Do parties matter in Presidential economics?
The well regarded Liscio report is now blogging.
They did a very nice job analyzing the various economic and market results under all of the Presidents since FDR.
Of course, it is arguable as to how much impact any President has on the economy in general.
However, I think we can all agree that certain presidents who made major policy changes -- think Roosevelt and Reagan -- had major impacts on the economy. Other Presidents -- like Clinton and Bush -- also had a major impact through their actions and inactions.
The entire piece is worth a look . . .
GDP by Party
CPI by Party
Source:
Presidential economics: Do parties matter?
July 07, 2008
http://tlrii.typepad.com/theliscioreport/2008/07/presidential-ec.html
Wednesday, July 09, 2008 | 04:00 PM | Permalink
| Comments (38)
| TrackBack (0)
add to de.li.cious | 
digg this! | 
add to technorati | 
email this post
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c52a953ef00e553acfde98834
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Do parties matter in Presidential economics?:
Comments
BR -
I think that the President's party is far overemphasized, since for day to day operations, we have to pass laws through the House, the Senate, and then the President. So I think to be fair, we can only look at periods where it's D,D,D or R,R,R, respectively. Since those periods are rare (I believe), we get a vanilla mixture (DDR or RRD), and therefore it doesn't matter much. However, I think the high probability of DDD in the upcoming elections is probably not good (not to say the recent RRR was any better, though)
Just my two cents...
HCF
Posted by: HCF | Jul 9, 2008 4:13:21 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.
