Skewz.com

Getting All Sides of the Story

skewz

skewz
Location
San Francisco, California, USA
Birthday
January 01
Company
skewz.com
Bio
The co-founders of skewz.com. Skewz.com is a site where you can reveal media bias and at the same time get all sides of the story.

Skewz's Links

MY LINKS
Editor’s Pick
APRIL 17, 2009 5:37PM

Over Last 100 Years, Multi-term GOP Presidents = Bank Crisis

Rate: 12 Flag

OK, correlation does not equal causation; but this is modestly humorous.  Over the last century, any time you had a multi-term GOP president (in other words, long enough to do real damage) you had a pretty substantial collapse in the banking industry (i.e., near fundamental economic collapse).  For the statistics junkies the R does not equal 1...it assuredly can be described as R<>1 but R is notably greater than 0.  Just putting down a list of presidents over the last century and then mapping the major bank panics over the same time period reveals some interesting stuff.

presidents 
 
The yellow highlighted line items represent multi-term GOP presidents with banking panics associated with them.  Those in blue/cyan represents multi-term GOP presidents where no such panic occurred.  Eisenhower and Nixon are the two non-panic GOP presidents.  A simple business cycle recession took place near the end of Eisenhower's presidency.  He's also the president to kick-off the largest public works program in world history with the Interstate highway system.  Richard Nixon, of course, was president during the stagflation years of the oil shocks though a lot of his economic woes likely came out of spending for Johnson's Great Society programs.  

The other presidents with panics associated with them are Theodore Roosevelt with the famous bank panic of 1907 where JP Morgan had to step in as the lender of last resort.  His notable power led to demands that a non-private lender of last resort be created.  This was the impetus to create the FED which was established in 1913.  Prior to the creation of the FED the last central bank in the US was abolished by Andrew Jackson in the early part of the 1800s which resulted in most of the 1800s being characterized by constant bank panics and runs.  We then have Coolidge and the Great Depression followed by Reagan and the Savings and Loan crisis.  Finally, we have George Bush and the most recent melt down.  
 
Again, it's an interesting view; but that's about it.  While the press puts up silly comparisons between Texas secession and 1861, we thought we'd put some silliness up of our own.   

 

 

Your tags:

TIP:

Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Recipient's email address:
Personal message (optional):

Your email address:

Comments

Type your comment below:
John Stewart's guest last night, Elizabeth Warren, chair of the Congressional Oversight Panel on TARP, pointed out that banking crises came almost like clockwork until the regulatory structures following the Great Depression were put into place, and that every unraveling of regulation that has followed has led to another crisis.

So what you point out is no surprise...compare the number of crises that followed two-term Democrats, and it looks a lot more significant.
Not to critisize your chart but they have Ford as "Yes-Carry Over" in the multiple terms slot.
Ocularnervosa- you are right. I should have put it in the Nixon box. The idea was to show the Nixon-Ford period is a bit unusual a kin JFK transition and Harding to some extent. Thanks for pointing that out.
I have to run out. Check: panics of 1857, 1873, 1893. My recollection of presidents list is not so great.

I recall reading an article, don't remember where, that showed Democratic presidents had much better news for Wall Street then Republicans.
Interesting. ::copying portions of table into 'future Jeopardy contestant notebook:: Thank you.
1857 - Buchanan, a slave Democrat
1873 - Grant, Republican generally the modern version
1893 - Cleveland, Democrat, but is consider extension of 1873 Depression, and it is marked as starting under Benjamin Harrison, Republican

Except for Buchanan, arguably, these happened under presidents in bed with Wall Street.
Better than the Super Bowl indicator with the stock market, because there's meatier correlations here. Nixon was only responsible for the worst recession in my lifetime. Up until now. And did you know that the man who advised Nixon on how to screw the pooch on the economy for the election of 1972's name was Alan Greenspan? A Chicago coincidence no doubt.
Interesting. Except Clinton did serve multiple terms, so, need to change that "no" in the appropriate column. Don't rewrite history! And, technically, the "N/A" should be for Obama under "Multiple Terms" too since, y'know, we don't know yet, do we?
thanks for clearing this up.the information is telling.now, perhaps the media talking heads of fox news can use this to vindicate the cheney-bush presidency.ooops! sorry. the bush.cheney presidency. but, really. this is very interesting information..poor coolage.
As opposed to a draft under Democrats? Wars follow ecomonic collapse. They boost the economy. Then there's another crash. Then another war. Over and over. It's almost predictable. We will invade someone. In fact the military budget is going up not down under Obama. Three cheers for peace.
Best to check out who was in control of congress. Presidents don't do much. Also the damage is usually being done in the previous years BEFORE, the panic. It doesn't happen overnight. Just a thought...
Historical partisan party bashing. Lovely.
The inflation from the Nixon years was a product of The War, and not from Johnson's Great Society.
"Also the damage is usually being done in the previous years BEFORE, the panic."

