What sort of Presidents start recessions?

[mendeleev 68]

Just to be fair...which party had majorities in congress during those 80 years? After all...the president is not an absolute ruler.

the party line is that the president is an absolute ruler, as long as the president is a republican.

After answering Peejay's questions above, where I demonstrated the record shows that Republican and Democratic congresses are equally associated with recessions, Peejay was reduced to stating:

This data doesn't prove squat.

I am not trying to prove anything, but rather to provide a reasonable demonstration, based on data, that Democratic administrations are less likely to see the start of recessions that Republicans ones. From the demonstration, it may follow that leadership at the top counts. (Why is that controversial?)

[Otto 83]

(Why is that controversial?)

It's not controversial it's like blaming the coach for the team losing.

And - as an aside - it's common knowledge that by the time the government 'admits' (or declares) there is a recession - the recession is either in full swing or already peaked. Anyone who has been in business - especially the retail sector, for example - the last 18 months will tell you "no shi* we're in a decline, have been for all/most of 2008 already and even before that (and even as early as Sept/Oct. 2007)!"

Edited December 7, 2008 by Karin und Otto

[mendeleev 68]

(Why is that controversial?)

.... by the time the government 'admits' (or declares) there is a recession..."

These days, and for quite some time, the organization that determines when recessions started or whether the USA is in a recession isn't the government, it is the National Bureau of Economic Research, a "nonpartisan research organization dedicated to promoting a greater understanding of how the economy works." The quote is from their website.

National Bureau for Economic Research

(And, to the extent that Karin und Otto are more correct than NBER in dating the beginning of the current recession, the less culpability the Democratic Congress can possibly have and the more credit the Republicans deserve.)

[spookyturtle 9,465]

Agreed, look to Congress and the Senate. In this case it would be Barney Frank (D), Chris Dodd (D), Chuck Schumer (D), Charlie Rangel (D) and their social engineering gone awry.

Barney Frank rides the baloney pony.

[Danno 1,228]

Speaking of Barney Fwank.....

That new parody out with his voice is funny as hell.

It used that old Abba song "Dancing Queen". ( think it was Abba)

Only in the parody it is "Banking Queen".

---------

Figures.... it's already on Youtube

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Just to be fair...which party had majorities in congress during those 80 years? After all...the president is not an absolute ruler.

the party line is that the president is an absolute ruler, as long as the president is a republican.

After answering Peejay's questions above, where I demonstrated the record shows that Republican and Democratic congresses are equally associated with recessions, Peejay was reduced to stating:

This data doesn't prove squat.

I am not trying to prove anything, but rather to provide a reasonable demonstration, based on data, that Democratic administrations are less likely to see the start of recessions that Republicans ones. From the demonstration, it may follow that leadership at the top counts. (Why is that controversial?)

If you look at the data closer, it does have to do with Laissez-faire vs. Keynesian economics. Those Presidents who were strong advocates of Laissez-faire (free market capitalism) and who successfully pushed their economic agenda through Congress, demonstrated that it doesn't work...at least not how they promote free market capitalism to work.

....

And for anyone interested in knowing what Keynesian economics is:

British economist John Maynard Keynes. According to Keynesian economics the state should stimulate economic growth and improve stability in the private sector - through, for example, interest rates, taxation and public projects. The theories forming the basis of Keynesian economics were first presented in The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money, published in 1936.

In Keynes's theory, some micro-level actions of individuals and firms can lead to aggregate macroeconomic outcomes in which the economy operates below its potential output and growth. Many classical economists had believed in Say's Law, that supply creates its own demand, so that a "general glut" would therefore be impossible. Keynes contended that aggregate demand for goods might be insufficient during economic downturns, leading to unnecessarily high unemployment and losses of potential output. Keynes argued that government policies could be used to increase aggregate demand, thus increasing economic activity and reducing high unemployment and deflation. Keynes's macroeconomic theories were a response to mass unemployment in 1920s Britain and in 1930s America.

Keynes argued that the solution to depression was to stimulate the economy ("inducement to invest") through some combination of two approaches :

• a reduction in interest rates.
• Government investment in infrastructure - the injection of income results in more spending in the general economy, which in turn stimulates more production and investment involving still more income and spending and so forth. The initial stimulation starts a cascade of events, whose total increase in economic activity is a multiple of the original investment.^[1]

A central conclusion of Keynesian economics is that in some situations, no strong automatic mechanism moves output and employment towards full employment levels. This conclusion conflicts with economic approaches that assume a general tendency towards an equilibrium. In the 'neoclassical synthesis', which combines Keynesian macro concepts with a micro foundation, the conditions of General equilibrium allow for price adjustment to achieve this goal.

The New classical macroeconomics movement, which began in the late 1960s and early 1970s, criticized Keynesian theories, while New Keynesian economics have sought to base Keynes's idea on more rigorous theoretical foundations.

More broadly, Keynes saw his as a general theory, in which utilization of resources could be high or low, whereas previous economics focused on the particular case of full utilization.

