisis. Democratic administrations seem to take that role more seriously than Republican ones.
EconomistWithaD | 6 hours ago
Do you seriously think the AER didn’t consider this?
As I said, most regulatory burden happens at the state level, and federal introduces an endogeneity issue.
But feel free to use their free resources to replicate in any way you feel fit. Open science is a grand thing. Especially if you have no need to worry about endogeneity.
Intelligence_Gap | 7 hours ago
You don’t think oil shocks have something to do with policy?
empty_graph | 6 hours ago
Some of them, like the present one, yes. Most of them, no.
EconomistWithaD | 7 hours ago
Did you not read the quote I provided directly from the paper which addresses this?
Why bother replying if you can’t be bothered to read what I wrote?
ktaktb | 7 hours ago
A 2016 paper that omits 5.5 years of trump.
Would like to see a 2029 version and see if the pattern holds.
Doubtful
If only we could return to the semi/mostly truth era of pre 2016 where we had Romneys, Obamas, McCains, Bushes, Gores, and Clintons as possible presidents.
EconomistWithaD | 7 hours ago
They literally provide the replication package. ANYONE can choose to do the analysis with updated data.
Medium_Owl_4119 | 7 hours ago
I don’t think Romney or McCain would have been so irresponsible to combine steep tax cuts without meaningful spending cuts, tariffs, and restricting immigration while the country’s demographics are actively worsening.
If you remove the disasters that are W and Trump, fiscal policy should be much more rational between the two parties and largely more external shocks (both positive and negative) that boosts an economy when a democrat is in office vs republican. For example, H W Bush began the formal negotiations of NAFTA and the broad strokes of the deal were already negotiated before Clinton entered office, yet he oversaw the gains from freer trade of North America.
23rdCenturySouth | 4 hours ago
> I don’t think Romney or McCain would have been so irresponsible to combine steep tax cuts without meaningful spending cuts, tariffs, and restricting immigration while the country’s demographics are actively worsening.
Why do you think they would have been any different from any of the other Republicans in the last 50 years
How many times are you gonna get scammed by the same scam
Immediate-Ad-7154 | 6 hours ago
Heck, when the DotCom Recession started kicking off in the final half of Year-2000 while Clinton was in Office, the Media was blaming Bush43 for all of it through the first 2 years of that Administration.
The Jimmy Carter Years of 79 and 80 nearly gave us another Great Depression. Definitely would have happened in 81/82 if Carter got reelected.
Kelsig | 6 hours ago
The volker shock was not nearly a great depression and reagan probably made things harder for the fed by cutting taxes
Immediate-Ad-7154 | 6 hours ago
TBH, the whole talking point of "Economy is better under Democrats" is partisan political hack verbal diarrhea slop.
It's not just about the President. House, Senate, Judiciary, Bureacracy, and the Compositions of The State Governments have more long term impact on economics in the Country than the President.
Also; changes in Laws and other Policies by their nature produce various types of economic disruptions and shocks.
23rdCenturySouth | 4 hours ago
> the Compositions of The State Governments have more long term impact on economics
...do you really want to compare the economies of red states and blue states?
empty_graph | 6 hours ago
Trump has gone in a completely different and much stupider direction from pre-2017 democrats or republicans
23rdCenturySouth | 4 hours ago
Does no one remember that time that George Bush cut taxes on rich people, ran up the debt, started a stupid and expensive war in the Middle East, and slapped tariffs on critical inputs?
We're gonna have to do all this shit again in eight years, aren't we. Americans are utterly incapable of learning.
ktaktb | 6 hours ago
Yes
GWsublime | 3 hours ago
Not really, he's done things republicans have done repeatedly. He's just not very good at long/medium term planning or at focusing on none thing at a time which makes his particular version of, say, reganomics, more obviously dumb but its still reganomics.
Immediate-Ad-7154 | 7 hours ago
The Presidents who managed the decline of the USofA and just ran train with Middle Eastern Regime Change Wars.
Eff that.
I'd prefer a healthy mix of JFK, Teddy Roosevelt, and Eisenhower type Presidents.
LogoffWorkout | an hour ago
more fdr please
empty_graph | 6 hours ago
And if it were causal the same result should be repeatable when looking at state by state economic performance vs party control.
EconomistWithaD | 6 hours ago
Well, good thing they have a replication package where people can play around with this to the heart’s content .
1plus1equalsfun | 5 hours ago
A similar thing happens in politics here in in Canada. It's a widely-held belief that electing the centre-left NDP would make for economic disaster, yet they're the party which has brought more balanced budgets than any other provincial party in this country.
Spaduf | 6 hours ago
The only metric that matters to the decision makers under capitalism is how much money flows from the working class to them. Who cares if they shed some excess human capital?
charlesgrrr | 5 hours ago
Given that the economy is and has been on a downward trajectory for decades in terms of growing living standards, maybe a better way to say this is that the economy is less bad under Democratic leadership than Republican.
plsobeytrafficlights | 4 hours ago
i think this has been a long established trend, however the question remains- is it possible for a democrat to fix trumps economy? he has 25% of the total national debt under him, and years to go. he is an antiglobalist..which is not very good for trade! we have lost a generation of scientists and engineers. I sincerely do not believe a democrat wants to be held accountable for attempting to fix another economic disaster.
Key-Organization3158 | 6 hours ago
One interesting idea I heard wa that looking at just the president is naive. You need to consider the house and Senate. The actual bear performance occurred with a Democrat president and Republican Congress.
Democrats could perform better because they are more likely to experience a house and possibly Senate from their party. Republicans are unlikely to have a Republican house, and thus suffer much more gridlock.
Irrelevant_Support | 4 hours ago
One unsupported anecdote my neighbor's roommate told me was that you didn't read the article and are talking out of your ass.
Kurichan77 | 6 hours ago
Still a busted ass obsolete economy because it relies on endless profit and growth on a finite planet with finite resources, and more and more people are conscious of this objective reality and want to move past it
gizamo | 4 hours ago
It also can't really compete well with the state-sponsored entities of China. There is massive value on having the government subsidize and control the entire supply chains of industries. If half the components in Intel's semi fabs were made by the government and given to Intel at below cost, and then the US also paid for 2/3 of those parts, it's pretty clear they'd have an advantage. That's what China has been doing for decades. Well, that and stealing tech for their companies to save on R&D costs. Capitalism can't compete with that sort of pseudo-capitalistic system.
Kurichan77 | 3 hours ago
You mean, capitalism cannot compete with ccommunism?
gizamo | 3 hours ago
I wouldn't call China's system Communism, and I don't think the US has a very healthy form of capitalism...not that China's is particularly healthy either. Honestly, I'm not sure how to answer your question. Personally, I prefer socialistic forms of capitalism, e.g. Scandinavia. But, I certainly wouldn't say that's most efficient or effective if the outcome is pure market domination and productivity. It's just the best when the goal is human happiness.
CauliflowerDaffodil | 6 hours ago
Go away, Hillary.