Gross Domestic Product The analysis found that under Democratic presidents the gross domestic product rose at an average rate of 4.33 percent, compared with a rate of 2.54 percent under Republicans. That translates to a 1.79 percentage point gap in favor of the economy under Democrats. That means that the U.S. economy grew by an average of 18.5 percent during the typical four-year presidency of a Democrat versus a 10.6 percent gain under a Republican. Unemployment The average unemployment rate was lower under Democrats, 5.64 percent, compared with 6.01 percent under Republican presidents, though the authors called that difference “small and not statistically significant.” However, they said, there is “a very large and statistically significant difference in the change in the unemployment rate, computed as the average unemployment rate in the final year of the term minus the average value in the final year of the previous term. During Democratic presidential terms, the unemployment rate fell by 0.8 percentage points, on average, while it rose by 1.1 percentage points, on average, during Republican terms — yielding a large D-R gap of -1.9 percentage points.” Stock market Annualized stock market returns for firms in the S&P 500 Index were 5.65 percentage points higher under Democratic presidents (the returns under Democratic presidents increased 8.35 percent compared with 2.7 percent under Republican presidents). “Though business votes Republican,” the authors wrote, “it prospers more under Democrats.” However, the report states, “given the extreme volatility of stock prices, even differences that large are statistically significant at only the 15 percent level.” That tempers Clinton’s claim that under Democratic presidents “even the stock market is higher.”
Recessions The report found that the country was more likely to be in recession while a Republican president was in office. While Republicans occupied the White House for 144 quarters in the study period compared with 112 quarters for Democrats, 41 of the 49 quarters that the National Bureau of Economic Research classified as being in recession occurred with a Republican in the White House.
Summing up, the authors concluded there is “a systematic and large gap between the US economy’s performance when a Democrat is President of the United States versus when a Republican is. Democrats do better on almost every criteria.” Or as one of the authors, Watson, told us in a phone interview, the difference is “large and statistically significant, regardless of how you look at it.” “The superiority of economic performance under Democrats rather than Republicans is nearly ubiquitous; it holds almost regardless of how you define success,” the authors stated in their report. “By many measures, the performance gap is startlingly large — so large, in fact, that it strains credulity, given how little influence over the economy most economists (or the Constitution, for that matter) assign to the President of the United States.” The authors said the evidence for better economic performance under Democrats remained even when factoring in such variables as the majority party in Congress and whether Democrats inherited “superior initial conditions.”
Carson Anderson
>he unironically believes people will read this garbage
Gabriel Diaz
It's a scientific analysis of facts.
If you look at the data, it clearly shows democrats are better for economy
Just look at pic related:
Red states, in average, have worse GDP than blue states Darker shade of blue = higher GDP Lighter shade of blue = Lower GDP
Note 1: This is GDP per capita so it has nothing to do with the size of the state Note 2: Notice that out of the 11 states who have a GDP per capita worse than 35,000, 10 of them are red states.
Jaxson Collins
Is this from all presidents combined or just from the last hundred years?
too lazy to read for myself Tbh
Caleb Perry
thanks CTR
Owen Russell
All these studies remind me of the final weeks of Brexit.
Jack Kelly
Boy that's interesting OP but why do Jews hate black people?
Gabriel Wood
...
Ryan Stewart
...
Levi Edwards
Sounds like more (((science))). Probably from the same group of hebs that brainstormed up global warming and diversity programs.
Elijah Jones
jews
Kayden Morales
...
Kayden Phillips
Oh boy, this post hit the sides into orbit
Tyler Gomez
...
Tyler Price
I'll just leave this here also, because I think that this is probably a load of shit and some of the best economic policies have come from republicans, while not all republicans have had the best economic policies
For example, Reagan's "trickle down" which is actually more accurately called "scientific taxation" first introduced by Andrew Melon and Calvin Coolidge, has always been an incredibly effective tax policy, spirring economic growth and making for an effective recovery mechanic, much more effective than anything we've seen from Obama
Oliver Lopez
I guess I'm artillery for Hillary now.
Christopher Sanchez
...