Some interpretations of Keynes have emphasized his stress on the international coordination of Keynesian policies, the need for international economic institutions, and the ways in which economic forces could lead to war or could promote peace.^[2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keynesian_economics

Edited December 7, 2008 by Mister Fancypants

[britty 1]

Agreed, look to Congress and the Senate. In this case it would be Barney Frank (D), Chris Dodd (D), Chuck Schumer (D), Charlie Rangel (D) and their social engineering gone awry.

Barney Frank rides the baloney pony.

Barney Frank - the perfect example of a whining, inarticulate, imbecile. Or, in the words of the great Mawilson "Barney Rubble" (I think i omitted an expletive there so apologies Mawilson).

[Teacher Mark 53]

the mcrib is back!

that should help

x 10

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Did someone say inarticulate imbecile?

[*Robert* 2]

only the really good ones!

[Brad and Vika 129]

Rather than focusing on the top of the chain - focus on the House and Senate would be more appropriate since their behavior/actions (or inactions) are what really drives/steers the country. IMO

OK -- if you analyze the chart with control of congress in mind, here are the numbers: Republicans have been of both houses of Congress for no more than 336 months in the past 80 years. Recessions started with republicans were in control of both houses of congress have lasted 65 months, or 19.3% of the time Republicans controlled both hosues.

Democrats have dominated control of Congress since Republicans lost it in 1930, and have controlled both houses 624 months in the last 80 years. Recessions have lasted 115 months during that time, or 19.0% of the time.

Control of congress doesn't seem to matter with respect to the amount of time the country is in recession -- but control of the White House does!

Why are you trying to bring statistical data and logic to VJ?

This means nothing to people who have already bought into the fears created by the GOP.

Apparently, fear is much more convincing that data.

This data doesn't prove squat. Recessions are a normal part of the business cycle. So by your so called logic we should vote for only Democrats forever and ever so that we never have another recession?

Talk about fear mongering!

While we are at it...how many more rainy / sunny days have there been when there were Republican presidents vs. Democrats? This should prove who really controls the weather too.

I agree - recessions/contractions in the economy are part of the normal business cycle. So Obama is blessed by crisiis right now. COming in as a Democrat at the bottom of the recessionary trough, he will escape the single largest image problem most Dem Presidents have - the perception that they spend too much. Here, we are demanding that the government try to spend our way out of this mess, even if it hurts us long term. Funny that when other countries go into recession, we tell them that they must reduce their spending, and let poorly run businesses fail. When it happens here, there is a whole different standard applied.

[kaydee457 13]

Rather than focusing on the top of the chain - focus on the House and Senate would be more appropriate since their behavior/actions (or inactions) are what really drives/steers the country. IMO

OK -- if you analyze the chart with control of congress in mind, here are the numbers: Republicans have been of both houses of Congress for no more than 336 months in the past 80 years. Recessions started with republicans were in control of both houses of congress have lasted 65 months, or 19.3% of the time Republicans controlled both hosues.

Democrats have dominated control of Congress since Republicans lost it in 1930, and have controlled both houses 624 months in the last 80 years. Recessions have lasted 115 months during that time, or 19.0% of the time.

Control of congress doesn't seem to matter with respect to the amount of time the country is in recession -- but control of the White House does!

Why are you trying to bring statistical data and logic to VJ?

This means nothing to people who have already bought into the fears created by the GOP.

Apparently, fear is much more convincing that data.

This data doesn't prove squat. Recessions are a normal part of the business cycle. So by your so called logic we should vote for only Democrats forever and ever so that we never have another recession?

Talk about fear mongering!

While we are at it...how many more rainy / sunny days have there been when there were Republican presidents vs. Democrats? This should prove who really controls the weather too.

I agree - recessions/contractions in the economy are part of the normal business cycle. So Obama is blessed by crisiis right now. COming in as a Democrat at the bottom of the recessionary trough, he will escape the single largest image problem most Dem Presidents have - the perception that they spend too much. Here, we are demanding that the government try to spend our way out of this mess, even if it hurts us long term. Funny that when other countries go into recession, we tell them that they must reduce their spending, and let poorly run businesses fail. When it happens here, there is a whole different standard applied.

Huh? Who's the "we"????

[HAL 9000 96]

And once again we forget all about the trillions spent on credit in the Middle East by none other than a Republican administration. How easy we stray from the path of reality.

One thing is to spend to waste and another is to spend (partly on loans to be repaid) to recover.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

When you have an economic system that encourages individuals and corporations to live vastly beyond their means - it was inevitable what would happen.

It doesn't require much imagination to see that dramatically rising house prices were unsustainable - and that as with the dot-com boom - that a crash was more or less inevitable.

[HAL 9000 96]

When you have an economic system that encourages individuals and corporations to live vastly beyond their means - it was inevitable what would happen.

It doesn't require much imagination to see that dramatically rising house prices were unsustainable - and that as with the dot-com boom - that a crash was more or less inevitable.

Exactly. One thing is to have predictable economic cycles of growth and waning. Another is to artificially accelarate such waning by using present-day market function against itself- and in the process still seek profit.