Talk:U.S. economic performance by presidential party/Archive 1

Archive 1

Delete Article

Not needed2600:8805:C980:9400:11B:E10B:B081:770E (talk) 05:35, 31 August 2021 (UTC) Says who? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.188.147.125 (talk) 19:12, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Commentary section

The commentary section should be removed and the information in it moved to other sections or removed. The section doesn't add anything. Amthisguy (talk) 21:16, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Inflation

It would be interesting to get an expanded inflation section. DemocratGreen (talk) 02:42, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

inflation

DemocratGreen, in your reversion you ask Would it not be more accurate to refer to real gdp in a section regarding inflation?

but the source refers explicitly to nominal GDP, not real GDP:

weaker GDP growth and lower employment growth under Republicans could be responsible for the differential inflation performance[1]

does that address your objection? soibangla (talk) 21:46, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Hey, funnily enough I recently saw on twitter that the administration displayed that they had the largest increase in social security since 1981, yet later they deleted the tweet, since the increase is automatically adjusted with CPI. Meaning they really just told everyone that they had the most inflation since 1981. As much as nominal GDP is a useful figure, if it is a section on inflation it would only make sense to refer to real GDP, otherwise it is best to not refer to GDP at all. I would have suggested adding it to the GDP section but, I think it might be confusing there as well. I do appreciate you replying to me since I am new at Wikipedia and you are a Wikipedia media legend. DemocratGreen (talk) 01:29, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

"a Wikipedia media legend" hold on, I won't be able to stop laughing long enough to respond further until at least tomorrow. soibangla (talk) 01:49, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Misleading info

Other studys especially by Forbes shows this to be a lie. Do more research and redo the info don't mislead your readers, i know this site is ran by democrats. 129.222.252.236 (talk) 12:37, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Agree. We are always in a recession when Dems are in office. This page is opposite of truth what a shame 2603:9001:5D00:2608:DD5E:CC7E:777F:4400 (talk) 12:51, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

History Shows Stocks, GDP Outperform Under Democrats[2] soibangla (talk) 13:01, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 2 December 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved to U.S. economic performance by presidential party. (closed by non-admin page mover) SilverLocust 💬 05:32, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

---

U.S. economic performance under Democratic and Republican presidents → ? – The title seems to be a bit long for an article. I was hoping that someone can suggest a shorter article title that would work well. Interstellarity (talk) 02:07, 2 December 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. BilledMammal (talk) 02:50, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Relisting comment: Relist; while typically relisting and participating is frowned upon, I think the total lack of participation and the fact that I am only participating because of that total lack of participation makes it acceptable in this case BilledMammal (talk) 02:50, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

• Comment How about "U.S. economic performance by presidential party"? BilledMammal (talk) 02:51, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

  That was my first thought when I saw the current title; I certainly prefer it to the current one, which is overly long. Karmyx (talk) 22:57, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

  Support per suggestion. Woko Sapien (talk) 18:23, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

• Support U.S. economic performance by presidential party. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 08:52, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Tables with negative numbers don’t sort right

If you sort on a column with negative numbers, they go in order like this: -0.1, -1, -10, 1, 2, 3. The sorting should be -10, -1, 1, 2, 3. Can anybody fix this? If you want to see “worst” and “best” you need to mentally reverse all the negatives. 73.74.143.160 (talk) 14:09, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Article Issues

This article has multiple issues. The first sentence is an unsourced conclusion summarizing the data in the article. It then says that the reasons are debated while the commentary section further down states that the performance under different parties is not "completely attributable to policy choices". The "Reasons for over-performances by Democratic presidents" section is also pretty muddled and doesn't identify a reason why the political party in power has anything to do with economic performance. Based on this it seems misleading to draw the conclusion in the header. There are way too many factors that go into economic performance and external events can affect the data far more than who is President. If we can stick to just presenting the data without the purpose of the article seeming to push an opinion, we may be able to save it, but I think because it's not clear that the political party of the President has any effect on the economy, this article seems unnecessary and misleading (concurrence above) and it doesn't seem encyclopedic so I'm nominating it for deletion. MonsterMash51 (talk) 00:49, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't see a contradiction here

It then says that the reasons are debated while the commentary section further down states that the performance under different parties is not "completely attributable to policy choices".

the article shows that any reasons for the disparity are not clear, but shows that it is a discernible pattern nonetheless. it exists. soibangla (talk) 01:27, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

The problem is that it's a Spurious_relationship and Correlation does not imply causation, and while the article admits that in a small commentary section, I wonder if it's misleading for Wikipedia to present statistics like this at all. We know this is a contentious topic, and if we present data as "the economy was better under Democrat Presidents" will the takeaway be "therefore Democrats are better at managing the economy" if someone misses the reference that the performance is not "completely attributable to policy choices"? MonsterMash51 (talk) 10:40, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

please cite specific phrases that might lead a reader to conclude the article suggests causation of some kind

what are the weasel words that are claimed? soibangla (talk) 19:12, 25 May 2024 (UTC)