DO THE MATH by Scott Westerfeld
Scott Westerfeld is the author of many adult and YA novels, including Peeps, So Yesterday, the Midnighters series, the New York Times bestselling Uglies series.
DO THE MATH by Scott Westerfeld
Those of you who've read my Midnighters series may remember a character called Dess who's rather fond of mathematics. She thinks the world would be a better place if, every once in a while, people would just do the frickin' math.
So when Maureen asked me to blog about why I'm voting for Obama, I thought I'd follow Dess's advice, and take a long, hard, number-y look at the two political parties.
What I found is rather shocking.
Since World War II the Democrats have been overwhelmingly better at running the economy. Hands down, case closed, beyond any statistical doubt. They've borrowed less money, created more wealth and opportunity, and left the next generation in better shape.
Now these are bold claims, and maybe you're shaking your head. But let's look at the numbers.
First I downloaded the last 60 years of economic history from this handy site. By "economic history" I mean the yearly growth rate of the US economy from 1948 to 2007, expressed as a percent. Then I averaged the data for each president, for Republican- and Democratic-controlled congresses, and for the parties as a whole.
Guess what? The Democrats totally own the Republicans.
Let's start with presidents:
1948-52 Truman (D) 4.8
1953-60 Eisenhower (R) 2.95
1961-68 Kennedy/Johnson (D) 4.85
1969-76 Nixon/Ford (R) 2.8
1976-80 Carter (D) 3.3
1981-88 Reagan (R) 3.4
1988-92 Bush I (R) 2.13
1993-2000 Clinton (D) 3.73
2000-2007 Bush II (R) 2.3
Okay, what does all this mean?
Well, that last number is the average growth rate of the economy during each president's time in office. And the R or D in parentheses show whether that prez is a Republican or a Democrat.
Do you notice something odd? Except for Reagan, the Republicans are all in the 2's, and the Democrats always get 3's and 4's.
In other words, the economy grows faster when Democrats are president. Much faster. This isn't a guess or a judgment call---it's just a fact.
The crazy thing is, it's not even close. The best Republican record (Reagan's) beats the worst Democratic record (Carter's) by only a tenth of a percent. Except for those two, you can compare any D with any R and the Democrat always wins.
So what are the overall averages? Going back to the raw data, I totaled up all years of D versus R control, and here are the results:
Democrats get 4.326 growth per year on average
Republicans get 2.8 growth per year on average
That's about 55% better for D's than R's. That's huge.
For many businesses, it's the difference between making money and closing up shop. For many families, it's the difference between buying a house and being stuck renting. And for a lot of people your age, it's the difference between going to college and living in your parents' basement until you're twenty-six.
Now I realize that folks will come along and complain that this is too simplistic. So let me address a few possible objections:
1) Doesn't it take time for economic policies to take effect?
Good point. So what happens if we shift the data by a year? In other words, every president gets credit for the year after they leave office, instead of the year they come in. Here are those numbers:
Democrats: 4.127 growth per year on average
Republicans: 2.841 growth per year on average
Okay, that helps a little. But the Democrats still do 45% better, which is still a clear lead. And in point 5 below, we'll see that the long-term effects of Republican control are far worse than just slow growth.
2) But Congress makes economic policy, don't they?
The executive branch tends to run circles around Congress, thanks to the power of the veto and the advantage of having one voice instead of 535.
But still, what are the numbers for congressional control?
Democrats in charge:
1948-52, 1955-80, 1987-2000, 2007
Total growth: 3.59
Republicans in charge:
1953-54, 1981-86 (control Senate, but not House), 2000-2006
Total growth: 2.83
Oops, the Democrats still win by 27%. And if you take out the 1981-86 numbers, when control was mixed, they win by 44%. (See, I was throwing the R's a bone there!) And sliding a year has almost no effect, because Congress switches control so infrequently.
So the Dems still look way better. And wait till we get to point 5!
3) What about all those crazy factors outside the government's control?
Indeed. The president and congress can't be blamed for everything; sometimes the economy is affected by random forces. But here's the problem:
If the economy is so random, then why don't we see random fluctuation in the data? Over sixty years, wouldn't the law of large numbers smooth things out for the two parties?
