Eric James Stone

Mary Robinette Kowal brought my attention to a blog post by author Scott Westerfeld called “Do the Math,” in which he claims:

Since World War II the Democrats have been overwhelmingly better at running the economy.

He runs some numbers on economic growth under Democratic presidencies vs. Republican presidencies, and comes up with the following numbers for percentage rate of growth:

Democrats get 4.326 growth per year on average
Republicans get 2.8 growth per year on average

That’s about 55% better for D’s than R’s. That’s huge.

I tried to duplicate his results by getting the numbers from the source he referred to, and came up with 4.236 for the Democrats and 2.8 for the Republicans, so obviously one of us has a tiny error in the D numbers.  But so far, so good. (At least as far as doing the math is concerned.  Things aren’t looking so good for the Republicans.)

But I noticed that Westerfeld started counting with 1948 rather than 1946, which was the first year after World War II.  Now, that can be explained by his only wanting to look at 60 years of data, but what happens to the numbers if we start with the first full year after the end of WWII?

Democrats get only 3.481 growth per year on average, compared to the Republicans’ 2.8.  Instead of 55% better, D’s are only 24% better.

Still, the Democrats do 24% better — that’s pretty significant, isn’t it?

Well, over the exact same post-war period, the economy grew at an average rate of 3.55% when American League teams won the World Series, and only 2.46% when National League teams won.  Therefore, an AL team winning is 44% better for the economy than an NL team.  (If we start with 1948, AL teams are still 23% better for the economy.)

Now, I didn’t do this analysis because I believe the league of the World Series winner has a major impact on the rate of economic growth (nor that the rate of economic growth somehow favors one league over the other in the World Series.)  I did it to illustrate that this simplistic form of analysis doesn’t really show a causal relationship.

That’s not the only problem with Westerfeld’s post.  He also does some analysis of economic grown based on party control of Congress, concluding:

Democrats in charge:
1948-52, 1955-80, 1987-2000, 2007
Total growth: 3.59
Republicans in charge:
1953-54, 1981-86 (control Senate, but not House), 2000-2006
Total growth: 2.83

Maybe Westerfeld was just really busy between 1995 and 2000, but he somehow missed that the Republicans took control of Congress after the 1994 elections.  (And in four pages of comments on the YA for Obama site, no one seems to have caught that mistake.)  The correct numbers are 3.57 for the D’s and 3.06 for the R’s.  If we use the true postwar period, going back to 1946, the D’s are reduced to 3.12, just barely ahead of the R’s.

But really, looking back to the 1940’s is a bit of a stretch, isn’t it?  The parties have changed a lot — the Democrats were still supporting Jim Crow laws back then, for example.  Lets look at the last 40 years of Congressional control: 2.96 for the D’s, 3.12 for the R’s.  Or the last 20 years: 2.67 for the D’s, 3.11 for the R’s.

Somehow, I doubt Westerfeld’s going to vote Republican for Congress based on doing the math.

Now lets look at the last set of numbers, with which Westerfeld tries to show that Democrats are the party of fiscal responsibility.

During R presidential terms, the average borrowing every year is 2.36% of the whole economy.
During D terms, the average is 0.21%.

In other words, Republican presidents borrow eleven times as much money as Democrats. I’ll say that again: eleven times as much.

First off, he’s done the math wrong, as far as I can tell.  I took the numbers from the document he linked to, and the number I come up with the the R’s is 2.38%.  Maybe that’s a typo on his part, but for the D’s I get 0.76%.  I don’t know where his mistake was, but if you’re going to “do the math,” you should do it right.  Saying “eleven times as much” twice doesn’t make it any truer; it’s only about three times as much.

For some reason, he only looks at the presidential numbers, not the Congressional ones, even though Congress, not the President, has control of the purse strings.  For the last 60 years, the Congressional numbers are 1.59 for the D’s, 2.01 for the R’s, which is much closer.

But then, you really have to look at history.  The modern welfare state in the U.S. began with Lyndon Johnson’s second term.  If we look at the numbers since 1965, when Democrats control Congress, the average borrowing is 2.48% of the whole economy.  When Republicans control at least one house, average borrowing is only 2.12%.  (When Republicans are in complete control of Congress, it’s only 1.08%.)

However, it’s important to emphasize that, tempting it may be to make partisan conclusions based on these correlations, the main driver of both the economic growth numbers and the deficit numbers is business boom-bust cycles over which the President and Congress actually have very little control.  (Do you really think the Internet boom would not have happened in the later 1990s with President Dole and a Democratic Congress instead of President Clinton and a Republican Congress?)

