Ep. 8 Does the Economy Perform Better Under Democrats?

6 November 2015     |     Tom Woods     |     6

This week, Paul Krugman claimed that the economy does better under Democrats, and that the wild growth promises of “free market” Republicans never materialize. Without being water carriers for either party, we set Krugman straight — after all, that’s what we’re here for!

Special Guest

Gene Epstein is economics and book review editor at Barron’s.

Krugman Column

Partisan Growth Gaps,” November 2, 2015

Articles Mentioned

It’s the economy, stupid (Wiki Page)
Green-job creation off target for now,” by J.B. Wogan
Barack Obama 2008 Blueprint for Change
Presidents and the U.S. Economy: An Econometric Exploration,” by Alan S. Blinder and Mark W. Watson

Related Videos

Pelosi: Unemployment Checks Fastest Way to Create Jobs
JFK Hopes to Spur Economy with Income Tax Cut

Special Offers

(1) Read three free issues of the Lara-Murphy Report, Bob Murphy’s co-authored financial publication, by clicking here.

(2) Want to master Austrian economics, U.S. history, and more, in courses taught by Tom Woods and other libertarian professors? Then check out LibertyClassroom.com, and use coupon code SHOW (all caps) for a special listener discount.

Need More Episodes?

Check out the Tom Woods Show, which releases a new episode every weekday. Become a smarter libertarian in just 30 minutes a day!

Share this post:Digg thisShare on FacebookGoogle+Share on LinkedInPin on PinterestShare on StumbleUponTweet about this on Twitter
  • Jonathan Schattke

    Why did you not get into the Austrian position that the depth of recession is directly related to the malinvestment before it, and the length indirectly related to the government attempts to ameliorate it?

    • http://againstjebelallawz.wordpress.com/ Enopoletus Harding

      My guess is because it’s only tangentially relevant for most of the U.S. recessions between 1947 and 2009, and I think some hindbrain of Tom and Bob recognized that. Fluctuations in nominal GDP (w/sticky prices&wages) and non-Austrian related supply-side problems seem to explain most of what happened in them quite well.

      • Levi Russell

        Of course, it’s quite difficult to actually mete out the causal factors. You can just about state whatever you like in macroeconomics and make the data “fit” your story.

        There’s also the problem of determining the ultimate vs proximal causes of economic phenomena. Did GDP fluctuate? Yes. Does Fed policy have an impact on that? Yes. Are price controls bad? Yes, Does the Fed’s action in asset markets function like a price control on interest rates? Some say yes. Are wages/prices sticky? Yes. Doesn’t gov’t policy create a lot of this stickiness? Yes.

        So if the question is “What are the ultimate causes of this or that recession?” we might have a range of answers. But if we aren’t asking a sufficiently specific question, we can talk past each other a lot.

  • satta

    Attributing economic performance to a party or administration – in the absence of acknowledging the overarching economic forces – is simply part of the duopoly’s system of propaganda designed to sway the voting masses. Truth and logic have almost no bearing on their arguments.

  • jhoop

    Krugman claimed that Democrats don’t really claim they can make the economy better. Ironically, just today, I heard an ad for the upcoming Democrat debates in which a sound bite for Hillary was played where she claimed she would help the middle class receive increasing incomes.

  • onceproudamerican

    So glad you all mentioned the the office of the POTUS is granted no ‘power’ over the economy in Article ll. I think this perspective is the result of a progressive MSM who wants to focus on DC instead of the government that really matters – those of the several States.