It's true. Obama inherited an economic collapse from Bush. Bush inherited a strong economy from Clinton and demolished it. Clinton inherited a sucky economy from Bush I and rebuilt it. Yes, it takes years; but the last few presidents have all *had* years to prove their mettle (in Reagan/Bush's case, 8 Reagan + 4 Bush = 12 years Repub in a row), and the Republican ones have wreaked havoc in their terms, while the Democratic ones have spent all their time fixing what the Republicans did. Maybe if we could get two Democratic presidents in a row, the way the Repubs had 12 years of Reagan/Bush, we could see what the Democrats can *really* do. We haven't had more than 8 years of Democrats since Roosevelt. You know, that dude who seriously fixed a Republican economic debacle so well that, for the first time in history, there wasn't another crash for like 50 years.
Great presentation - a given for those of us who bother to follow such things. Nevertheless, I'm going to copy it and try to persuade my more, ah, right-leaning friends to own up to the validity of some of these numbers. Better use of their time than following tea parties...
I am always amazed by the "blame game". Listen you guys, it took both parties to put us in this mess. We had the CRA act of 1997 that started this mess and then we had a Republican President with a Democratic Congress and you are trying to tell me it is all one sided? I don't think so. Congress (Both Republicans and Dems) has an amazing responsibility in this mess and of course they are so busy blaming everyone else and they won't take any resp0nsibility. So, if you want someone to blame, take a good look at our Congress.
From 1968-2008, Republicans administrations were in control for 28 of those 40 years.....and here we are! And how do we know Republicans control the media? Because despite constant references to the "recession of the 1980s, high unemployment, and interest rates of 22%"" and the "Savings and Loan scandal" that killed the S&L business in this nation, courtesy of Neil Bush, George's brother, and the fact that Reagan changed banking and other laws far more than FDR did, and that it was Reagan who put de-regulation firmly in place, NO NEWS COVERAGE EVER MENTIONS THAT THESE WERE THE REAGAN YEARS NOR DOES ANY IN-DEPTH HISTORY OF THE REAGAN YEARS!! Oh, yeah...let's not forget the biggest military build-up with huge, huge expenditures on weaponry, etc. during PEACE TIME in the 1980s...the biggest expenditure and build-up of a military during peace time in the history of the planet under Reagan!!

Think if Clinton or Carter had been president during the 1980s, that would be the case? I imagine stations such as Fox would be in a frenzy to put all the above facts on TV, loudly attributing them to Clinton and Carter, don't you?

I, too, have seen and heard Elizabeth Warren speak in-depth about all this. If the white men who run this nation, and always have, weren't so morally challenged, maybe we wouldn't need regulation....but we know the answer to that one, even though Reagan called ours a "Christian" nation....one of the most un-American remarks I 've ever heard by any president (isn't freedom of religion one of our most basic rights?)! And what a smear on Christianity to call the corrupt USA a "Christian" nation....Bush called himself a "Christian", too....
We had the CRA act of 1997 that started this mess

That's right, if we'd never lent money to brown people, everything would be peachy keen!

I hear this claim all the time, and no one who makes it can tell me how many of those bad loans were made under CRA requirements, but they are damn sure that the whole mess is the fault of brown people expecting to be treated like white people.
Well done and indicative of the polarized nature of our politics. Also, you are very brave, given the arrival of several trolls who are trolling for blogs such as this one!
>> I hear this claim all the time, and no one who makes it can tell me how many of those bad loans were made under CRA requirements,

Virtually, NONE. The CRA ran just fine for 30 years without incident, then, somehow or other, caused the system to meltdown all at once??? Fact is, on the order of 75% of the toxic mortgages were originated by Mortgage Companies, which are not, and were not, subject to CRA. Repeat: not subject to CRA. That is a fact.

That banks felt pressure, for market share reasons, to hop in the barrel headed for Niagra Falls is a problem. But not due to CRA.