Anthony Kelly
(((academic)))
Hudson Davis
> democrats fuck up the economy > republicans clean up the mess > democratshit gets in > "wow look our growth we wuz economists n sheit"
Ayden Robinson
This graph will help showing you the situation.
Ryder Jackson
Always a report, a study or some fucking shit.
Everyone is getting poorer, the debt just got tripled and now you have uppity niggers, spic and arabs protesting for gibs.
Yes, trust in those reports. They say the sky is red.
Matthew Long
See this:
Hudson Jackson
...
Alexander Jenkins
You are aware there's a time delay- often several years- between a policy being implemented and it bearing it's effect on the economy, right? Arbitrarily analyzing the time period which a democratic or republican president serves makes for a flawed study.
Any changes to the economy are only felt years later. "Under Democrats" in most cases means "Following Republican policies" In that same vein, "Under Republicans" means "Following Democrat policies"
Look at Bill Clinton's Affordable Housing Act, which caused the crash in 07 that Bush ended up taking the heat for.
Dylan Turner
Explain why it seems democrats are ALWAYS doing better though, user
Dominic Powell
I don't need to explain shit. I'm not the one making the claims, I just need to explain why the study is bogus. You want a link proving that the majority of academic research is bullshit? Cause I can give you that too
Jaxon Cruz
I can't argue with you because this is what happen at least in my country: Republican take the country and make reforms which increase economy then start democratic goverment and they have the up from last goverment and they just fuck the economy and then comes another republican and fix the economy but you can't see the changes until the end and begin of first year of democratic goverment and then they kill again the economy. the process it's the same every time.
Angel Allen
So, let me get your point -
Democrats are always doing better than republicans, blue states in average do much better than red states economically, yet somehow you still think there isn't a clear case of causation here?
Tyler Morris
This is just the excuse of republicans to the fact democrats are literally always doing better.
Please tell me, why Blue states do better than Red states too?
I don't understand how anyone falls for the GDP meme anymore. It was barely meaningful when it was first used and for at least twenty years it's been completely decimated by Goodhart's Law.
Lincoln Perez
>“By many measures, the performance gap is startlingly large — so large, in fact, that it strains credulity, given how little influence over the economy most economists (or the Constitution, for that matter) assign to the President of the United States.”
e.g. the findings of my study are not actually applicable
Christopher Foster
>((((((((((factcheck)))))))))
Cooper Jenkins
No, my point is most scientists aren't statisticians and don't understand the statistical significance of their findings.
The measures mentioned in the OP are not just GDP.
Democrats do better in:
- Unemployment - Stock Market values - Less likely to have a recession
AND YES, democrats also do better GDP wise
Nathaniel Campbell
this doesn't disprove what he said goldberg
Cameron Morales
With most European countries being the exceptions. Very liberal market, the more liberal it gets, the worse it gets for the people.
Nolan Cruz
Why do you believe gdp per capita is a good representation of anything? It's just an average. You can have 100 people in a blue state with one billionaire and 99 wage slaves and it'll have a higher gdp per capita than say a red state with 100 people all making around 50-100k a year. You're trying to use statistical measures to prove your point but you're only proving how little you understand statistics.
Isaac Thompson
Yeah but how do they know that the first Clinton didn't just inherit the delayed benefits from Reagan's/Bush admin? W inherited the recession from Clintons great idea to put every single dipshit in America in a house causing the housing bubble
Nathan Morris
>Be me >8 years as Republican President >8 years spent undoing the mess the last Democrat created >Democrats turn again to be prez >Spend retirement being shit on by new guy >he takes credit for the upswing >idiots think just by walking into the oval office GDP grew by 5% >Economy Crashes after Republicans take office again >Republicans blamed again
Yep, as we all know changes in policy immediately propagate through the economy at the speed of light.
Daniel Flores
The president has no effect on whether or not recessions occur though. No one president has introduced legislation which incurred a national recession in his own term. Including recessions just confirms that these findings are down to the flip of the coin, and not much else.
For example, the housing crisis which hit George Bush is hard to attribute to him personally, considering it was the effect of many different processes some of which started before his term while others were not caused by presidential/congressional actions.
