Presidential economics, 2004 vintage
Mike Tomasky writes with some surprise in The Daily Beast (“The 24 and the 42 million, and Basic Competence”) that both the job market and the stock market have done better under Democratic presidents than under Republican. He comments: “ And yet, no one in America knows. No one.”
That’s not true. Subscribers to Left Business Observer knew that years ago. I first reviewed the post-World War II record of the two parties in 1996, and updated the study in 2004. The results: Dems are better for growth in both jobs and GDP, and for stock returns as well. Reps are better for the bond market and excel at getting inflation down.
I’m too lazy to turn the 2004 article into a web posting, but I’ve posted a PDF of that issue of LBO. I will be updating the numbers in October, just before the election.
Note: LBO has been on hiatus for several months now. But it’s coming back very soon. Subscribe now and mention this post in the comments field and your first issue is free.
Here’s the issue. “Presidential economics” begins on p. 3.
LBO News from Doug Henwood 
However, there are no conclusions concerning voting to be drawn from this factoid. What does it matter that more jobs came about under Dems ?
ok we say you are right ..and the true is who speak there in” podium ” thinking is strong (forgeting in 8 year gv )Clinton was not good too with war in Yugoslavia with scandale ..(moral) ..EVERY time every GV not just in USA but all the states in world have (not good dhromo) ..for this we have constitute and election to change GV in base maybe will be better BUT IS?
THANK YOU
What’d happen if you correlated job growth figures several years into the future relative to executive administrations’ terms, to allow any policy changes to actually have an effect? How many years should that be to give some semblance of causality? I dunno. Anyhow, it doesn’t matter anymore, as you yourself showed that the public sector is shrinking faster than ever.
Charles, what does it matter that anyone votes for any of them?
Any jobs that may or may not come about over the course of the next election cycle will likely be even shittier than those that came about over the course of the current cycle, which are of course shittier than those which came about over the course of the prior cycle, and so on, going back to the last period of real capitalist growth (during which even republicans had to pay lip service to trade unions).
You may as well vote for SpongeBob.
According to Dean Baker’s observation on the Prezzie’s speech to the assembled at DNC last night, “President Obama implicitly called for cutting Social Security by 3 percent and phasing in an increase in the normal retirement age to 69 when he again endorsed the deficit reduction plan put forward by Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson, the co-chairs of his deficit commission.”
The rate of profit increases when the capitalist moves his capital to countries where she can buy labour power for lower wages. It’s also the case that stagnating the real wage increases the rate of profit and that’s been going on for decades. Meanwhile, productivity has gone, up, up, up. Output per hour of labour is now higher than it has ever been. Ah, labour saving machinery, in: All talk of shorter work time, out. At the same time, the left has continued to demand a ‘fair wage’ and ‘fair trade’ along with ‘social Justice’ under the wages system of slavery.
The choice between the Democrats and Republicans: cut Social Security this way or that. Workers produce all this wealth (outside of natural wealth) with trillions of dollars worth of it sloshing around in the bank accounts of the bourgeoisie and now this, to add insult to injury.
Sure, stocks go up as a result. Most of the stock and bonds are owned by the bourgeoisie anyway.