Skip to content

What’s the world coming to –

October 15, 2009

When the Huffington Post actually issues a retraction on an article criticizing Rush Limbaugh?

and

One of the ideas to make medical care more affordable is to actually make it more expensive.

Also someone explain this to me

GDP - 1900 to 1960

The GDP growth history of the first half of the 20th century was less than stellar. The yellow line, representing a 21 year moving average, falls below the long average before 1910, and stays there until the mid 40’s.

GDP 1950 on

Here is annual GDP growth, year over year, on a percentage basis. The red line segments represent years with Republican Presidents. The blue line segments represent years with Democratic Presidents. The red and blue horizontal lines are the averages of presidential terms. (Kennedy/Johnson and Nixon/Ford are treated as continuous terms.)

Except for Carter, who represented a brief 4 yr. Democratic hiatus in a 20 year Republican Red Sea, and couldn’t quite nose above Reagan’s deficit-inflated performance, GDP growth is always better with a Democratic president.

(source)

I know there is something wrong with this data but I can’t put my finger on what it is.

Update – Allahpundit on Limbaugh – No harm in admitting the lie now that his NFL bid is dead

Advertisements
4 Comments leave one →
  1. October 17, 2009 6:30 pm

    The analysis is wrong on so many counts, it would take me all night to explain. So to put it simply …

    There are way to many factors involved in an economy (especially one the size of the USA) to simply look at a chart, match up who was in office, and then determine who did good or bad. Nothing happens overnight.

    When the federal government enacts policies that will affect the economy, it can take years before the results are actually experienced. If you’re going to use a chart like this for such simple analysis, you would look at the economic results in the years after whatever bill it was enacted. Not simply at who was holding office.

    Another problem is, that in the real world, nothing is as simple as Democrat vs. Republican. Look at just our recent history, Bush 1, Bush 2, and Nixon were very Keynesian/anti-market freedom in policy. I always laugh when I hear people claim Bush 2 was “far-right.” He’s definitely on the left of any honest political scale.

    Federal Reserve monetary policy has been left out of the equation here too. I could go on, but I think you can see the fallacy of his argument.

  2. Portlandic permalink
    October 19, 2009 10:25 pm

    http://www.politicsdaily.com/2009/10/08/health-care-speechwriter-for-edwards-obama-and-clinton-doesnt/ covers the disheartening story of a Dem speachwriter who’s unemployed in the People’s Republic of Massachusetts, and found his health insurance *doubled* over what it was in DC. Massachusetts has a near-ideal plan as per Obamacare; why is he sweating?

  3. Finrod permalink
    October 29, 2009 1:14 pm

    I would think it might be more enlightening to try to correlate GDP with who controls Congress, though the real one is correlating control of Congress with the size of the budget deficit– it can’t just be a coincidence that Democrats took over Congress January 2007 and now the deficit is measured in trillions.

Trackbacks

  1. Daily Pundit » Calling DP Economists

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: