Pie Contest
If it were up to me, the contrast would involve baking more pies rather than “growing” pies. Nevertheless:
“He wants to quote ‘spread the wealth around,’” McCain said in a campaign speech in Pennsylvania Tuesday. “He believes in redistributing wealth, not in policies that grow our economy and create jobs and opportunities for all Americans. Sen. Obama is more interested in controlling who gets your piece of the pie than he is in growing the pie.”
Ben Furnas takes a look at the contrasting availability of pie during the relatively high-tax, high-service Clinton years and during the relatively low-tax, low-service Bush years:
And this Clinton-Bush isn’t a one-off. As is becoming better known in the research community, economic growth is consistently stronger under Democratic Presidents’ relatively more egalitarian policies.
54 Responses to “Pie Contest”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
October 22nd, 2008 at 11:11 am
Ben Furnas takes a look at the contrasting availability of pie during the relatively high-tax, high-service Clinton years and during the relatively low-tax, low-service Bush years:
Uh – the Clinton years had higher taxes, but were they actually “higher service?” Clinton was not particularly generous with domestic spending, nor was Bush particularly stingy.
I would suggest that the only big contrast between the two in spending is Bush’s far greater military spending, so any attempt to compare the GOP’s economic policies to the Democratic Party’s should take into account that the GOP’s love of military spending might be what causes economic problems during GOP control of government moreso than their antiphaty toward domestic spending and taxes.
October 22nd, 2008 at 11:13 am
the last six years of the Clinton Administration was about as close as the U.S. will probably ever get to have a libertarian president. Clinton start no new entitlement programs, there were no major revisions to the tax code, and the big policy initiatives were welfare reform and free trade.
I doubt if the Obama Administration is going to be interested in welfare reform, free trade, or holding the tax code unchanged for six years.
October 22nd, 2008 at 11:14 am
“make the pie higher” -George w. Bush
October 22nd, 2008 at 11:15 am
It appears that Ben Furnas is not aware of something called the business cycle.
October 22nd, 2008 at 11:16 am
Well, to be precise, the graph measures employment, not growth. Another devastating fact is that in terms of income, pretty much everyone does better under Democratic presidents than Republicans. So Democrats are not only more egalitarian, but even the rich do better under Democrats. See graph in an old Krugman post.
October 22nd, 2008 at 11:19 am
It’s Democrats who grow the pie!
Repeat, repeat, repeat.
October 22nd, 2008 at 11:21 am
ferd,
Unless the Democrat is Jimmy Carter.
October 22nd, 2008 at 11:22 am
This graph means that the population growth rate was exactly the same in the Clinton years vs. the Bush years?
October 22nd, 2008 at 11:28 am
The best way I have heard this explained is that Democrats focus like a laser on jobs, jobs, jobs. Their economic policies are designed with the thought of, “what can we do to create more jobs?” The Republicans, on the other hand, are about tax cuts and deregulation for their own sake and later tack on claims that, “if we do this, jobs creation should accelerate as a side-effect.” It turns out that policies designed for the specific purpose of creating more jobs are more effective at doing so than policies that merely claim to have job creation as a happy side effect.
October 22nd, 2008 at 11:32 am
Bah, who needs jobs? We’re all on the verge of living off capital income–Joe the Plumber told me so.
October 22nd, 2008 at 11:46 am
What a bad plot.
Why couldn’t they just draw on plot displaying just two curved: employment vs. calendar year and population vs. calendar year.
October 22nd, 2008 at 11:49 am
If Democrats are great at economics, then why is Vallejo County California in deep blue Solano county bankrupt?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/18/AR2008101801964.html
maybe someone could point out how you cannot use entitlements and government spending to make the economy boom.
October 22nd, 2008 at 12:03 pm
If Democrats are great at economics, then why is Vallejo County California in deep blue Solano county bankrupt?
I dunno. Why did deep-red Orange County go bankrupt in the 1990s?
October 22nd, 2008 at 12:11 pm
And it might be worth mentioning that Obama’s point about spreading the wealth was explicitely a point about baking bigger pies. McCain is lying about what Obama said there.
October 22nd, 2008 at 12:19 pm
Unless the Democrat is Jimmy Carter.
It turns out that the best Republlican record (Reagan’s) are better than exactly one Democratic record (Carter’s) And not by very much. So, in the spirit of cheering themselves on, Republicans crow that Carter is the worst ever and Reagan the best ever.
October 22nd, 2008 at 12:24 pm
So I ask again- why in the name of all that’s holy has the Obama campaign not smacked McCain around by pointing out what happened under Clinton? Every time a Republican bitches about the Obama tax plan respond with a Republican from 1993 saying exactly the same thing about Clinton, and point out how dead wrong they were.
