As each new day brings word of another Wall Street bailout even more colossal than the last, one question presents itself with ever-increasing force: why does the US economy perform so badly under Republican presidents?
The facts are hard to dispute; indeed, the historical record is now so stark that diehard Republicans are probably starting to wonder if there is a curse. Over the period for which modern statistics are readily available, Democrats have outperformed Republicans by almost every traditional measure of economic performance (per capita GDP growth, unemployment, inflation, budget deficits).
Democrats have even managed to beat the Republicans on their own turf. Thanks to the profligacy of the current administration of US President George W. Bush (and the prudence of the administration of former US president Bill Clinton), average Federal spending as a proportion of GDP under Republican presidents now exceeds that under Democrats during the measured period.
The pattern of Republican deficiency holds up when the span of historical analysis is extended by using stock returns to measure economic performance. On average, since the inception of the Standard and Poor’s composite stock index in 1926, the reward for putting your money in the market has been about 16 percentage points lower per presidential term under Republicans than under Democrats. Republican underperformance remains a stubborn fact even when the Great Depression and World War II are left out of the analysis (in the fond hope that they will prove to have been unique experiences).
With the current presidential term lurching to such a calamitous close that the incumbent is probably worried about being remembered as George Herbert Hoover Walker Bush, the correlation between presidential party and economic outcome demands some kind of explanation.
The answer can’t be found in the specific policy proposals of Republicans or Democrats, which have evolved so much over the years that they defy generalization. Nor are there clearly identifiable differences in doctrine that should translate into a reasonable expectation of better economic performance under one party than the other.
Perhaps the best explanation has to do with attitudes, not ideology. Maybe capitalism works better when skeptics restrain its excesses than when true believers are writing, interpreting, judging and executing the rules of the game. The Democrats are surely the more skeptical of the US’ two parties.
Some evidence can be found in those features of the US economy that we believe others should emulate. There is now an overwhelming consensus that open, transparent and accountable mechanisms of shareholder control are essential for the efficient functioning of public corporations. Virtue is defined by good accounting rules.
But it is instructive to recall that many of those rules that are now universally admired were fiercely resisted when first proposed. The options backdating scandal that recently caught Apple chairman Steve Jobs is a microcosm of innovation, prosecution and reform; now that a rule has been written to prohibit backdating, this particular scam will not happen again. Thus do accounting rules approach perfection.
What do we learn from this example? It’s hard to say. Maybe that capitalism works better when it is being held accountable to some external standard than when left to its own devices.
As the twentieth century recedes in the rear-view mirror, it increasingly seems that, for better or worse, our era’s defining manifesto has been Milton Friedman’s book Capitalism and Freedom. But that book’s potency originally derived from its fierce independence from contemporary orthodoxies. Friedman’s voice was a skeptical breath of fresh air at a time when the reigning viewpoint was a kind of smug pseudo-socialism that did not recognize the astounding power of markets to accomplish desirable aims.
Today, however, the reigning Republican orthodoxy is a kind of smug pseudo-Friedmanism that believes that markets left to themselves can do no wrong. Perhaps it is time for another breath of fresh air.
The book for the new epoch has yet to be written, but I have a proposed title: Capitalism and Skepticism. Skepticism might not be as bracing as freedom, but it’s something we could have used a bit more of in the past few years.
Christopher Carroll is a professor of economics at Johns Hopkins University.
COPYRIGHT: PROJECT SYNDICATE
US$18.278 billion is a simple dollar figure; one that’s illustrative of the first Trump administration’s defense commitment to Taiwan. But what does Donald Trump care for money? During President Trump’s first term, the US defense department approved gross sales of “defense articles and services” to Taiwan of over US$18 billion. In September, the US-Taiwan Business Council compared Trump’s figure to the other four presidential administrations since 1993: President Clinton approved a total of US$8.702 billion from 1993 through 2000. President George W. Bush approved US$15.614 billion in eight years. This total would have been significantly greater had Taiwan’s Kuomintang-controlled Legislative Yuan been cooperative. During
Former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) in recent days was the focus of the media due to his role in arranging a Chinese “student” group to visit Taiwan. While his team defends the visit as friendly, civilized and apolitical, the general impression is that it was a political stunt orchestrated as part of Chinese Communist Party (CCP) propaganda, as its members were mainly young communists or university graduates who speak of a future of a unified country. While Ma lived in Taiwan almost his entire life — except during his early childhood in Hong Kong and student years in the US —
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers on Monday unilaterally passed a preliminary review of proposed amendments to the Public Officers Election and Recall Act (公職人員選罷法) in just one minute, while Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) legislators, government officials and the media were locked out. The hasty and discourteous move — the doors of the Internal Administration Committee chamber were locked and sealed with plastic wrap before the preliminary review meeting began — was a great setback for Taiwan’s democracy. Without any legislative discussion or public witnesses, KMT Legislator Hsu Hsin-ying (徐欣瑩), the committee’s convener, began the meeting at 9am and announced passage of the
In response to a failure to understand the “good intentions” behind the use of the term “motherland,” a professor from China’s Fudan University recklessly claimed that Taiwan used to be a colony, so all it needs is a “good beating.” Such logic is risible. The Central Plains people in China were once colonized by the Mongolians, the Manchus and other foreign peoples — does that mean they also deserve a “good beating?” According to the professor, having been ruled by the Cheng Dynasty — named after its founder, Ming-loyalist Cheng Cheng-kung (鄭成功, also known as Koxinga) — as the Kingdom of Tungning,
RSS