Just as one last reminder that correlation in these numbers really doesn’t mean a whole lot, I’ll point out that when an NFC team wins the Super Bowl, the deficit averages 2.99% of the economy that year, but when an AFC team wins, the deficit’s only 1.8%. 

Sometimes, doing the math is not enough.  You need to know the limitations of the math.  (And it helps to know a little history, too.)

P.S. I have nothing against Scott Westerfeld personally and I’ve heard his books are very good.  I’m merely pointing out flaws in his political analysis.

My friend Spencer Ellsworth thinks conservatives should vote for Obama because he will focus on hunting Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan, without the distraction of the Iraq war.

Spencer’s right when he says that Al-Qaeda is the biggest terrorist threat to our country.  But I think he’s wrong about the effect of electing Obama.

Ever since we abandoned Vietnam, our enemies have believed that they do not have to achieve victory on the battlefield — as long as they can kill enough Americans and drag the war out for long enough, they believe America will eventually give up and go home.

That was the strategy being pursued by Al-Qaeda in Iraq, and until the success of the surge, they had a realistic chance of achieving it.

Unfortunately, even before the surge, Senator Obama’s position on Iraq was that too many Americans were being killed and the war was dragging on for too long, so we should give up and go home — giving Al-Qaeda in Iraq exactly what it wanted.  And by refusing to admit that his opposition to the surge was wrong, he only reinforces his willingness to lose the Iraq war.

Given that Obama appears willing to abandon a war if enough American troops are killed and if the war is dragged out, Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan will obviously believe that such a strategy will work against him.  And our current and potential allies at the tribal level will be less likely to believe we will stay to finish the job, which only makes the job harder.

Considering the fact that Obama’s political base is not unified in support of the war in Afghanistan, it is difficult to believe that as President, Obama would not abandon the war in the face of mounting casualties and lack of progress over the course of the next few years.  And losing the war in Afghanistan would only reinforce the lesson our enemies learned from Vietnam.

So if you believe, as I do, that we must not lose in Afghanistan, then voting for Obama is far too risky a choice.

Blood Lite: The Anthology of Humorous Horror is now available, both online and at many bookstores.  Along with my story, “P.R. Problems,” there’s a Harry Dresden story by Jim Butcher and stories by Sherrilyn Kenyon, Charlaine Harris, Kelley Armstrong, Janet Berliner, Don D’Ammassa, Nancy Holder, Nancy Kilpatrick, J. A. Konrath & F. Paul Wilson, Joe R. Lansdale Will Ludwigsen, Sharyn McCrumb, Mark Onspaugh, Mike Resnick, Steven Savile, D. L. Snell, Jeff Strand, Lucien Soulban, Matt Venne, and Christopher Welch.

To give you a taste, here’s the beginning of my story:

P.R. Problems

by Eric James Stone

What annoys me the most about vampires and werewolves is their good P.R. Not that I want a return to the days of villagers with pitchforks and torches, but all the romantic attachment to predators who hunt and kill humans makes me sick.

So when a cannibalistic serial killer started leaving the gnawed-on bones of his victims in public places, did the media label him a vampire? No. A werewolf? No.

The press called him the “Grove City Ghoul.”

Those reporters had obviously never heard of fact-checking.

First, we ghouls are carrion eaters, not predators — hyenas, not wolves. Sure, we like to feast on human flesh, but we find bodies that are already dead and eat them, after they’ve had a chance to decay a bit. For some inexplicable reason, people seem to think that’s more grotesque than the actual killing by vampires and werewolves.

Second, a ghoul wouldn’t just gnaw on the bones, he would eat them. Besides being nice and crunchy, they’re a good source of calcium. That’s why ghouls never suffer from osteoporosis.

We ghouls just have bad P.R. And the serial killer wasn’t helping.

InterGalactic Medicine Show editor Edmund Schubert reveals one of the reasons why he’s bought so many stories from me in this interview with Alethea Kontis.  Go read it if you haven’t already — I think you’ll find it interesting.

(The interview was actually published a couple of months ago, but I forgot to link to it at the time.)

After Palin’s somewhat shaky performances in recent TV interviews, I was worried that she might perform poorly in tonight’s debate.  My worry was needless.  She did very well.  In fact, I think she did more than hold her own with Biden–I think she won the debate because I think what she said and the way she said it will connect with the American people more than Biden.

Of course, I could be wrong about that.  But I scored last week’s debate for Obama, so I’m not someone who automatically says my preferred candidate wins.