October 22nd, 2008 at 12:27 pm
I guess the business cycle is biased against Republicans too, along with the media, truth and videotape.
October 22nd, 2008 at 12:33 pm
It’s nice of dems to have egalitarian policies like not getting attacked by Al Qaeda and not sticking around for the burst of the tech bubble. Way to go guys. Keep it up.
October 22nd, 2008 at 12:38 pm
Wouldn’t “Growing the Pie” be a good name for a rock band?
October 22nd, 2008 at 12:44 pm
When it comes to their money, Americans want the truth. So, wherever he goes, Obama should carry a big copy of the chart that shows that it’s Democrats who grow the pie. Hold that baby up for the crowds and cameras to see.
October 22nd, 2008 at 12:54 pm
As is becoming better known in the research community, economic growth is consistently stronger under Democratic Presidents’ relatively more egalitarian policies.
No it doesn’t. And the “research community” doesn’t claim it does, either.
October 22nd, 2008 at 12:57 pm
No it doesn’t.
Well, that’s a compelling argument! I guess we’re done here!
October 22nd, 2008 at 1:04 pm
Well, that’s a compelling argument!
Yes, just as compelling as Matthew’s unsourced, unargued, unsubstantiated assertion to which it was a response. Well done, Tyro.
October 22nd, 2008 at 1:15 pm
“Yes, just as compelling as Matthew’s unsourced, unargued, unsubstantiated assertion to which it was a response. Well done, Tyro.”
Hey, at least Matthew had a graph. And an argument that involved pie. You have neither pies nor graphs.
I, for one, might be stimulated to support your side of this debate if you bought me a pie.
October 22nd, 2008 at 1:19 pm
A strongly regulated, high wage economy with low unemployment is the best of all possible worlds, one in which only the most productive, efficient, techonologically advanced companies survive and where backwards businesses that can scrape by through cutting wages and benefits or can make their way in a lightly regulated industry, usually through such techniques as heavy pollution, are eliminated. But such an economy would require big government, and so is baaaaad according to Republicans and so many dim-witted economists. Hopefully we’ll stop listening to these idiots and go (back) to what works so well before they destroy the country and probably the world along with it.
October 22nd, 2008 at 1:27 pm
“where backwards businesses that can scrape by through cutting wages and benefits or can make their way in a lightly regulated industry, usually through such techniques as heavy pollution, are eliminated. But such an economy would require big government, and so is baaaaad according to Republicans and so many dim-witted economists.”
More critically, such backwards businesses are a necessary (and even dominant) component of most conservative political movements everywhere. Without a substantive part of the economy being focused in such easy to manage backward industries, elite conservatives would be unable to employ their numerous stupid, addicted, lazy or insane relatives, hangers-on, courtiers, bagmen and so on. It’s a major part of the wingnut welfare system.
October 22nd, 2008 at 1:35 pm
More critically, such backwards businesses are a necessary (and even dominant) component of most conservative political movements everywhere.
One might point out that it’s pretty consistent how the Republican “special interests” in industry come from old-line industries like the resource extraction, construction, and day-traders, while (whatever their relative merits), Democratic special interest groups in industry are more concentrated in the technology field, hedge funds, and alternative energy.
It’s not a coincidence that Condi Rice was on the board of directors of Chevron while Gore is on the Board of Directors of Apple and a senior advisor to Google.
October 22nd, 2008 at 1:36 pm
Jack,
Care to give us an example strongly regulated, high wage economy with low unemployment is the best of all possible worlds, one in which only the most productive, efficient, techonologically advanced companies survive that also has the diversity of the U.S.
If you look Europe, they trade high wage for higher unemployment, higher taxes, feather bedding, or high barriers to actually getting a job.
In your plan, it may be more profitable to become a dry cleaner because you can cheat on your taxes and avoid many of the government regulations (like in California).
October 22nd, 2008 at 1:36 pm
Follette,
I hear Marie Callender’s banana cream is very good. Matthew will be using it shortly to show that McCain wants a 100-year war in Iraq.
October 22nd, 2008 at 2:03 pm
In your plan, it may be more profitable to become a dry cleaner because you can cheat on your taxes and avoid many of the government regulations (like in California).
California dry cleaners are generally beholden to a large host of state government regulations surrounding the chemicals used in their business, and the nature of the business is such that it requires a lot of paper trails in order to keep tabs on everyone’s clothes. Better to do something that’s all-cash, requires fewer receipts, and has a large pool of willing labor willing to work under the table: that would be opening a greasy spoon/diner.