The toxic mortgages were created simply because a diminishing number of Americans made enough money to afford a standard mortgage. No more difficult to understand than that. Both the Wingnuts and Obamanauts, for different reasons, need to distance themselves from the Distributional Answer. It is still the correct answer.
it may be true that historically, bank panics were more frequent after andrew jackson, but then the conclusion that the absence of a central bank leads to instability and bank runs is not nec. implied here. correlation and causation and all that.

my personal opinion is that jackson is one of the greatest presidents who ever lived. boy-O should think about some of what jackson accomplished. jackson was a populist president, and he took on the crooked bankers of the time directly. he called them a "den of vipers" (sound familiar????) and evicted them forcefully. no president since then has ever had the guts/audacity/courage to take on the banking establishment since (or arguably even prior) to then.

more details see the great book, "creature from jekyll island"
My sister, a staunch Repub, though of little true knowledge about the myths of the Repub party, twice brought up that CRA excuse until I pointed out that the banks who do the CRA loans are doing just fine and are NOT the ones which are in trouble. In fact they are the very banks which are now totally solvent. Ie, those CRA loans were solid and remunerative investments by and for those banks.

IOW, the CRA stuff was just another myth perpetrated by the Repub party.

Apropos of Repub myths, the GOP has about a dozen huge myths that it always continues to perpetrate. Eg, their taxes myths. They say taxes are bad for the country. BUT any Economist worth his Ph.D. can tell you that our country has done better during periods of higher taxation relative to periods of lower taxation.

Another huge Repub myth is that to get lower taxes we must elect a Repub prez. Once again, any Economist worth his Ph.D. can tell you that Reagan and Bush 41 both promised no new taxes and then raised taxes after a few years in the WH.

For example and specifically speaking: Reagan and big daddy Boosh (Bush41) quadrupled the national debt( debt = taxes, unless you believe St. Reagan) from 900 million dollars under Carter(our most moral prez, imo) to 4.3 billion dollars --in only 12yrs. Lil' Georgie Bush, the Shrub (per the unsinkable Molly Ivins) then just about tripled that figure, raising the National Debt from 4.3 billion to about 11.8 billion -- in only eight years. IOW, Repub party spending IS the party of rampant/egregious/gross spending.

The reason is that the Repub party is totallly committed to wealth for the one percent who are already grossly wealthy. They call it Trickle-Down Economics; btw, another Repub party myth. T-D Economics(TDE) never worked under Reagan, daddy Boosh or lil' Boosh. It has not worked for the last 28yrs. It is NOT, NOT, NOT and did I say NOT the economic engine that drives our economy. That is because no matter how much the super rich spend it can never be enough to drive our economy or any other economy in the world; there just are not enough of them. Do the math, it is very simple. Compare the spending of the 1% super rich to the spending of the other 99% of working Americans. Even if your definition of the super rich were greatly expanded to include 10% of our population, the spending of the 90% still far, far, far and way-far surpasses the spending of the super rich, even if you include the very rich in that category.

IOW, the real economic engine that drives our economy is the economic activity of the average person, the spending of the mid and lower socioeconomic classes, you and me. IOW, only Trickle- Up Economics(TUE) really works. Trickle-Down Economics never works. It never floats all boats, which diversifies spending and gives great stability to our economy. It only floats a very few boats. Can we call them the Robber Barons.

Common sense tells us that the 8100 families who own 90% of the wealth of America cannot even begin to equal the spending of the mid and lower socioeconomic classes. After all, exactly how many TVs or cars can the entirety of the 1% of the super rich buy, certainly NOT even close to enough to drive the economic engine of our national economy.

Trickle-Up Economics floats all boats, even those of the rich, very rich and super rich. BUT the BIG problem is that they are no longer willing to wait to EARN their wealth, now it is far quicker and far easier to steal it by putting a Reagan or a Boosh in the WH.

A side note. I can guarantee that in 2012 we will be asked by the Repub party to vote for Jeb Bush or Newt Gingrich for prez and Sarah Palin for veep. BTW, check out their religions and prepare to be amazed. These are the moral majority, the party of God and the Pro-Life and Family Values people. I, too, am a Catholic, but most assuredly not like them.

BTW, that brings up another Repub party myth. The Pro-life and Family Values myth. Any Economist worth his Ph.D. can tell you that poverty EQUALS abortions and EQUALS human degradation. For example, just look at the very Catholic Latin countries. Just recently, none other than Fuller Theological Seminary studied this phenomenon and proved it to be totally true.

My guess is that the Pope(s) know/knew this and do not care. That is because non of this mess is actually about Pro-Life and Family Values. Now I've got your attention! All of the Catholic Churches(my religion) constant efforts to support the Repub party is really all about, what I can only think to call, Dominion and Domination, ie, power. IOW, one can call it the endless lust for political power. That's also why the Church supported Hitler(the Reich will live for a thousand years) via the Reichskonkordat of 1933. Remember Rove said the Repubs will abolish the Dem party. Never forget that our democracy depends on having two approximately equally powerful political parties. Without those two political parties we have no democracy.

