![\"nyt-stocks.png\"](\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/scientopia.org\/img-archive\/goodmath\/img_333.png?resize=280%2C356\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
This is just a short gripe at the NYT, and a feature It purports to compare how the economy does under democratic versus <\/p>\n The whole comparison is pretty idiotic to begin with. Comparing stock But far worse is the fact that they deliberately used data that How do you make money off of an investment in stock? Ask any<\/em> The latter, selling the stock, is dependent entirely on the share price, which is frequently total disconnected from anything meaningful. (Anyone remember the share price for pets.com?) But that’s the only<\/em> thing The NYT considers omitting this to be a trivial thing. It’s so utterly unimportant that it only merits mention in a footnote. In fact, it rates People who read this blog regularly know that I’m a very vocal liberal But this is just The NYT should be ashamed.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" This is just a short gripe at the NYT, and a feature that they included in today’s Op-Ed section. It purports to compare how the economy does under democratic versus republican administrations. They claim that they’re computing the returns on a 10,000 dollar stock investment under 40 years of republican administrations and 40 years of […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":true,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":false,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[71],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-694","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bad-economics"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p4lzZS-bc","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.goodmath.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/694","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.goodmath.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.goodmath.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.goodmath.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.goodmath.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=694"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"http:\/\/www.goodmath.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/694\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":3335,"href":"http:\/\/www.goodmath.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/694\/revisions\/3335"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.goodmath.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=694"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.goodmath.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=694"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.goodmath.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=694"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
\nthat they included in today’s Op-Ed section.<\/a><\/p>\n
\nrepublican administrations. They claim that they’re computing the returns
\non a 10,000 dollar stock investment under 40 years of republican
\nadministrations and 40 years of democratic administrations, in the 80 years
\nsince 1929.<\/p>\n
\nprices over different time spans is already so noise-ridden that it’s going to be damned hard to get any interesting information out of it. The idea of comparing things this way is really not reasonable, meaningful, or valid, because it’s not comparing like to like. For one example, World War 2 was fought entirely under a democratic administration, and was a period of dramatic growth in the American economy. But the biggest reason for the growth was producing stuff for the war and the reconstruction; the same thing would, arguably, have happened if the republicans had been in
\ncharge. Similarly, it includes the tech-stock bubble as a growth period under Clinton, and includes the tech crash under Bush, despite the fact that the tech bubble would have popped under Gore, had he (correctly) won
\nthe election.<\/p>\n
\ncould, at best<\/em> be described as total bullshit.<\/p>\n
\neconomist that question, and I’ll pretty much guarantee that they’ll
\nname two things:<\/p>\n\n
\nthat they consider. The fact that many large, profitable companies hand
\na portion of their profits to their shareholders as dividends – and that those dividends can represent a significant profit for the shareholders – is totally ignored by this.<\/p>\n
\nmention below<\/em> a footnote concerning the changes in the S&P
\nmarket index in 1957.<\/p>\n
\ndemocrat. I think that the policies of democratic administrations are better
\nfor the economy than the policies of republicans. And I think that the constant
\nconservative harping about the so-called “Liberal Media” is just a convenient tool
\nthat they use for manipulating press coverage. I need a nap on my saatva<\/span><\/a> mattress to re-coop from the mental poverty.<\/p>\n
\nbullshit – this is not<\/em> a meaningful comparison. It’s a hopelessly
\nbiased, fake, meaningless pile of nonsense. And I find it very hard to believe that they would have published it as a huge graphic in the op-ed section, three weeks before an important election, if it didn’t confirm
\ntheir beliefs.<\/p>\n