But instead, what we see is a very high signal-to-noise ratio: the D's are up by about 50% on average. And in the 14 possible head-to-head match-ups between any two presidential terms, the Republicans win only one---and barely.
Let me put it this way: If my basketball team has played your team sixty times, and my team averages 50% more points than yours (say, the usual score is about 120 to 80) then I think it's time to stop blaming the refs. You can't keep saying it's just bad luck, or the ball was inflated wrong, or your new uniforms were itchy.
It's time to face it: Your team sucks.
4) But you can't just spout data and declare victory, Scott. Don't you have to explain why the Republicans suck at running the economy?
My pleasure. To answer this question, I downloaded one more data set from the White House's website. It's the so-called Real Debt, which is the yearly federal debt expressed as a percentage of the entire economy.
And these numbers are deadly:
During R presidential terms, the average borrowing every year is 2.36% of the whole economy.
During D terms, the average is 0.21%.
In other words, Republican presidents borrow eleven times as much money as Democrats. I'll say that again: eleven times as much.
You know how Republicans always say they'll lower taxes? Well, they do. But they don't lower spending. So they have to borrow all that money, which sucks capital out of the economy.
And by the way, you know who has to pay that money back that the Republican's borrow, right? You do.
By you, I mean Americans who are teenagers now. You're the ones who'll have to cough up the roughly $300 billion dollars Bush borrowed every year. And until it's paid off, you'll be paying interest on it every time you get a paycheck.
You may be too young to vote, but you're not too young to get hosed.
Thanks to the national debt, you guys will leave home owing about $31,000 each. (Click here to find out exactly how much.) And all of that money was borrowed so that the R's could have their tax cuts, which, as the last sixty years show, didn't help things very much.
5) Hmm. So do the Republicans have anything to do with the current meltdown?
I'm glad you asked. Let's look at the data.
The Republicans have had control of the Presidency and at least one branch of Congress four times in the last century. Once was for only two years (1953-4) and they managed not to screw anything up. But the other three times, the R's had control for six years or more. And the results of these three experiments in Republican rule?
The Crash of '29 and Great Depression
The Savings and Loan Crisis
The Current Subprime Meltdown
Here's a handy chart:
Click for bigger.
Here's the general rule: When the R's control the Presidency and at least one house of Congress for six years or more, the economy self-destructs.
Why? Because they love deregulation. Which is R-speak for letting bankers gamble with your money, until they lose it all and have to be bailed out.
This last little experiment in deregulation? It will cost between $700 billion and $1.5 trillion, between $2,000 and $5,000 for every single American.
So add that to the total you owe.
_______
That's why I'm voting for Obama. Because he's on the team that doesn't suck at running the economy, doesn't borrow from your future, and doesn't try to distract you from a hopeless record with attacks on everyone else's patriotism, sexuality, and "elitism." He's on the team that doesn't cut taxes and deregulate without looking at the consequences, but actually does the math.
Obama in the White House, and Democrats at every level.
DO THE MATH by Scott Westerfeld
Those of you who've read my Midnighters series may remember a character called Dess who's rather fond of mathematics. She thinks the world would be a better place if, every once in a while, people would just do the frickin' math.
So when Maureen asked me to blog about why I'm voting for Obama, I thought I'd follow Dess's advice, and take a long, hard, number-y look at the two political parties.
What I found is rather shocking.
Since World War II the Democrats have been overwhelmingly better at running the economy. Hands down, case closed, beyond any statistical doubt. They've borrowed less money, created more wealth and opportunity, and left the next generation in better shape.
Now these are bold claims, and maybe you're shaking your head. But let's look at the numbers.
First I downloaded the last 60 years of economic history from this handy site. By "economic history" I mean the yearly growth rate of the US economy from 1948 to 2007, expressed as a percent. Then I averaged the data for each president, for Republican- and Democratic-controlled congresses, and for the parties as a whole.
Guess what? The Democrats totally own the Republicans.
Let's start with presidents:
1948-52 Truman (D) 4.8
1953-60 Eisenhower (R) 2.95
1961-68 Kennedy/Johnson (D) 4.85
1969-76 Nixon/Ford (R) 2.8
1976-80 Carter (D) 3.3
1981-88 Reagan (R) 3.4
1988-92 Bush I (R) 2.13
1993-2000 Clinton (D) 3.73
2000-2007 Bush II (R) 2.3
Okay, what does all this mean?