Ethan Rivera
My thoughts exactly. Does the study account for the fact that Republican economic plans are generally designed to slowly build the economy, which doesn't mean it'll fix within their term and the dem's plans usually quickly build, then crash the economy after they're out?
Angel Reed
ITT:
Republicans refuse the acknowledge the truth because they are brainwashed by partisan politics.
Be objective for a second. its clear democrats are better for the economy
The president literally dictates economic policy. so you are wrong, the president has a huge influence on the economy
Luke Miller
Even when a republican president was followed by a republican president, the republican president harmed the economy.
George H.W bush entered office after 8 years of reagan, yet he severely damaged the GDP
Stop making this retarded excuse now. it's clear democrats are better for economy
Ryder Barnes
Good rebuttal wow sure convinced me of all the flaws in your argument. If you can't discuss these topics ad naseum, then you don't know enough about it to even be making a thread and attempting a discussion. And no, I'm not a Republican.
Easton Rivera
Wow really gets my noggin joggin
No one here likes Bush
Everyone here hates Republicans almost as much as Democrats
Youre really swaying our opinions by pointing out that both parties continually fuck over the common man
>B-BUT OBAMA CREATED JOBS
remind me to tell that to the 96 million Americans out of work
Alexander Stewart
Unemployment is also gamed and given systemic unemployment it is possible to make the argument that increased unemployment is better because "unemployed" status is given only to those looking for work but unable to find work.
Stock market is obviously overvalued to anyone paying attention. I don't think the overall stock market has meant anything since at least the late 70s if not earlier.
I have read either this paper or a paper like it published years ago and found it was just a series of arguments using measures that were gamed long ago and have virtually no meaning any more. The first time a politician won an election on perceived measure like unemployment it ceased to have any meaning afterward.
Lucas Wilson
Now show the wealth by state as a function of time, Schlomo.
>Showing a snapshot of density of wealth by state after a 40 year bull run in debt/bonds.
Wew lad, some shady Economicking going on here from the probable Jew.
Josiah Walker
See pic related. Obama actually DID create jobs. Saying "96 million americans are out of job" is silly, because there are children and babies, you know.
Btw, watch this, it may help you realize that trump is lying about the unemployment:
Really make me think, how many of those jobs are from illegals?
Parker Ward
See pic related, Obama actually helped reducing illegal immigration
Tyler Bell
you should look up how they determine these numbers
Virtually all aggregate statistics are nonsense, which is why macroeconomic policy is always such fucking garbage.
Adrian Campbell
Creating 20 million jobs over 8 years as 30 million people enter the workforce still results in 10 million unemployed people. And it's no secret that there is less full time and more part time employed people because of Obamacare regulations. Keep posting your little graphics and arguments though, it's hilarious how little you understand anything.
Jack King
How did they determine illegal immigrant population from the CPS and ACS, which are self-reported and only sent to legal residents?
Nolan Murphy
>legal immigration plateaus >this somehow means illegal immigration has gone down I thought jews were supposed to be smart.
Grayson Price
Can you comment about the video where trump says the unemployment is 20%, 25%, 30%, 35% and 42%?
Trump is full of BS
Landon Cooper
Go and read the sources, they probably provide their methodology
Jack Foster
>Facts
So what about the Fact the Government cooks the books with unemployed people and lists them statistically Employed if they give up?
Landon Perry
you mean the financial crisis did
Christian Morgan
having large population of blacks would do that to a country. did you know 70% of wellfare recipiants in the US are black single mothers?
Jose Carter
The same method of measurement was used throughout the decades.
Yet it still shows democrats being far better for the economy.
You have no excuses
Austin Ramirez
You are now aware the GDP includes government spending and that you are a fucking retard.
Ryan Gomez
This doesnt even factor in the volatile nature of geographic positioning or population density.
Even so when if you want to think like a communist then you might as well go down to the macro-economic level and say the poorest cities are democrat and the poorest people continously vote democrat.
Samuel Edwards
No, because I'm not Donald Trump and it's completely irrelevant to your argument. I changed my mind, I'll comment anyways. There are different measures of employment and you get different answers depending on which measure you use. Also you are very stupid to be posting everything you have posted. Is it a tough realization to come to? To realize that you're a moron?
