[IP] It's NOT the economy, stupid
Begin forwarded message:
From: Arik Hesseldahl <arik@xxxxxxxx>
Date: August 25, 2004 12:53:22 PM EDT
To: dave@xxxxxxxxxx
Subject: It's NOT the economy, stupid
Reply-To: arik@xxxxxxxx
Dave,
This is a fascinating peice from my colleague Dan Ackman at Forbes.com,
that I
thought would be a good submission for IP.
Arik
-------
U.S. Economy
It's Not The Economy, Stupid
Dan Ackman and Mark Hazlin, 08.25.04, 6:00 AM ET
NEW YORK - That the state of the economy predicts U.S. presidential
elections
is one of the hoariest pieces of conventional wisdom around. But the
evidence
is far from clear. While the economy is certainly a factor, financial
facts
alone have proved poor predictors of political results.
Just how much of an influence does the economy have? To help answer that
question, we studied the last 14 presidential elections, focusing on
seven
economic variables. These economic factors, whether taken individually
or
together, predicted the winner just 64% of the time. In short, the
economy is
not a particularly accurate indicator. One reason for this failure is
that in
most years, the economy is a mixed bag, with some indicators looking up
and
others staring down.
There is, however, one important exception to this failure of
prognosis: when
all, or nearly all, the economic planets are in line, the economy
predicts the
election quite well. That's what happened in 1956, when Dwight
Eisenhower
easily won re-election over Adlai Stevenson. It happened again in 1964,
1988,
1992 and 1996.
In our study, we looked at the economic numbers preceding the 14
elections
since World War II, including the latest data for 2004. We considered
seven
factors: stock market returns for the first six months of the election
year and
for the first three-and-a-half years of the incumbent's term; gross
domestic
product growth for the same two time periods; personal income growth;
unemployment; and the overall federal tax burden relative to GDP. We
compared
each indicator to the average performance for the entire post-war
period. Where
the factor was positive (that is, better than average) we considered it
predictive of a victory for the incumbent president (or his party if no
incumbent was in the race).
It turns out that economic factors predicted the winner of the
presidential
election in just nine of the last 14 contests. That's better than
flipping a
coin, but not by much.
for the rest see
http://forbes.com/home/business/2004/08/25/cx_da_0825economy.html
-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To manage your subscription, go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip
Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/