For all of the bogus 401k and economic growth arguments people are making to justify their voting decisions: “Since 1945, GDP grew by an average of 4.1% under Democrats, compared with 2.5% under Republicans.”
“Since 1945, the S&P 500 has averaged an annual gain of 11.2% during years when Democrats controlled the White House, well ahead of the 6.9% average gain under Republicans.”
“During the first year of a Democratic presidential term, the S&P 500 has climbed an average of 16.7%, compared with 0.4% for Republicans.”
“Since 1945, Per-share earnings grew by 12.8% on average when Democrats controlled the White House, compared with just 1.8% for Republicans.”
“Ten of the last 11 recessions, going back to the 1950s, started during a GOP-run White House. The only exception was President Jimmy Carter, who presided over a period of weak growth and high inflation driven in large part by high oil prices.”
None of this is particularly useful. It does, however, confront the simple narrative out there that the media advances. We should know that economic performance and policy are quite complex. But here we are...
There is overwhelming evidence that Black men were threatened with loss of wages and any employment in their local area if they voted at all. See Foner, Hahn and @SandyDarity and @IrstenKMullen. Making the exception the rule is not historically accurate.
Black male politicians were strongly motivated by efforts to (1) educate black people—men and women and (2) redistribute wealth in the South. Their egalitarian interest stood in stark contrast to white men and women. I show that in my research here cambridge.org/core/journals/…
They paid with their lives. Black men who advocated for these policies literally paid with their lives. In the areas where they were successful they were attacked violently for wanting racial equality. I show that here nber.org/papers/w26014
"You Can't Be What You Can't See" is a popular phrase we use to talk about the importance of mentoring and role models for women and underrepresented minorities in certain fields. I'm here to argue that the phrase is pure crap, is ahistorical, and actually harmful 1/N
The implicit assumption behind the phrase is that women and underrepresented minorities need role models to envision themselves doing certain things (STEM major, college graduate, etc.). This implies that these groups are inherently imitative-- they'll do as they are shown 2/N
Notice the language we use about white male innovators: bold, imaginative, groundbreaking, visionary. All of that language is about new ways of doing. Clearly, there was never an example to follow. They are allowed to be innovators and reimagine things, others need examples 3/N
In analyzing race in economic history, I've found that Econs use imaginary Black people. They typically show up as threats to identification (what if they did X or Y?). History is not about what ifs, but the what did. We should use the narrative record to answer these questions
When we do, there is still skepticism. Part of this is due to very, very poor understanding of Black history and culture (even by economic historians) and a second is dismissal of evidence about Black (or white) people doing things white Econs did not understand or approve.
What white Econs do understand and accept is Black reaction to white-based stimuli. What they do not appear to accept is Black agency to move beyond white stimuli, or to create for themselves things for themselves. This is the long-standing problem of race in social science.
Today, I want to quote from the Republican Party’s 1956 platform. Just to see how far they’ve fallen from the days of Ike. As we contemplate what Republicans are campaigning for and strategizing about it’s important to put it in context to the party’s history. 1/N
“We believe that basic to governmental integrity are unimpeachable ethical standards and irreproachable personal conduct by all people in government.” 2/N
“We shall continue our insistence on honesty as an indispensable requirement of public service. We shall continue to root out corruption whenever and wherever it appears.”
(If you can’t tell, this is going to get worse..) 3/N
Yes, I did finish the PhD program @berkeleyecon in 4 years. There's a story behind this which is neither legendary nor remarkable. The punchline: it was NOT by design. (A Thread)
When I was a student, Berkeley had a 3 semester core sequence, so you didn't begin their field courses until the 2nd half of the 2nd year in the program. I took a field course in my 2nd semester, which was a lot of work, but allowed me to finish my fields earlier than others.
After my first year I received a research position for the Summer where I found my dissertation topic by accident. I stumbled upon it while researching child costs in household surveys but found I could do food demand. So I found a research topic that was doable early.
“The unemployment’s on his watch, the canceled seasons are on his watch. I mean, all of this is on Trump’s watch, and he has so bungled this and he could point fingers and blame some elite somebody somewhere, but it’s on him.” nytimes.com/2020/08/12/us/…
As someone living in Central Ohio I can attest that people are very disappointed that @OhioStateFB will not be played this Autumn. This is 6 games that were guaranteed to sell out with ~105,000 capacity at Ohio Stadium. But it is more than money, it's a pastime.
While the media reports on the bars and parking and other revenue and business losses, people are sad because these were Saturdays spent with friends and family. It was something to do. We see again the ways this virus is taking fun events away from us.