Well, that last number is the average growth rate of the economy during each president's time in office. And the R or D in parentheses show whether that prez is a Republican or a Democrat.
Do you notice something odd? Except for Reagan, the Republicans are all in the 2's, and the Democrats always get 3's and 4's.
In other words, the economy grows faster when Democrats are president. Much faster. This isn't a guess or a judgment call---it's just a fact.
The crazy thing is, it's not even close. The best Republican record (Reagan's) beats the worst Democratic record (Carter's) by only a tenth of a percent. Except for those two, you can compare any D with any R and the Democrat always wins.
So what are the overall averages? Going back to the raw data, I totaled up all years of D versus R control, and here are the results:
Democrats get 4.326 growth per year on average
Republicans get 2.8 growth per year on average
That's about 55% better for D's than R's. That's huge.
For many businesses, it's the difference between making money and closing up shop. For many families, it's the difference between buying a house and being stuck renting. And for a lot of people your age, it's the difference between going to college and living in your parents' basement until you're twenty-six.
Now I realize that folks will come along and complain that this is too simplistic. So let me address a few possible objections:
1) Doesn't it take time for economic policies to take effect?
Good point. So what happens if we shift the data by a year? In other words, every president gets credit for the year after they leave office, instead of the year they come in. Here are those numbers:
Democrats: 4.127 growth per year on average
Republicans: 2.841 growth per year on average
Okay, that helps a little. But the Democrats still do 45% better, which is still a clear lead. And in point 5 below, we'll see that the long-term effects of Republican control are far worse than just slow growth.
2) But Congress makes economic policy, don't they?
The executive branch tends to run circles around Congress, thanks to the power of the veto and the advantage of having one voice instead of 535.
But still, what are the numbers for congressional control?
Democrats in charge:
1948-52, 1955-80, 1987-2000, 2007
Total growth: 3.59
Republicans in charge:
1953-54, 1981-86 (control Senate, but not House), 2000-2006
Total growth: 2.83
Oops, the Democrats still win by 27%. And if you take out the 1981-86 numbers, when control was mixed, they win by 44%. (See, I was throwing the R's a bone there!) And sliding a year has almost no effect, because Congress switches control so infrequently.
So the Dems still look way better. And wait till we get to point 5!
3) What about all those crazy factors outside the government's control?
Indeed. The president and congress can't be blamed for everything; sometimes the economy is affected by random forces. But here's the problem:
If the economy is so random, then why don't we see random fluctuation in the data? Over sixty years, wouldn't the law of large numbers smooth things out for the two parties?
But instead, what we see is a very high signal-to-noise ratio: the D's are up by about 50% on average. And in the 14 possible head-to-head match-ups between any two presidential terms, the Republicans win only one---and barely.
Let me put it this way: If my basketball team has played your team sixty times, and my team averages 50% more points than yours (say, the usual score is about 120 to 80) then I think it's time to stop blaming the refs. You can't keep saying it's just bad luck, or the ball was inflated wrong, or your new uniforms were itchy.
It's time to face it: Your team sucks.
4) But you can't just spout data and declare victory, Scott. Don't you have to explain why the Republicans suck at running the economy?
My pleasure. To answer this question, I downloaded one more data set from the White House's website. It's the so-called Real Debt, which is the yearly federal debt expressed as a percentage of the entire economy.
And these numbers are deadly:
During R presidential terms, the average borrowing every year is 2.36% of the whole economy.
During D terms, the average is 0.21%.
In other words, Republican presidents borrow eleven times as much money as Democrats. I'll say that again: eleven times as much.
You know how Republicans always say they'll lower taxes? Well, they do. But they don't lower spending. So they have to borrow all that money, which sucks capital out of the economy.
And by the way, you know who has to pay that money back that the Republican's borrow, right? You do.
By you, I mean Americans who are teenagers now. You're the ones who'll have to cough up the roughly $300 billion dollars Bush borrowed every year. And until it's paid off, you'll be paying interest on it every time you get a paycheck.
You may be too young to vote, but you're not too young to get hosed.
Thanks to the national debt, you guys will leave home owing about $31,000 each. (Click here to find out exactly how much.) And all of that money was borrowed so that the R's could have their tax cuts, which, as the last sixty years show, didn't help things very much.
