Actually the the economy does best when the Federal government is in deadlock - meaning the party that controls Congress is different than the party of the President. Meaning that only basic economic plans that are middle of the road make it through government, and large plans that spook the economy do not. Trying to make the case if the economy does better under the Presidency of Democrats or Republicans is really asking the wrong question. The country does better when neither party controls the federal government institutions - in other words when politicians do nothing it is best for the economy.
No one in their right mind believes that anymore. That said, we should understand why, in the past, it has seemed and people believe this is the case. It might very well be that smaller government and sound money are the reasons, not locked government. We've had plenty of booms and large GDP growth without a locked government. http://www.forbes.com/sites/merrill...cause-of-congressional-deadlock/#2dc6dd2d5a5c
So in summary, the Forbes article le states that when Obama was deadlocked the economy and market did better. Many graphs demonstrate this to also be true for the past 100 years.
My guess would be that gridlock is, in general, bad for everyone, and whether the economy does better or worse under gridlock has more to do with where we are in a business cycle than it does with whether we are gridlocked or not. This is probably a case of correlation being the result of a fortuitously selected starting point and yet another example of correlation not indicating cause. Coming off the great recession, after gridlock set in, the economy did improve. The effect of Gridlock did not really set in, however, until after the under- pining of the current business cycle was already in place. In the closing days of the prior cycle which ended about March of 2009 there was not gridlock, there was the usual obstruction, but not gridlock, the Democrats controlled both houses. It wasn't until after the midterm election in Obama's first term that the Republicans took over the House. Then there was gridlock! And there was absolute gridlock after McConnell took over the Senate leadership in 2015. By then, however, the economy was already well on the way toward recovery. Perhaps the progress made under gridlock had more to do with starting point selection than it did to the existence of gridlock. The Forbes article took no account of hysteresis in the economy. Their analysis seemed to have assumed that stimulus measures produce instant results. I don't see any support for the Forbes Article thesis in the article itself. Perhaps there is some support in our past 100 year history, but certainly, if there is, it would be counter intuitive. Somethings that are true are counter intuitive. Nevertheless, assertions that do not make sense, ought to be questioned. ______________________ When the GOP became resigned to Obama's election to a second term This became their official policy position: WASHINGTON—Calling a GOP victory in the 2012 presidential election antithetical to the party platform, top Republicans revealed a new long-term political strategy Tuesday: reelecting Barack Obama and making his life even more of a living hell than it already is. "For three years, the Republican Party has coalesced around the single goal of making President Obama's every waking moment sheer and utter torture," Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell told reporters. "But we can't continue to do that if he's not in office." "If we are going to make the president a haggard shell of a human being by the time he leaves the White House, we need four more years of never compromising, four more years of miring every piece of legislation in unnecessary procedural muck, four more years of pretending we want to work with the president and then walking away from the table at the last second," McConnell added. "Four more years! Four more years! Obama 2012!"
since you did not engage with substance on the other thread... lets try this again. If you are concerned about low wages... and you feel its the govts job to make sure wages keep up with profits? Why would your team be taking in a million more low wage workers a year and thousands of H1 B workers. Can you imagine how much higher wages would be if we did not have 80 million immigrants and anchor babies? Don't get me wrong.... these immigrants who are now citizens are my bretheren. I believe they deserve the same shot I had and the American dream. lets top stuffing their dreams with more immigration. Lets give them a shot to have our economy grow and get them high paying jobs before we take in any more immigrants.
I'm not concerned with wages keeping up with profits. I'm concerned mainly with two things. 1) An honest wage market, where taxpayers don't indirectly subsidize private sector wages; 2) wages keeping up with inflation. These criteria are essential to a strong middle class and components of a resilient economy.
a dodge of the real question... and a questionable answer that... first we will say... 1. how about actually answering the question about govt actions diluting wages by bring in low wage labor via immigration.... 2. here is your quote about wage disparities. if you are concerned about wage disparities then you must be balancing them against profits and how they are paid out to the owners... and top management. "Good governments, however, recognize wage imbalances are, in the long run, bad for both business and social stability. It is governments' legitimate role to not let wage disparities go too far."
If the fed would stop pushing inflation maybe wages could keep up, but everyone is on to the scam that we are supposedly in low inflation environment, anyone who buys a bag of groceries knows its b.s.