Historic Economic Performance

There have been several studies and essays comparing the economic performance of the nation under Republican and Democratic administrations. The Republican argument is basically for trickle-down economics -- providing tax benefits for the rich encourages investment and entrepreneurial risk-taking to the benefit of all as the economy then grows. Nice theory but what does the data say. The answer: not so much.

This compendium of measures over time shows a clear pattern of superior results under Democratic administrations over the last 40-60 years even when lag times are comprehended to account for the time for policy changes to take effect. Clear advantages for Democratic administrations show in GDP growth, unemployment, inflation, growth in government spending, and average stock market return.

These articles and essays comment on and go inside the numbers: Kinsley in the Washington Post, Forbes.com, and the Washington Monthly. More recently these issues are again coming up along with the sister issue of income distribution (not just overall performance). See Bartels, more Bartels, Krugman, and a column in the Washington Post. Here is the detailed Bartels paper with all the latest tables and charts. I have not found any serious rebuttals from conservatives or Republicans. The data are the data. I challenge you to scan/study these long-term results, which will only be magnified by the disastrous performance of the Boy George administration, and argue for Republicanism being better for the nation's economy.