This is the argument of Alan Binder-himself a Keynesian and liberal who served in the Clinton Administration-that somehow the Democratic Presidents had more luck in terms of positive oil shocks and better productivity shocks along with better consumer sentiment. This leads Asymptosis to grouse that a a liberal is someone who doesn't know how to take his own side in an argument.
http://www.asymptosis.com/a-liberal-is-someone-who-doesnt-know-how-to-take-his-own-side-in-an-argument.html
When Tyler Cowen did a post on this one of his commentators worried that this would leave to a 'flame war' among Dems and Repubs on the blog. However, another commentator explained that:
"The readership here is full of anarchists, reactionaries and socialists, not Republicans and Democrats. Wrong topic for a flame war here because nobody likes either mainstream party much. -
See more at: http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2013/11/why-is-there-superior-economic-performance-under-democratic-presidents.html#sthash.4CSy77zA.dpuf"
That sounds about right-leftists that are way left to the Dems and conservatives way to the Right of the GOP. Still, I think it's fair to ask why is the result that Dem Administrations do so much better surprising? By the way, there's no way to deny that the record of Dem Presidents is an established fact-in no way merely 'stylized.'
"The superiority of economic performance under Democrats rather than Republicans is nearly ubiquitous; it holds almost regardless of how you define success. - See more at: http://www.asymptosis.com/a-liberal-is-someone-who-doesn't-know-how-to-take-his-own-side-in-an-argument.html#sthash.oulZendl.dpuf"
It seems to me that the assumption that such a marked contrast-by almost any measure, however, you define success-is necessarily dumb luck itself needs explaining. What is the statistical likelihood that such a strong correlation can be 100% luck? Is this based on an assumption that government policy can have but little impact on the economy at least in the 'long run?'
Why do people vote at all? Isn't there the implicit assumption that who is elected does have a major impact on the economy? With all the caveats-you have the classic GOP explanation that this is because the Repubs have these great policies that only come into clear effect in the next Democratic Administration. You can also argue that Congress should be looked at more.
However, if the result were the opposite-that Republicans by almost any meaningful economic measure presided over better economies do you really think all these subtle arguments would stop conservatives from declaring victory? Scott Sumner has declared victory in view of much thinner correlations. So I think Asymptosis-and Matt Ygelsias-are right. Liberals need to learn how to defend their own side of the argument.
Oh yeah-by the way. Here's the paper itself by Blinder and his co-author.
http://www.princeton.edu/~mwatson/papers/Presidents_Blinder_Watson_Nov2013.pdf
http://www.asymptosis.com/a-liberal-is-someone-who-doesnt-know-how-to-take-his-own-side-in-an-argument.html
When Tyler Cowen did a post on this one of his commentators worried that this would leave to a 'flame war' among Dems and Repubs on the blog. However, another commentator explained that:
"The readership here is full of anarchists, reactionaries and socialists, not Republicans and Democrats. Wrong topic for a flame war here because nobody likes either mainstream party much. -
See more at: http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2013/11/why-is-there-superior-economic-performance-under-democratic-presidents.html#sthash.4CSy77zA.dpuf"
That sounds about right-leftists that are way left to the Dems and conservatives way to the Right of the GOP. Still, I think it's fair to ask why is the result that Dem Administrations do so much better surprising? By the way, there's no way to deny that the record of Dem Presidents is an established fact-in no way merely 'stylized.'
"The superiority of economic performance under Democrats rather than Republicans is nearly ubiquitous; it holds almost regardless of how you define success. - See more at: http://www.asymptosis.com/a-liberal-is-someone-who-doesn't-know-how-to-take-his-own-side-in-an-argument.html#sthash.oulZendl.dpuf"
It seems to me that the assumption that such a marked contrast-by almost any measure, however, you define success-is necessarily dumb luck itself needs explaining. What is the statistical likelihood that such a strong correlation can be 100% luck? Is this based on an assumption that government policy can have but little impact on the economy at least in the 'long run?'
Why do people vote at all? Isn't there the implicit assumption that who is elected does have a major impact on the economy? With all the caveats-you have the classic GOP explanation that this is because the Repubs have these great policies that only come into clear effect in the next Democratic Administration. You can also argue that Congress should be looked at more.
However, if the result were the opposite-that Republicans by almost any meaningful economic measure presided over better economies do you really think all these subtle arguments would stop conservatives from declaring victory? Scott Sumner has declared victory in view of much thinner correlations. So I think Asymptosis-and Matt Ygelsias-are right. Liberals need to learn how to defend their own side of the argument.
Oh yeah-by the way. Here's the paper itself by Blinder and his co-author.
http://www.princeton.edu/~mwatson/papers/Presidents_Blinder_Watson_Nov2013.pdf
No comments:
Post a Comment