Recessions fueled by Presidential politics?

[Imp]

So, you read lots of media articles about the US economy on something being the most X since the year *blank*.

Now usually the articles are about "such-and-such came out higher than predicted...," and those are still out there. There's just more that say, "such-and-such was lower" (or the most) this month...blah, blah.

Now, about the *blank*. When you trace that back, you find one figure mostly: 1991, a downturn that wasn't a recession. You also find 1999-2000, also a downturn that was later determined not to be a recession. You usually find the last recession referred to as 1981-1982. 1991 and 1999 are notable for being presidential electoral years in the US.

Now, I've always seemed to note that all of a sudden people seem to be doing just a little bit worse during presidential campaigns--or at least worried that everyone else might be doing a little bit worse. Anyone else notice this? Any thoughts that this might be anything else other than just historical accident?

[lypeaches]

I'm no economist, but these occurences are logical, in my opinion. People do not like uncertainty, and tend to hang on to their money when they don't know what's going to happen in the immediate future. Elections are, by their very nature, uncertain. Once elections are over, things tend to uptick.

Mind you, I don't think what's going on now is soley because it's an election year, not by a long shot, but it does add to the situation, imo.

[prickly]

......i thought you said "depression"....

[Keb]

This is an interesting theory, indeed.

[LillyBBBW]

I'm not certain it's all hype to be honest. People really are losing their homes, people really are losing their jobs, hacksaw murders really are up and so on. I just think that when elections come up it is thrust in the forefront more whereas the rest of the year we hear about Mel Gibsons DUI and the writers strike.

[braindeadhead]

Originally Posted by Imp

So, you read lots of media articles about the US economy on something being the most X since the year *blank*.

Now usually the articles are about "such-and-such came out higher than predicted...," and those are still out there. There's just more that say, "such-and-such was lower" (or the most) this month...blah, blah.

Now, about the *blank*. When you trace that back, you find one figure mostly: 1991, a downturn that wasn't a recession. You also find 1999-2000, also a downturn that was later determined not to be a recession. You usually find the last recession referred to as 1981-1982. 1991 and 1999 are notable for being presidential electoral years in the US.

Now, I've always seemed to note that all of a sudden people seem to be doing just a little bit worse during presidential campaigns--or at least worried that everyone else might be doing a little bit worse. Anyone else notice this? Any thoughts that this might be anything else other than just historical accident?

Challengers will always paint a more negative picture of the economy. Office holders will paint a more positive picture. This year both parties are putting themselves in the roll as challanger since Bush isn't *cough* that popular.

The good news is once someone is elected they will raise Atlantis to improve the economy. No new president can afford to loss the first year and half of their term to a recession. They'll be a lame duck by the midterm election.

The bad news is that fix will most likely be a huge spending package that we'll have to pay for (with interest, don't forget the interest) down the road. Which will put us on the path toward the next recession... and so the circe of economic short sightedness is complete.

[CleverBomb]

Originally Posted by braindeadhead

Challengers will always paint a more negative picture of the economy. Office holders will paint a more positive picture. This year both parties are putting themselves in the roll as challanger since Bush isn't *cough* that popular.

The good news is once someone is elected they will raise Atlantis to improve the economy. No new president can afford to loss the first year and half of their term to a recession. They'll be a lame duck by the midterm election.

The bad news is that fix will most likely be a huge spending package that we'll have to pay for (with interest, don't forget the interest) down the road. Which will put us on the path toward the next recession... and so the circe of economic short sightedness is complete.

I don't think they'll "raise Atlantis" to improve the economy -- it may simply not be possible.
Right now, the Administration is markedly "pro-business," and to the extent possible, business wants to keep it that way.
Collectively, it may be that they're writing everything down now so that the second and third quarters show growth by comparison (I suspect this happened during the last election cycle -- and gas prices definitely were "adjusted" in the latter part of the year). Or, if one's a pessimist about it, they well could be trying to keep unsustainable valuations propped up until November. I'm not sure they can, but they'll try.

-Rusty
(Bearish)

[braindeadhead]

Originally Posted by CleverBomb

I don't think they'll "raise Atlantis" to improve the economy -- it may simply not be possible.
Right now, the Administration is markedly "pro-business," and to the extent possible, business wants to keep it that way.
Collectively, it may be that they're writing everything down now so that the second and third quarters show growth by comparison (I suspect this happened during the last election cycle -- and gas prices definitely were "adjusted" in the latter part of the year). Or, if one's a pessimist about it, they well could be trying to keep unsustainable valuations propped up until November. I'm not sure they can, but they'll try.

-Rusty
(Bearish)

Good point.. I should have clarified.. They will try like hell to make things better. Doesn't mean they will succeed but they will try...

(very bearish indeed)