Clearly, the Fox Business crew is having a very hard time. They bill themselves as being truly pro-business — not like those leftists at CNBC. But they aren’t really pro-business; they’re pro-Republican. They’d like you to believe that it’s the same thing; but there’s this awkward fact that markets have, you know, gone up under Obama.
And this isn’t just a phenomenon of the last few months. Look back at stock returns under recent presidents, which is easy using a clever gadget at Political Calculations. Taking real, dividend-inclusive annual returns on the S&P 500, I get:
Reagan: 10.08%
Bush I: 10.16%
Clinton: 14.35%
Bush II: minus 5.81%
Tax-hiking Democrats are supposed to be terrible for business[...] But the data just refuse to say that — and that’s even if we restrict ourselves to the stock market, never mind job creation, wages, poverty and all that.
So the whole idea of Fox Business is problematic. It’s Fox, which means that it’s basically an arm of the GOP; but that’s a terrible match for business coverage, because the economy just refuses to punish liberals and reward conservatives the way it’s supposed to.
Now, personally I could give a shit about rallies on Wall Street or what Krugman, Jim Kramer or President Obama have to say regarding economic recovery. I'll believe it when advertiser's dollars translate into the reversal of my pay cut, and I can stop worrying about the other shoe to drop. But, in the meantime, I enjoyed that post very much.
3 comments:
How many times must they be wrong about everything they say will it take to finally sink in with people?? Every time they make a speculation or draw a parallel or make a connection between facts or events, they are wrong. I think my statement might even be without exception: in every case, they or their assumptions are wrong.
Wait, there might be an exception. They may get the date and their name correct. But everything else is a lie, a half-truth, or just a flawed assumption.
Wait, there might be an exception. They may get the date and their name correct. But everything else is a lie, a half-truth, or just a flawed assumption.
Numerous posters have already demolished Krugman's argument and his facts, so he is just as bad as the rest of these jokers. From the comments:
Reagan and Republican Senate (Jan1981-Jan1987): 12.61%
Full Democrat controlled Congress (Jan1987-Jan1995): 6.62%
Clinton with Full Democrat Congress (Jan1993-Jan1995): 3.55%
Clinton but Full Republican Controlled congress (Jan1995-Jan2001): 18.20%
Bush II, Republican Senate and House (Jan2003-Jan2007): 11.20%
Bush II but Full Democrat controlled congress (Jan2007-Jan2009): minus 22.00%
Compared to your numbers:
Reagan: 10.08%
Bush I: 10.16%
Clinton: 14.35%
Bush II: minus 5.81%
Again, this is purely out of academic interest, so don’t shoot the messenger. Sorry to show the Republicans their good hand on this one and call your bluff, but more data points and the fact that the legislature has much more influence on policy that effects the markets…
I tend to agree with the posters that the economy is too complex to blame or praise the president based on performance.
You're missing the point, steves. this isn't supposed to be some detailed policy analysis, it's simply shooting holes in a flawed conventional wisdom.
I certainly don't give full credit or blame to any President alone, or even the government as a whole, no matter who is in charge. and I doubt Krugman does either.
But your counter-statistics are even worse. For one, it's really the policy more than the party, and it dramically overstates the impact of Congress:
Reagan? Signed tax increases in 1982, 1984 and 1987. He also assumed power at an economic low point.
And the implication that the economic dive during Dubya's term coincides with Democrats regaining Congress? Hilarious.
As if this crash wasn't already a forgone conclusion, with a President content to throw gasoline on the fire.
The President sets the agenda, and Congress reacts. the President also has control over the Fed and Treasury. All of which are greater impacts on the economy than legislation from Congress that still needs to be signed or vetoed.
Post a Comment