Jump to content

Talk:U.S. economic performance by presidential party

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

perception vs. reality

[edit]

many are no doubt aware that for decades the Republican Party has been very successful in promoting the narrative that they are better stewards of the economy than are Democrats. for many, this narrative has become so pervasive that it is accepted practically as gospel. if people want better economic growth, job creation and stock market returns, they obviously should vote Republican, the narrative goes.

alas, decades of data do not support this narrative, across the board for nearly all major indicators, as shown with many reliable sources in this article. now, I understand this realization might cause cognitive dissonance for some, leading them to reflexively reject the data and conclude this article must be biased, POV, weaselly and unbalanced, so they tag it as such. what they've been led to believe with superior messaging for decades simply cannot be wrong, they think. but it is. as the lead plainly states, it's not clear why it is true, only that it is.

I recommend editors identify specific phrasing and sources they find biased, POV, weaselly and unbalanced so we can resolve them and remove the tags. soibangla (talk) 23:29, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the comments it seems like both sides are biased here. The 2016 paper (on which much of the data is based), clearly states that a large part of the delta can be explained by oil shocks and war. This is not mentioned in the article's introduction. Instead the introduction is phrased in a way that implies democratic policy was likely the driver. 2A02:8108:483F:D734:19B2:59CC:B5BF:D217 (talk) 23:05, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will remove the tags if articulable arguments other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT are not soon presented. soibangla (talk) 03:58, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"the narrative that they are better stewards of the economy" Is this a belated April Fools' Day joke? I live in Greece and my overall impression is that the Republican terms in office are always associated with a financial crisis. See for example the List of recessions in the United States:
Please define "economically illiterate", and remember that presidents don't control the economy. And understanding the flaws of supply-side economics does not constitute "illiteracy". Sumanuil. (talk to me) 22:17, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but anyone using terms like "supply-side economics" as a pejorative likely doesn't have a deep background in economics. What I would qualify as 'economically illiterate' is an administration that pursues policies based on heterodox economic perspectives. Again, there's no evidence that the pattern covered in this article is mainly the result of the specific policy positions of Democrats, and I'm well aware that presidents don't have direct control over the economy -that's kind of the whole point here.
The research I linked makes a compelling case that it's merely the product of voters making rational choices between the pro-state and pro-market parties based on business cycles, much like the choices individuals make in their own personal financial planning. When the economy is weak, they vote in the statist party (Democrats); when the economy is strong, they favor pro-market Republicans. This would naturally produce a pattern over time where you have stronger economic metrics under Democratic administrations, irrespective of specific policy outcomes. Jonathan f1 (talk) 20:20, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
there's no evidence that the pattern covered in this article is mainly the result of the specific policy positions of Democrats and the article doesn't contend it is, the article just shows that the pattern exists and leaves it at that. given the countless variables at play in the American economy, it would be a daunting task to ascribe specific policies to specific outcomes (e.g. "the tax cut, combined with the budget increase and the Fed rate cuts, caused a 0.3 percentage point increase in GDP growth") in any comprehensive way and I've never seen any economist attempt it. maybe soon someone can drop a trillion data points into an AI blender that can figure it all out. so, while debating state vs. market economies and such is very interesting and all, I don't think it would lead to material improvement of the article. I think we should keep the status quo and leave it to readers to ponder the whys. soibangla (talk) 23:54, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Has anyone cross-referenced the data points presented.

[edit]

I tried recreating the same data per the bls website on unemployment rates start and ending per president and was not able to get the same data points as presented. Not sure if there are multiple tables presenting unemployment rates on bls website but the only one I could find did not match the data reported in this entry. I did not try to cross-reference the other tables to the source but it makes all suspect to my mind. 2601:601:D27F:11B0:A519:F0D5:1F7A:62EE (talk) 07:32, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just checked each president from Eisenhower through Trump and they are all correct, assuming each president starts in January (except for LBJ and Ford) though the starting point is arguably February because BLS surveys are complete before January 20, even though the results are published on the first Friday of February, so the January number actually belongs to the outgoing president. but most people don't know this, so if we don't start with the inauguration month they'll think something is wrong.
can you give me some examples of values that didn't match for you? also, there are multiple unemployment rates, you need to be sure you're using the U-3 series that everyone talks about.
btw, FRED is better to use. same BLS data, much nicer interface.
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/UNRATE soibangla (talk) 08:16, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your detailed response. I do not think I was on the U-3 table! 2601:601:D27F:11B0:A519:F0D5:1F7A:62EE (talk) 14:53, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to broaden topic

[edit]

The article topic (which is strangely selected, with no corresponding articles describing other aspects of economic performance by political party) introduces WP:UNDUE into the article, as only the presidential party is considered in the article. As there is no corresponding article about U.S. economic performance by congressional party, nor a more general one about U.S. economic performance by political party in general, this article should be broadened to concern "U.S. economic performance by political party" rather than just presidential party. Anotherperson123 (talk) 05:19, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Someone switched the party names

[edit]

Yesterday this article was about how economic performance tends to be better under Democrats, and this morning it says it tends to be better under Republicans. The entire article has changed, and the party names have been switched. (E.g. 10 of the last 11 recessions started under Republican leadership, not democrat). I can see that someone edited it 4 hours ago so I'm guessing they changed the article. Please correct it to the previous version. Below is another Wikipedia article with correct information.

https://simple.m.wiki.x.io/wiki/U.S._economic_performance_under_Democratic_and_Republican_presidents 67.171.164.112 (talk) 16:28, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Biden GDP growth

[edit]

the flash estimate comes out Thursday, the second on February 27, and the final on March 27

I recommend we wait until the final so we can set it once and forget it soibangla (talk) 02:42, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]