tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4900303239154048192.post8087934156252492392..comments2024-03-06T06:34:42.881-05:00Comments on EconoSpeak: Failed Perceptions Of Economic RealityUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4900303239154048192.post-64991313802886326362018-10-28T20:11:26.561-04:002018-10-28T20:11:26.561-04:00Blissex,
Maybe in UK housing prices are more imp...Blissex,<br /><br />Maybe in UK housing prices are more important, but prior to 2000 in the US by far the most important variable influencing presidential election outcomes was the growth rate of real per capita GDP in the year before the election, with it above some cutoff (forget what that was) favoring the incumbent party and below that cutoff favoring the non-incumbent party, with this only overcome by wars, scandals, or party splits.rosserjb@jmu.eduhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09300046915843554101noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4900303239154048192.post-16045999960194325232018-10-28T14:19:10.605-04:002018-10-28T14:19:10.605-04:00Surveys never capture the problematic nature of th...Surveys never capture the problematic nature of the tax cuts though. Yes, they were small for most and often less than income variability, but time frame also matters. It hasn't applied yet other than to withholding yet, and it goes away quickly resulting in higher taxes later for most. You can say those taxes may not materialize, but those who know they were cut also likely know they will increase. Even then, many won't see cuts whether due to loss of SALT deductions or exemptions which will be noticeable due to their concentration. Lordhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06747994571555237739noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4900303239154048192.post-70776542960654144892018-10-28T07:23:36.991-04:002018-10-28T07:23:36.991-04:00«Prior to 2000 the state of the economy as measure...«<i>Prior to 2000 the state of the economy as measured by real per capita GDP growth explained presidential election outcomes</i>»<br /><br />GDP per capita may be one factor, but house prices as some author said are the USA national religion, and property owning people are rather more likely to vote than renters and in general low income workers.<br />In the UK house prices (in the southern region) have pretty much determined election outcomes, I would expect the USA to be similar, with perhaps some additional influence from share prices via the 401k accounts.<br />G Norquist realistically said:<br /><br />«And that is, in 2002, on the investor class stuff … you could have said, just drop $7 trillion in stock market value with the collapse of the bubble … $7 trillion, trillions with a T … Americans had $7 trillion less than they used to have, you can expect them to be very irritated and in trouble. You did see the Republicans run out and agree to Sarbanes-Oxley in reaction to the Enron scandal. But going into November, what actually saved it for the Republicans was the investor vote, which went heavily R. Why? One, they didn’t blame Bush for the collapse of the bubble. They were mad at having lower stock prices and 401(k)s, but they didn’t say Bush did this and that caused this. Secondly, the Democratic solution was to sic the trial lawyers on Enron and finish it off. No no no no no. We want our market caps to go back up, not low.<br />The 1930s rhetoric was bash business — only a handful of bankers thought that meant them. Now if you say we’re going to smash the big corporations, 60-plus percent of voters say “That’s my retirement you’re messing with. I don’t appreciate that”. And the Democrats have spent 50 years explaining that Republicans will pollute the earth and kill baby seals to get market caps higher. And in 2002, voters said, “We’re sorry about the seals and everything but we really got to get the stock market up.”»<br /><br />In that I think he overestimates share prices wrt house prices.Blissexnoreply@blogger.com