If there is a comedian in this show I think it’s you, BMA. You certainly found a funny way to read this:

Hibbs (1987, 218) argued that, given the class composition of their respective supporting coalitions, “Democratic administrations are more likely than Republican ones to run the risk of higher inflation rates in order to pursue expansive policies designed to yield lower unemployment and extra growth.” His empirical analyses (based on data from 1953 through 1983) supported these claims….

There is also this:

Previous work by Hibbs (1977; 1987), Keech (1980), Beck (1982), Alesina and Sachs (1988), and others has documented consistent partisan differences in economic policy, with Democrats striving to reduce unemployment and Republicans focusing primarily on controlling inflation.

Couldn’t make the link, eh? But perhaps you are referring to this remark:

Notwithstanding these investigations of the “political business cycle,” we know less about partisan differences in economic outcomes than we do about partisan differences in economic policies.

If so then you are simply misreading the paper. Bartels is just pointing out that what he has to say is new, or at any rate a new angle on a familiar topic. It certainly is not news that tight monetary policy hurts the poor and that inflation frequently sends the real after-tax return on investments into negative territory. Really, what is new here is just the fact that a scholar is ignoring the demarcation line between politics and economics. Of course J.K. Galbraith did it years ago but in best-sellers, not in scholarly journals. Those who have read Money: whence it came, where it went may wonder what the fuss is about. Of course the rich pursue policies which enrich them further. Was it ever otherwise?

And who controls monetary policy? Oh yeah the Fed.

Even if we take that exceedingly simplistic remark at face value, the Fed doesn’t operate in a vacuum. If lax fiscal policy threatens to generate inflation, the Fed will raise interest rates. Even without people like Robert Rubin and Larry Summers to advise him, Bill Clinton could figure that out. So, wanting low interest rates, he needed to buy off Greenspan with a tight fiscal policy. The fact that the Fed controls interest rates doesn’t mean that a president can’t seek to maximise economic growth; it’s just one of many constraints that need to be taken into account.

Of course the degree of independence enjoyed by the Fed varied quite a bit over the period studied by Bartels. That, in part, is why Clinton had to follow a more conservative policy than JFK or LBJ. They had old-style Keynesians encouraging them to play the Phillips Curve (though not as recklessly as they actually did) and a tame Fed. So by all means distinguish between the different generations of Democrats and Republicans. The brands have evolved. But if your contention is that there isn’t a persistent difference between the parties, then you have an awful lot of evidence to brush aside.

He most certainly does and did. The numbers might back up those assumptions but he certainly did and does make them.

There is a long standing correlation between the conference of the Super Bowl winner and the stock market. Appearently there is an even greater correlation between Jan’s barometer and the stock market.

Now, causation between party and economic growth is certainly on the surface more plausible than causation between the conference of the Super Bowl winner and stock market.

But one key thing here is that Bartels cannot identify what Democratic policies lead to economic growth. Minus that you might as well place stock market bets based on the Super Bowl.

Some of his baseless speculations are almost comical. It’s Democrats easy monetary policy. Only as he notes economists haven’t been able to make that link. And who controls monetary policy? Oh yeah the Fed. So Brett would be right, Clinton’s growth belongs to Reagan who appointed Greenspan. And the Reagan years belong to Carter who appointed Volcker. As does the disaster of 1979-81 under Miller. The rest of the 70s we can blame on the evil bastard Nixon and Burns. Looks like LBJ made his own monetary policy. So we can give the good 60s to Democrats. The 50s still belong to Ike and Martin.

Without a real causal link it is all just interesting bunk.

I am sceptical of your theory. As Bartels points out, unemployment has been 30 percent lower under Democratic presidents, on average; GDP growth has been 30 percent higher under Democratic presidents, on average. I’m pretty sure you can’t name “a single serious economist” who believes that raising the minimum wage could have had beneficial effects of that magnitude. At any rate I would find it hard to take such an economist seriously.

To me it seems that what we are looking at is the effect of differing macroeconomic policies. Republicans are happiest when cutting taxes. If austerity is called for they prefer to tighten monetary policy rather than cut spending. In these and other respects their policies are less favourable to the poor than those of Democrats. I think that’s roughly how most mainstream economists would interpret Bartels’ findings. It’s not an elaborate or implausible explanation as your comment seems to imply. By all means suggest alternatives, but persuading me that minimum wage increases have much to do with it would be a tough assignment.

That in brief was the story of Reagan’s first term as I remember it.

Even if you borrow a few trillion dollars and pay a few million people to carry rocks from one pile to another and back – you’re still going to generate some serious economic activity.

Posted by abb1

Not all massive deficit spending is equal. Not all tax cuts are equal.

But the conclusion of this paper are supported by a wealth of other data that show the economy does tend to do much better under democratic administrations.

It is even true about the stock market as average annual increase of the S&P 500 has been some 12% under democrats vs about 8% under republicans—and this comparion does not include Bush II that would bring the Rebublican average down..

The suprise to me is that for the top quintile it did not make any difference. I wonder what that says about political influence—if anything?

What’s more difficult to explain imo is seemingly non-existing result of massive keynesian intervention during Reagan, Bush1 and Bush2.

On one hand, Republicans think inequality is not important.
On the other, Republicans think that their politicians are very unlikely to increase inequality.

On one hand, Republicans want to cut the size of the federal government.
On the other, Republicans think that tax cuts increase total tax revenues collected by the government.

Hmmm…