For another clue about where the Catholic Church and the GOP are headed one has but to remember the May, 2000 speech by Scalia, an extreme Catholic and an extreme Republican. Scalia caled for the end to our Rule of Law. He also called for the end to democracy in America. And this guy is a judge, a Supreme Court Justice!!! If Scalia thinks that, you can bet that Clarence Thomas(Catholic) also thinks the same way. Roberts and Alito, both Catholics, are very likely on that same path.

Btw, you'll have to do some serious digging to find Scalias speech, it was given discreetly. While studying hate militias, I came across it.

The Repub party is made up of the Cons(conservatives) the Neocons and now the Theocons. Since 1978(Pope John Paul II) was a staunch supporter of the Repub party as was his top advisor, Cardinal Ratzinger, now Benedict XVI. It is very safe to say that the Cons, the Neocons and the Theocons are totally against democracy. In a representative democracy the people make the decisions; they abhor that freedom and rule by, for and of the people. The aforementioned want to rule by a kind of British "Divine Right of Kings" mentality.

It is safe to say, that the Catholic Church, via Hitler, the Nazis and the Fascists(Republicans are Fascists), attacked the entire Free World. It is now equally safe to say that, once again, the Catholic Church via the Repub party has attacked the USA and even much of the rest of the democratic Free World.

The endless lust for power(Dominion and Domination) is the reason why. The Church cannot decide whether it is a religion or a political power. At least since 1095(the First Crusade, their were nine crusades, 1095-1272) the Church has very definitely leaned heavily toward being a political power.

Personally, I think it is an abomination unto God and His creation: The Family of Man. Could it be that the Church IS the present day Judas Iscariot to man and possibly to God, and driven by it's endless lust for power. Ohhh wellll... Time will tell.

Now back to my main thread---
Sorry for running on, but I can go on all day long debunking Repub party myths. My sister, a staunch Repub never learns, she just cries and screams at me when I give her these facts. My brother, another staunch Repub, with an MBA is beginning to listen and understand, especially as he watches his investments go down, down and down, as our economy is dying because a very few extremely greedy sectors profit while everyone else pays the price for their greed, amply demonstrated by putting a Repub in the WH and/or in the congress. Greedily skimming money off the top of the economy is a very dangerous thing to do and only benefits a very few sectors, like the financial, oil, telecoms, pharma, insurance and about six other sectors of our economy.

I can go on like this for many hours, if you dare to ask me. But be prepared to listen, and listen, and LISTEN!!!

All of the best, to all of you.
A graphs republicans love to find flaws in:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2678226
A few more:

http://tlrii.typepad.com/theliscioreport/2008/07/presidential-ec.html

http://crooksandliars.com/node/26208

http://www.liberalslikechrist.org/about/graphs-2.html

Rob St. Amant's post helped me to be able to insert videos in posts and comments, but I'm still confused as to how make these comment links live - anyone kind enough to PM instructions would have my eternal gratefulness.
Nixon--Wasn't that "Stag-flation" during his administration? I think it was. I recall double digit inflation and zero economic growth, hiring freeze on all government levels, price freeze, more and worse. It was not an economic picnic for the "common" citizen, by any means. Lots of propping up, government intervention, impossible economic conditions--oh, and shortages. Don't forget the shortages--you'd go to a grocery store and what you wanted was not available.
IOW, the CRA stuff was just another myth perpetrated by the Repub party.

It is a specifically racist myth, and it is meant to appeal to racists of both the conscious and unconscious sort.

These are the people Janeanne Garafolo was talking about in her comments that got philos777 so worked up...I guess the shoe fit a little too well.
Well, it's no surprise to see the big lie being dragged out again. The claim that Bush was a victim of a Democratic congress is ludicrous. Dems held the majority in the house for two of six years. The Senate as well although obstructionist tactics have rendered the senate deadlocked. The other big lie is the old chestnut of how the time lag for a presidents policies to impact the economy meant that the growth of the Clinton years were the actual growth from George the first. Can the right get some new material?
bobr900 says--
T-D Economics(TDE) never worked under Reagan, daddy Boosh or lil' Boosh. It has not worked for the last 28yrs. It is NOT, NOT, NOT and did I say NOT the economic engine that drives our economy."

"Trickle-Down Economics never works. It never floats all boats, which diversifies spending and gives great stability to our economy. It only floats a very few boats. Can we call them the Robber Barons."

"Common sense tells us that the 8100 families who own 90% of the wealth of America cannot even begin to equal the spending of the mid and lower socioeconomic classes."

"...the Cons, the Neocons and the Theocons are totally against democracy. In a representative democracy the people make the decisions; they abhor that freedom and rule by, for and of the people."

"our economy is dying because a very few extremely greedy sectors profit while everyone else pays the price for their greed, amply demonstrated by putting a Repub in the WH and/or in the congress."

BEAUTIFUL!