Quote:
Originally Posted by Gregstrom
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrispedersen
Lets make it simple:
I believe the statistics show that after wwii, the gnp of the american economy exceeded all other powers involved in the war - combined. In fact, the GNP of the American economy is more than 50% of the GNP of the rest of the world combined.
It certainly wasn't true after 40 years of democratic rule.
So Jims assertion that the democrats do (did) an outstanding job of managing the economy fails on its face.
|
I don't believe that the two are related. I suspect that the statistics show that war-damaged economies recover faster than peace-time economies can grow. As a baseline comparison, why not use the pre-war economies?
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrispedersen
But if you need a link, here is a comparison of US growth rates to japanese growth rates post wwii:
http://books.google.com/books?id=5aE...esult#PPA45,M1
Here you see similiar statistics for france, italy and spain
ie., that they are narrowing the per person gdp all through the 1960s and 1970s... IE., that the the democrats did not do an outstanding job.. indeed - they did worse than the managers of four countries. |
...and of those 4 countries, 3 had strong genuinely socialist political parties between WWII and now. 2 had influential communist parties, in fact. Are you suggesting that having far-left socialist rulership is better for an economy than having a far-right and centre-right 2 party state? |
No, I am making two assertions:
1. Statistics can be used to prove anything.
2. The statistics Jim used to prove that Democrats are better stewards are a particular egregious example of #1.
I suppose I would also advance the argument that who we are as a country now is a product of democrats and republicans - good and bad. That who we are transcends democrat or republican - and that the trends of how our country does are longer range than the time of any one president. Who can doubt that clinton benefitted from the miraculous advent of the pc and the internet when the seeds of it were sown in the late 70's and early 80s.
Who can doubt that the first two years of Obama's presidency will be dealing with the problems of this financial mess.
I don't think any serious person can argue that Reagan wasn't a great president. I personally think FDR was a disaster during the great depression -but that he was absolutely *amazing* during ww2. Who can argue that Lincoln saved the union - and Rooseveldt Teddy was a great leader.
I think Woodrew Wilson was an amazing example of american optimism and idealism - even while he did the income tax and the treaty of versailles.
Jimmy Carter, W Bush, and Grant, Taft and Polk, will all go down as mediochre presidents. And while I may not agree with you as to the role of democratic presidents in the 50s-70's.. I believe that Martin Luther King (a democrat, yes?) played a larger and more constructive role than any of those presidents.