The USA seems to run an economy on a lot of “make work” low-wage jobs in the service industry. In Europe, there are fewer of these, but the wages are higher and they come with benefits. Honestly, what we really want to do is strangle these low-skill, low-wage jobs out of the economy so that investor dollars can be redirected towards industries with higher-skilled jobs. Our tolerance for both illegal immigrant labor as well as tacit encouragement of service jobs with no retirement or health insurance benefits serves only to provide a “subsidy” for investors seeking to start such low-skill, low-wage businesses. I don’t really think that this is a good thing to base the future of the US economy on.
October 22nd, 2008 at 2:12 pm
“If you look Europe, they trade high wage for higher unemployment, higher taxes, feather bedding, or high barriers to actually getting a job.”
Did you get that from a comic book or something?
October 22nd, 2008 at 2:26 pm
burritoboy,
You can look up the unemployment rates in countries like France and Germany http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/areas/qualityoflife/eurlife/index.php?template=3&radioindic=17&idDomain=2
Germany has been above 8% for ten years. You can look up the stories on how an entry level job is to get in France.
You can look up overall tax burden http://www.forbes.com/global/2006/0522/032a.html
October 22nd, 2008 at 2:59 pm
Germany has been above 8% for ten years.
I wonder what could have happened in Germany to cause such high unemployment. I wonder if much of that unemployment might be concentrated somewhere, in some specific region of the country, like the eastern part of Germany, or something.
October 22nd, 2008 at 4:28 pm
“You can look up the unemployment rates in countries like France and Germany http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/areas/qualityoflife/eurlife/index.php?template=3&radioindic=17&idDomain=2
Germany has been above 8% for ten years. You can look up the stories on how an entry level job is to get in France.
You can look up overall tax burden http://www.forbes.com/global/2006/0522/032a.html”
How many more decades are we going to have repeatedly refute every day this type of stupid vulgar Friedmanite propaganda?
October 22nd, 2008 at 4:32 pm
nbt: This graph means that the population growth rate was exactly the same in the Clinton years vs. the Bush years?
The rate of population growth in the US is pretty stable, which might have been clearer plotted as a solid line.
October 22nd, 2008 at 4:39 pm
How many more decades are we going to have repeatedly refute every day this type of stupid vulgar Friedmanite propaganda?
This is what’s called a question based on a false premise. Have you stopped beating your wife yet?
October 22nd, 2008 at 4:59 pm
“And this Clinton-Bush isn’t a one-off. As is becoming better known in the research community, economic growth is consistently stronger under Democratic Presidents’ relatively more egalitarian policies.”
Statistically speaking the ‘research community’ understands it is pretty much a *Clinton* one-off as opposed to a Democratic party trend. It probably has had something to do with the bubble immediately preceeding the housing bubble (Internet Tech Bubble).
And if we think it has to do with his policies, his major economic policy achievements were NAFTA, free trade in general, and welfare reform. What that has to do with “Democratic Party” isn’t made entirely clear by the research community.
November 12th, 2008 at 10:53 am
Hi there!
My first post at this great blog!
I wanna show u my dayly updated blog: Black Amateur Fuck Video
Have a nice day!
BB!
P.S. if you don’t want to see this message please write me to no.ads08@gmail.com with subject “NO ADS” and URL of your forum
Thank you for cooperation!
January 18th, 2009 at 5:52 am
laptop battery
laptop batteries
February 8th, 2009 at 10:54 pm
laptop battery
March 2nd, 2009 at 5:35 am
levitraExcellent site. It was pleasant to me.
March 11th, 2009 at 4:55 am
Incredible site!
March 14th, 2009 at 12:24 am
Hello. That’s very nice site but I’ve seen this before here:
[url]http://bb2.inguaro.com/37312295c36e6610d52b88cea1a351b0[/url]
37312295c36e6610d52b88cea1a351b0
March 14th, 2009 at 12:24 am
Hello. That’s very nice site but I’ve seen this before here:
http://text.inguaro.com/37312295c36e6610d52b88cea1a351b0
37312295c36e6610d52b88cea1a351b0
March 14th, 2009 at 12:24 am
Hello. That’s very nice site but I’ve seen this before here:
http://text.inguaro.com/37312295c36e6610d52b88cea1a351b0
37312295c36e6610d52b88cea1a351b0
March 14th, 2009 at 12:25 am
Hello. That’s very nice site but I’ve seen this before here:
[url=http://bb1.inguaro.com/37312295c36e6610d52b88cea1a351b0]http://text.inguaro.com/37312295c36e6610d52b88cea1a351b0[/url]
37312295c36e6610d52b88cea1a351b0
March 17th, 2009 at 2:33 am
I want to say – thank you for this!
tramadol
March 22nd, 2009 at 6:25 am
tramadol
Excellent site. It was pleasant to me.
April 2nd, 2009 at 5:34 am
I bookmarked this site. Thank you for good job!
buy cheap viagra