This is a graph of the unemployment rate between 1950 and 2005. I found it interesting, considering the post-war boom, Keynesian economics popular in the pre-oil crisis era and currently making a comeback, and comparing historical unemployment rates in both economic boom's and also recessions with what we're facing today. The red and blue columns correspond to the party affiliation of the contemporary president.
upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/67/Us_unemployment_rates_1950_2005.svg
Now what I found most interesting was how at first glance, it appeared that during Republican presidencies there was near universal rise in unemployment, while they tended to be lower during Democrat's terms. I thought it would be a wonderful propaganda tool for the Democrats to prove the Right's inability to manage the economy, and this is true for those who would merely glance or quickly look over the graph without studying it. But upon closer examination, this observation isn't accurate: in the period between 1969-1980, during the oil crisis, stagflation, and the height of the recession, unemployment jumps immediately after Nixon takes office (I tend to attribute economic situations at the beginning of a presidents term as the result of the previous administration i.e. Obama inheriting Bush-era economy, but we'll leave that open) and doubles, largely caused by supply shock and external forces, but is actually on the decline at the end of the Republican-era, followed by a 4 point jump to nearly 10% in the middle of the Democrat's control of the White House. Now I'll admit I'm slightly torn over how to interpret the slight drop in unemployment between 80-81, but the overall trend is clear, and again it is at the very beginning of the incoming Republican's term, before he had a chance to implement policy, so I'm taking it as a small break in the otherwise larger trend.
Of course, following Jimmy Carter's brief presidency between 1977-1981 we have the Republican hero President Ronald Regan's term. Under Reagan, unemployment consistently dropped and the economy recovered by the mid to late-80's. Unemployment rises again following the political and economic shocks from the collapse of the Soviet Union and the Gulf War under Bush Senior, but unemployment is again falling as Clinton takes office.
I am not obtuse nor partisan enough to be politically blind; under Clinton, unemployment rates fell for one of the most prolonged period in the last 50 years, rivalled only by the post-war baby-boomer era dubbed "The Golden Age of Capitalism" under one of the greater presidents we've ever known, President John F. Kennedy. For those of you groaning and yelling and you're computer about how he wasn't in office long enough to really do anything, had ANY other president between Truman and Obama been in office during the Cuban Missile Crisis, you can bet your right arm that at the VERY LEAST it would have resulted in limited-conventional skirmishes/warfare, and likely all out nuclear holocaust.
Regardless, an often overlooked fact by BOTH sides is that JFK actually CUT income tax on the middle and upper income brackets because they were "too heavy a drag on growth" and they "siphon out of the private economy too large a share of personal and business purchasing power". And what was the effects of JFK's tax cuts on "the rich"? AN ECONOMIC BOOM SO PROSPEROUS IT'S BEEN DUBBED THE "GOLDEN AGE OF CAPITALISM". I understand there were other factors at play at the time, but those factors were in play before Mr. Kennedy took office, however the tax cuts he immediately imposed were just the incentive needed to kick off a period of unprecedented domestic and international economic growth. Why can't we have Democrats, or even Republicans, like this in politics today? Our current troupe of "liberals" (crony-capitalists/quasi-socialists), neo-cons (war mongering profiteers), and "evangelicals" (socially repressive prudes) are all equally as appalling and would all likely govern the same, despite "deep divisions". I won't even call them "progressives" and "conservatives", as the former denotes an interest in social justice, sustainable development, and receiving all of the equity from the production of one's labor; while the latter believes individual human rights, liberal democracy, and equality of economic (and legal/political/cultural/societal etc.) opportunity within a free-market system. At the end of the day both aim to make life better for all and are both too good for our current politicians. I'm done with my rant.
upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/67/Us_unemployment_rates_1950_2005.svg
Now what I found most interesting was how at first glance, it appeared that during Republican presidencies there was near universal rise in unemployment, while they tended to be lower during Democrat's terms. I thought it would be a wonderful propaganda tool for the Democrats to prove the Right's inability to manage the economy, and this is true for those who would merely glance or quickly look over the graph without studying it. But upon closer examination, this observation isn't accurate: in the period between 1969-1980, during the oil crisis, stagflation, and the height of the recession, unemployment jumps immediately after Nixon takes office (I tend to attribute economic situations at the beginning of a presidents term as the result of the previous administration i.e. Obama inheriting Bush-era economy, but we'll leave that open) and doubles, largely caused by supply shock and external forces, but is actually on the decline at the end of the Republican-era, followed by a 4 point jump to nearly 10% in the middle of the Democrat's control of the White House. Now I'll admit I'm slightly torn over how to interpret the slight drop in unemployment between 80-81, but the overall trend is clear, and again it is at the very beginning of the incoming Republican's term, before he had a chance to implement policy, so I'm taking it as a small break in the otherwise larger trend.
Of course, following Jimmy Carter's brief presidency between 1977-1981 we have the Republican hero President Ronald Regan's term. Under Reagan, unemployment consistently dropped and the economy recovered by the mid to late-80's. Unemployment rises again following the political and economic shocks from the collapse of the Soviet Union and the Gulf War under Bush Senior, but unemployment is again falling as Clinton takes office.
I am not obtuse nor partisan enough to be politically blind; under Clinton, unemployment rates fell for one of the most prolonged period in the last 50 years, rivalled only by the post-war baby-boomer era dubbed "The Golden Age of Capitalism" under one of the greater presidents we've ever known, President John F. Kennedy. For those of you groaning and yelling and you're computer about how he wasn't in office long enough to really do anything, had ANY other president between Truman and Obama been in office during the Cuban Missile Crisis, you can bet your right arm that at the VERY LEAST it would have resulted in limited-conventional skirmishes/warfare, and likely all out nuclear holocaust.
Regardless, an often overlooked fact by BOTH sides is that JFK actually CUT income tax on the middle and upper income brackets because they were "too heavy a drag on growth" and they "siphon out of the private economy too large a share of personal and business purchasing power". And what was the effects of JFK's tax cuts on "the rich"? AN ECONOMIC BOOM SO PROSPEROUS IT'S BEEN DUBBED THE "GOLDEN AGE OF CAPITALISM". I understand there were other factors at play at the time, but those factors were in play before Mr. Kennedy took office, however the tax cuts he immediately imposed were just the incentive needed to kick off a period of unprecedented domestic and international economic growth. Why can't we have Democrats, or even Republicans, like this in politics today? Our current troupe of "liberals" (crony-capitalists/quasi-socialists), neo-cons (war mongering profiteers), and "evangelicals" (socially repressive prudes) are all equally as appalling and would all likely govern the same, despite "deep divisions". I won't even call them "progressives" and "conservatives", as the former denotes an interest in social justice, sustainable development, and receiving all of the equity from the production of one's labor; while the latter believes individual human rights, liberal democracy, and equality of economic (and legal/political/cultural/societal etc.) opportunity within a free-market system. At the end of the day both aim to make life better for all and are both too good for our current politicians. I'm done with my rant.
No comments:
Post a Comment