Christopher Cruz
1. Democrats are also better for the unemployment.
2. GDP is commonly used to measure the well being of an economy
Carter Wilson
Stranger, Just admit it. trump was just bullshitting and making up numbers.
He was deceiving the public on purpose.
Lincoln King
Would depend on what he meant. If he meant that "unemployment" should count short-term unemployed, long-term unemployed who have largely given up on looking for a job and people with part-time jobs who want to be working full-time but can't find anything, you're at about 20% of the population at that point. (Not real difficult. Take the number of people out of the labor force, shave off a percent of college-aged based on how many of them are in college and discard the elderly. That's about 19% of the pop right there, even leaving out the underemployed.)
The larger numbers would only be correct if he was referring to specific demographic groups, e.g. young black males.
US employment ranges from 55-70 percent over the past 4 decades. To say that 30-45 percent of the population is out of work isn't wrong. Also look up the difference between U-3 and U-6 unemployment and see how the government (BLS) can skew the numbers based off of changing the definition of what it means to be unemployed.
Samuel Martinez
>It's a scientific analysis of facts.
It is not. If you're solely going off GDP figures alone you're totally discounting things like quantitative easing, helicopter money, bailouts and welfare/government spending. Yes these things give the appearance of growth but of them good or healthy for the economy? No.
Charles Bailey
This article talks about selective presentation of data, not about studies being fake
The article i provided however, checked multiple variables to determine the economy. not 1 variable, not 2 variables, but it tested every variable i could think of atm
Xavier Campbell
Bernie says real unemployment is higher than what the gov admits ; wow how progressive
Trump says literally the same thing; nope obama is perfect!
So are you one the shills Obama paid to try and get netanyahu ousted in the last election? Youre too late, goy
Dominic Diaz
this. unemployment and the poverty line are made to lie with statistics.
Charles Taylor
Studies ARE a selective presentation of data. Holy fuck how can one jew be this stupid?
Landon Torres
Yet the common methodology for measuring unemployment did not change, and obama is doing better than bush if you compare both of them using the same methology.
Brody Lee
Studies are NOT selective presentation of data. they are analysis of data.
Elijah Nguyen
This is the most Jewish thing I have heard today.
Angel Reyes
>This article talks about selective presentation of data, not about studies being fake Sure but that's why these "studies" are bullshit. Checking multiple variable doesn't mean you've checked them all and be selectively leaving out certain data or metrics you can still craft whatever result you want using statistical fuckery it's just more difficult. Economics for the most part as a scientific field of study is a load of crock and we really don't understand very much about it certainly not enough to make a definitive study concluding which policies are the best.
Connor Myers
The point is that the methodology is flawed. That's like using 2 broken compasses and saying one is better than the other because it was closer to north.
Dylan Mitchell
You miss the point. The fact few studies are trying to represent things selectively, it does not mean you should suddenly discredit ALL studies.
Julian Lopez
FDR being in power during the pullout from the depression is what gives them this data.
The economy grew like 6000 percent in ten years, kind of fucks up valid data.
Ryder Morales
Youre running out of ammo faggot
No one is defending bush. He spent like a fucking housewife and the only reason Democrats have higher GDPs is they start wars to boost the economy.
Don't even start the blue states have higher GDPs bexause every nigger and spic sucking welfare lives in the Bible belt south which is all red
Move those leaches to the north and then tell me how great those blue states will be after they aren't 90% white
Sebastian Jones
Did you even see the youtube video I linked you about published research? I'm trying my best to teach your dumbass something but it makes it extremely difficult when you're not willing to learn.
Anthony Gray
The methology still accurately shows the trends in the unemployment. so your analogy is false.
Andrew Cook
>Academic study >Meaning fuckall
John Thompson
It's not just bush. It's democratic president overall doing better. It's blue states overall doing better
Dylan Ortiz
im curious as to how wars are supposed to boost the gdp.
William Powell
>kindergarden studies, now thats something!
Carson Perez
yes that's because that majority of presidents in the height of america were democrats
also this reeks of propaganda. you should compare people and not parties
