Economics has been called “the dismal science.” Dismal, it is; science, it is not. There is no ground in it for prospective experiment, which science demands. Economic research is all retrospective. It’s about what happened in the past, last month, last year, or even last century. The information is used to summarize the economic effects of past events or government policies. From the data gathered, political economists project what will happen if particular events or policies are pursued in the future. Which tax policy will cause what economic result, for example. Those kind of discussions come to the fore during national election cycles since each political party loves to claim its economic policies will be best for the voting public. 

 Not surprisingly, during our recent national election season, the economy was reported to be among the most pressing concern for most Americans. That begs the question of what the average American means by “the economy.” An understandable but constricted meaning would come from considering only the things that affect us most directly: the price of eggs, interest rates, rental costs, and the like. A more comprehensive view of the economy would come from considering any one of a number of economic indicators like gross domestic product (GDP; a measure of a country’s total economic activity), balance of trade (the value difference between a county’s imports and exports), or labor activity (percent of workforce employed).

Perhaps the most commonly used indicator of economic health is a country’s inflation-adjusted GDP. Using that indicator within a Democrat or Republican administrations’ time in office, Democrats far outstrip Republicans. In fact, voter concerns about the economy under the current Democrat administration seem nonsensical by GDP standards since the current national economy is among the best, if not the best in the world. Studies have shown that Democrat administrations going back to the end of World War II have averaged a GDP growth rate of almost 4% versus the Republican average growth rate of only 2.5%. That 1.5% percent difference may seem small, but it actually reflects a difference in the flowing economy of many trillions of dollars. One would think voters would have felt that difference and rewarded the best-performing party. Time and again that hasn’t happened. Why not?

Staying within economics, two things come to mind: 1) the public doesn’t care about economic indicators; they just care about the price of eggs. Whichever party gets stuck with high prices, no matter the reason, will be the one to suffer at the polls. 2) Citizens know what politicians are loath to admit: economic policy has little or nothing to do with the economy experienced during any particular presidential administration. A simple example is that President Clinton, a Democrat, raised taxes and President Reagan, a Republican, lowered taxes. Those are opposite policies, yet both administrations showed strong economic growth; tax policy was irrelevant. Uncontrollable things like war abroad, drought in foreign or domestic granaries, oil and gas interruptions, or major banking failures have much more to do with economic outcomes than an administration’s economic policy. 

Another complication is that even if a party’s policy were to have a practical effect, it takes time for that effect to occur, which may be during the opposing party’s administration! The truth is, despite Democrat or Republican pontifications about their economic polices, political economics is too flimsy a device to reliably move economic outcomes. Those are due more to an administration’s luck of the draw than anything else. Sophisticated policy statements may enchant the political class, but to the average citizen, it’s just the price of eggs.

Terry Turner, a resident of Colquitt County, is professor emeritus of urology at the University of Virginia as well as author of books based on his experiences as an infantry officer in Vietnam.