5) Hmm. So do the Republicans have anything to do with the current meltdown?
I'm glad you asked. Let's look at the data.
The Republicans have had control of the Presidency and at least one branch of Congress four times in the last century. Once was for only two years (1953-4) and they managed not to screw anything up. But the other three times, the R's had control for six years or more. And the results of these three experiments in Republican rule?
The Crash of '29 and Great Depression
The Savings and Loan Crisis
The Current Subprime Meltdown
Here's a handy chart:
Click for bigger.
Here's the general rule: When the R's control the Presidency and at least one house of Congress for six years or more, the economy self-destructs.
Why? Because they love deregulation. Which is R-speak for letting bankers gamble with your money, until they lose it all and have to be bailed out.
This last little experiment in deregulation? It will cost between $700 billion and $1.5 trillion, between $2,000 and $5,000 for every single American.
So add that to the total you owe.
_______
That's why I'm voting for Obama. Because he's on the team that doesn't suck at running the economy, doesn't borrow from your future, and doesn't try to distract you from a hopeless record with attacks on everyone else's patriotism, sexuality, and "elitism." He's on the team that doesn't cut taxes and deregulate without looking at the consequences, but actually does the math.
Obama in the White House, and Democrats at every level.
32 Comments
-
Comment by Ali on September 26, 2008 at 10:29am - 10/10 Scott, Dess'd be proud :) That is the scariest Math I've seen in a long time. And please please let us get the one with the ambition and the impeccable fashion sense!
-
Comment by Lauren McLaughlin on September 26, 2008 at 10:51am - Most Excellent breakdown, Westerfeld. I've posted a link to it on my blog in the hope of attracting some conservative reaction to it. I'm fascinated to learn what the counter-argument is, if, in fact, there is one. It all sounds pretty compelling to me.
-
Comment by Laini Taylor on September 26, 2008 at 11:26am - Scott, that is awesome. That is going in the inbox of Republican family members. Thank you!
-
Comment by Tera Lynn Childs on September 26, 2008 at 11:42am - Wow! First of all, Cecily's "which character is Barack" is wonderful. He is *so* a Bair. Second of all, Scott is a genius. I've gone back and forth with conservative friends on the economy issue before, but I never had a better response that, "It just is." Thank you for laying it out in quantifiable, undeniable terms. And that graph is just truly terrifying. It makes the election seem even more crucial.
-
Comment by Emma on September 26, 2008 at 11:43am - Wow, so much for "lowering taxes".
-
Comment by Ellen Hopkins on September 26, 2008 at 12:54pm - I've harped about the math for months now. Basics: can't fund a $600 billion war (let alone a $700 billion bailout) on tax cuts. Thanks, Scott, for this great, straightforward math. I, too, have passed it on to many this morning.
-
Comment by Kelly Fineman on September 26, 2008 at 12:54pm -
WOW to the math, Scott! I forwarded the link for this along to my husband, who continues to fight the good fight and try to persuade two undecided friends to come over to Obama.
An my teens are so going to adore the GG post. OMFG indeed!
-
Comment by Annette Curtis Klause on September 26, 2008 at 12:56pm - Wow! That's quite a contrast in commentary. LOL And yes, those figures are scary.
-
Comment by Josh on September 26, 2008 at 1:22pm -
Scott, Thanks so much for that great article. I read a similar piece in the New York Times recently but that math is quite helpful. I look forward to passing this on to a bunch of people. For those interested in the NY Times article here is the link.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/31/business/31view.html?_r=2&em&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
Add a Comment
You need to be a member of YA for Obama to add comments!
About
Forum
Whatever happened to "change"? 7 Replies
Started by JenDeng in DEALING WITH THE ISSUES. Last reply by JenDeng Jan 6.
Favorite Banned YA Titles 61 Replies
Started by E. Kristin Anderson (Emily) in YAY FOR YA!. Last reply by Jaden Dec. 13, 2008.
Nation-wide Rally Against Prop 8 Tomorrow! 17 Replies
Started by unityofeffect in DEALING WITH THE ISSUES. Last reply by unityofeffect Dec. 4, 2008.
Badge
© 2009 Created by Maureen Johnson on Ning. Create Your Own Social Network
Thank you.