Financial looting is not good for the labor market. Who could guess.

How am I supposed to consolidate my power if the market doesn't crash so I can purchase residential and commercial real estate at bargain prices? Every third restaurant and business on Las Olas was shuttered in 2009, the buildings sold for next to nothing. Today there's one after another—Ferrari, Bugatti, Lamborghini, Porsche, Bentley, Maserati—parked on the street in front of those same buildings, all the while, Steve B. and I enjoy that Luigi's coal fired pizza! /s

Found your article for you, as I was looking it up the other day:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._economic_performance_by_p...

This is largely the crux of it.

GOP is the fun dad party and Dems are the mommy party.

Republicans run economy hot until it blows, then Dems get voted in to clean up. People get annoyed about taxes and regulation when economy is ok again, fun dad promises ice cream and pizza for dinner forever.. rinse & repeat.

Carter gave up the presidency to save America then. Volcker did the right thing.

The bigger picture being that this is political nonsense. We all know Reganomics.

Reagan supported those interest rate changes. Reagan than continued to push deficit spending well after the recovery from those first couple years, a huge lasting trend in Republican administrations ever since.

It's also very hard to assume that Reagan being elected in 76 would've avoided the oil-driven inflation at the end of that decade.

But of course, we've decided as a country/media to generally blame Biden for non-policy factors that put the economy on a wild bullwhip ride from 2020-to-2023ish, soooooo... maybe Reagan can deal with getting the blame for the inflation too!

That's true. Though in this case the administration is taking a much more active hand in the economy than any in almost a century.

For the most part the correlation between administrations and the economy is arbitrary. But in this case I would make a case that it is causative.

Sort of. I've done a lot of thinking about this one, and realize that it's really not just "one person" but a very large team of individuals, along with the "politics" of everything. If the President brings on a good staff, makes solid cabinet appointments, and they themself being a singular large part of the legislative process in modern years--given that it's usually fairly difficult to get 2/3rds of Congress to agree on anything--you can see the President actually has significantly more influence than you'd think.

In addition, it's the circles that person runs in and the circles that person's people run in. Do you think judge or cabinet appointments are decided on by one person? Sure, the President is a figurehead in this position and ultimately has to say yes or no, but there's a large pool of candidates out there and it's up to the staffers, maybe friends, maybe people in the know to propose those people to the President.

So while on paper the President doesn't, or shouldn't have that much power--in actuality with our current political process it's certainly much more.

Now, that said, just like the billionaires--they can only control so much. At least in the United States, there are competing interests even among the wealthy class, and sometimes shit just sort of happens--like a meteor killing the dinosaurs....or the release of decades of e-mails, videos, documents, and communications surrounding their pedophile behavior on a secret island in the Caribbean.

I disagree, but my personal belief is the economy and the government stewardship thereof work much the same way as WH40K ork technology

If that were true then why would there be such a glaringly clear example that presidential party influences economic performance?

It seems silly to blame these on the president though, consider just the past two recessions and how little they had to do with the actions of POTUS...

Ok, but is it cause or effect? Maybe Republicans do well when there is fear about the economy and a recession is coming.

The fact that consecutive Republican administrations in this graph fared even worse suggests that is not the case.

> Surely some of that is lag time in economic policy

Why? What if constantly launching foreign wars, leveraging up the financial system and running up deficits isn’t sound economic policy?

The consecutive GOP events don't seem to point to that.

And the president has enormous influence over what congress does (veto).

Of course everything is nuanced; the trend is merely interesting especially juxtaposed against people consistently voting for republicans for "economic" reasons.

That’s unless you have a Congress that lets the President usurp the pose of the purse that should be theirs and Supreme Court that rubber stamps everything he does

Where does threatening allies, tariffs and kidnapping foreign leaders fit into this?

He creates uncertainty and it’s hard to see how that helps the US economy.

And Congress is controlled by the president as overriding a veto is extremely difficult.

I'm not so sure either have much impact. Economic policy doesn't change much between administrations and Congress has been ineffective for a long time. Politics is mostly culture war things these days.

The Fed seems to be the big driver of the economy. Other than that, the government is moving things at the margins. Even Trumps tariff shenanigans don't seem to have rocked the boat much.

Except they have abdicated most responsibility, especially when the president is of the same party, for decades.

Many now talk like they work for the president.

Thanks for providing actual data and contributing to the discussion instead of the knee-jerk responses in the rest of the replies here.

The charts paint a much more precise picture on what is happening, and I actually don't see anything that strongly support it being a partisan effect.

>CES establishment payroll survey monthly change averages is quite the choice of stats lol.

Can you explain why? Given that it's presumably averaged over the president's entire term, doesn't that provide a good measure of how much jobs were added under a given administration?

The top comment has a graph. If you ignore single term presidents, the pattern remains the same.

Based on that link, I don’t think I want the jobs that were created.

It would also pay to keep in mind that the link claims that the preceding layoffs hit the same group. Ie, they were the ones there to be hired after losing their jobs.

It also says that people of colour are underrepresented in the job market (in the companies measured in your link) when compared to their overall makeup of the population.

Correcting that would take some years of imbalance in hiring.

Joe Biden "created" jobs the way covid "created" job vacancies. Maybe time periods with worldwide upheaval should be taken with a little salt.

Joe Biden also presided over the largest America that ever existed, and took power at a moment when a huge rebound in jobs was inevitable.

Or Covid when roughly 22 million jobs were lost in March and April 2020 alone

Macro-economic policy is political. I'm sorry.

Are you serious arguing that managing the economy isn’t political?

Grow up. The world is political whether you like it or not. Elections and apathy both have real consequences.

Job loss is not political?

It apparently does when one major party is full of destructionists who have had much success in politicizing everything, including a lot of what used to just be basic core American values.

Someone is in a financial position to absorb the fallout, huh?

Good for you.

the idea that the US economy is apolitical is, itself, ideological. and that ideology is called neoliberalism

Which is really neither here nor there.

Anyone implicated by the Epstein files should go to jail. That can remain true while also not being relevant to a discussion of which party's economic policy has historically performed better.

9/11, 2008, and now AI job displacement is also bad luck

Many publications have made that claim about a Russian hack. Is it inaccurate?

Ok, but there were also 36+ months prior to covid in Trump's first presidency...

> I mean, part of this is just math. If a government spends more, it’s literally injecting money into the economy, so of course you get more jobs and growth in the short term.

Thats not necessarily true. During Bill Clinton's presidency he cut the deficits and the debt and yet the economy saw very strong job growth.

https://www.factcheck.org/2008/02/the-budget-and-deficit-und...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jobs_created_during_U.S._presi...

I’m not sure how true this is given that both Clinton and Obama cut the deficits and in Obama’s case he did it despite complaints from the left.

Democratic administrations see less spending growth, though. Definitely not more. Look it up.

You're confusing rhetoric with policy.

If you think republicans lowered spending I have a bridge to sell. See two Santas strategy.