What? Aren’t the federal debt and deficit such numbers?
Huh? Read again, better read the book.
“Bartels undertakes to prove that this is not merely a statistical fluke. Bartels argues that the dramatic increase in income inequality over the past 50 years is a direct result of the policies of Republican presidents, not impersonal (or inevitable) market forces.”
Now the guy I quoted thinks there is more to the answer than what Bartels provides. Nevertheless Bartels does appear to show this is not a statistical fluke.
Imagine the New York Yankees (.629) are due to play the Washington Nationals (.342) tomorrow. Given even odds who would you bet on?
Or it can be like Evolution. All the data so far seems to point one way (that Evolution is a good model for the development of life on Earth). Might some evidence appear tomorrow that throws it all in the bin? Perhaps but you would be foolish to bet on Evolution being wrong given the current evidence.
This looks to be similar.
I am not talking about the impact of market forces, I am talking about budgets and laws passed by the House and Senate that the President then Executes. There is more to the impact of the government on the economy than just the President. The bills that come through the House and Senate ALSO have an impact.
I agree that the Federal Government of the US has a huge impact on the direction of the economy. I even agree that there is an interesting series of lines that can be drawn to look at the economy, and how certain segments perform under certain parties / Presidents. What this completely misses, however, is the impact of a lame duck President, a President who holds complete control (Bush in his first two years, Obama in his first two years), a President who holds partial control, etc.
I believe Bartels tries to address some of these concerns as noted in the quote below. From my previous link (follow link to see chart from book):
Note you may say that shows in three of four years of a presidency there is little difference. However, that second year appears to be a big one which, even when averaged out, seriously skews the overall economic performance under republicans and democratic presidents.
I believe Bartels so far has done the most thorough analysis of economic performance under different parties. The consensus among scholars seems to be that he did a very thorough job, accounted for variables and moved knowledge forward. I doubt any would say the book is closed on this as it is a complex subject but that does not mean we can or should toss Bartels’ conclusions out the window wholesale because he cannot be said to have accounted for every conceivable variable.
Again like the Theory of Evolution it looks pretty solid. Someone may come along and show some gaping holes but till then it is the best we’ve got. Ignoring it because you do not like the conclusions is just sticking your (general “you”) head in the sand.
(Not to mention from the OP seems further data on this is in step with Bartels)
If I understand it correctly, the book is using lower-level statistics such as median income to make its case. I don’t believe that Bush’s poor stewardship can have a measurable impact during the time the book was researched, especially when compared to the impact of the dot-com bubble and 9/11 attacks.
Not sure where I read it but I am pretty sure Bartels does not consider the first year of a Presidency against whoever is in office. The idea being that president is working under the previous president’s budget plus lag for economic policies and so on to take effect. As such the dot-com bubble would have been counted against Clinton and not Bush (or at least both would have taken a bite from that pie).
9/11 came early on in Bush’s eight years. The economic effects from that are more going to war than losing the towers. Bush absolutely can have economic performance of the last 7-8 years laid at his feet. Particularly since he also had a Republican controlled Congress for much of that time.
Further, the Census report in the OP takes care of any remaining doubt you can have on Bartels not having data all the way through the very, very end of Bush’s presidency. Seems Bartels’ conclusions remain even with the latest data. If anything I’d say his conclusions are strengthened by it.
I must disagree, although for more general reasons. Presidents have nearly zip to do with the long-term economy, and not even that much on the short-term. I don’t laud or blame either, and it’s economic ignorance that people do so. The office doesn’t have enough influence, and while they lean on Congress a bit, it’s Congress’s responsibility. Presidential administrations tend to be identified with certain eras or politicies, but as often as not that’s nonsense, too. Clinton didn’t have much to do with the economic boom of his tenure, which was almost entirely due to the huge production gains of computers and new internet connectivity (hence the Tech Boom), and would have happened without him. Meanwhile, actions first of Congress and then the Fed and later banks and financiers under Bush I, Clinton, and Bush II (you can make an argument for under reagan, too, but not a good one) shoved things towards overvaluing the housing market and some of them still are. None of the Presidents had much to do with it except obliquely, and in all fairness it’s not their responsibility. I have severe criticisms of most Republican Congresses (namely, that they don’t actually put their claimed principles into action) and worse ones of Democrats. But I don’t blame Carter for the problems he faced, or even for his nonresponse to it, which was largely Congress’s responsibility.
People believe Presidents have everything to do with the economy because *it’s *easy, not because it’s true.
Second, a year’s lag-time compeltel crap. It’s foolish because some things impact events immediately, others. And you can’t just “average” it mentally and assume it comes out to a year. Frankly, that doesn’t even merit
Well, seems some scholars disagree with you. I may have misrepresented Bartels’ methodology with the one year thing. It was from a vague memory. But “crap”? Well, Bartels’ bona fides are pretty stellar. If you want to call his methodology “crap” I think you will have an uphill battle.
Better take him on directly rather than my admittedly imperfect recollection.
Just guessing here but if his work was crap I doubt he’d have managed all of the above.
It’s a cliffhanger, isn’t it? It’ll probably come down to a field goal as the clock runs out! 
A year is nothing. You don’t think we’ll still be paying for Bush’s over-indulgence in 10-20 years? Economic regulations can take years for the market to adjust and create new problems. Greenspan was being feted as the “maestro” only a few years before he was being blamed by some for the collapse of the housing market. Others blame some of Clinton’s mortgage regulations for the collapse.
The economy is way too complex with too many long-running strands to pretend that Democrats or Republicans have easily measurable differences.
I don’t believe I said his work was crap. I said what you presented was crap, which is a rather different beast. I don’t much respect Argument by Authority, and I look dubiously at those who appeal to it. If you don’t know what his work is about - and you post indicates you are nervous about that - don’t try to use it in an argument. You can use the work of others if you know what it is and can coherently explain it. You posted one thing, and whether or not Bartel came up with that idea is utterly irrelevant. The diea is wrong, adn I need go no further.
Except they clearly do.
Unless you are suggesting that 50 years of evidence that shows a distinct and never varying trend between the two is really just a fluke. “It just happens to work like that, weird huh?” is generally not an explanation most people accept.
Not to mention you have a whole book linked above on this subject that you could read which makes precisely this claim and as been well received.
I have no doubt criticism (fair at that) could be made of Bartels’ book and I bet it would be fascinating to dig into it and see where the shortcomings are and other possible interpretations using that or other data. I have seen criticism of his conclusions but I have yet to see anyone attack him for faulty data or methodology or even trying to tackle the subject much less being claptrap (doubtless someone out there has but mostly people give him props for a well done job even if they disagree with some of it).
Personally I will go with a scholarly effort than your assertion it is just too complicated. Show me how is methodology is faulty or his conclusions bogus. Would be interesting (really).
I don’t much respect someone who hand waves away an authority with nothing else to back them up. The book is out there and I cannot digest the whole thing for you on a message board. Nor am I a statistician capable of assessing whether a given statistical methodology is kosher or not.
If you find a given methodology bogus fine. Tell us why you are right and the other guy is wrong. I merely repeated that Bartels, at least in some of his analysis, used a one year lag. I think you’d really need to read his book, or at least the parts that do this, to assess whether the methodology is bogus or not (assuming you have the statistical chops to analyze whether it was appropriate or not).
Here is backup for my assertion of the one year lag (I wasn’t making it up):
I think it’s pretty much without a doubt that Bush’s presidency was one of the worst in history, and definitely the worst since Nixon. No need to rub it in, especially when the Atlantic Monthly and most media outlets didn’t have the guts to take a stand in 2004 and prevent his re-election.
Oh, and btw, another measure that pathetically got worse during Dubya’s presidency was teen pregnancies.
His methodology is faulty because he works from the assumption that the President is the prime determinant of the Federal Government’s impact on the economy.
Now, perhaps if I purchase his book I will find that he controlled for control of House and Senate - but the tables linked and articles linked so far in this thread have not shown that.
I think what it shows is that given a complex enough system (like the US economy) you can find some statistics that may look to be related but aren’t. For example, the winner of the Superbowl strongly predicts stock market performance. Obviously this is nonsense. So yeah, the numbers chosen by Bartels may appear to show some correlation between Democrats and Republicans but I think it’s mostly baseless.
I guess this is a long-winded way to say correlation does not prove causation.
Good grief…
Read the quote in Post #18 again.
YOU may think he has to control for whatever it is you want him to control for. He on the other hand took the data and made his case which, albeit not the final word, is apparently well done and persuasive (and not just to neophytes like me but other experts as well).
For instance:
I want him to control for which party controls the House, and which party controls the Senate. This is a fairly simple request, and one which I do not see referenced in the quotes in post #18.
Yes, he made a case and got a book published. He is an accomplished member of academia, and for that deserves all appropriate lauds and laurels. That does NOT mean, however, that he has conclusively found the Holy Grail. I am pointing out that there is another CRITICAL factor in this type of analysis, one which I do NOT see referenced in the links provided so far here.
I have ordered the book from Amazon. Depending on my time this weekend, I will try to carve through it over the next couple of weeks and give a legit commentary vs. commentary based on just what has been reported here.
The Gini index has been published for the US since 1967. Here are two looks at it. The first only goes to 2001 but has some interesting commentary.
The second runs to 2007 and includes W’s tax cuts.
A look at the timeline for each presidency makes the point. Nixon -up, Reagan - up more, Bush II - way up. Draw your own conclusions.