Iran War Pressuring U.S. Workers

The consumer price index rose 3.8% year over year in April 2026, up from 3.3% in March, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The inflation rate is now at a three-year high. The main driver was surging energy prices driven by the war in Iran. In particular, gasoline prices jumped over 28% y-o-y! The chart below shows all the components of CPI and their changes annual % change. 

Source: CNBC and the Bureau of Labor Statistics. As of April 10, 2026.
 

The rise in inflation is squeezing American households whose wages have increased by only 3.6% over the same period, as shown below. Wage growth had been gradually declining over the past few years, but still outpaced inflation improving Americans' purchasing power. Now for the first time in three years, American workers' paychecks are lagging behind inflation--a casualty of the Iran war. Per Axios, workers are now "earning less in real terms which is a threat to the spending that has kept the economy humming." 

Source: Axios and the Bureau of Labor Statistics Click chart to enlarge.

Polls show rising bipartisan frustration with the rising cost of living and deep dissatisfaction with President Trump's policies. 70% of Americans now disapprove of his handling of the economy, which is significant given that Trump’s 2024 victory rested heavily on a promise he could better manage the U.S. economy than Biden/Harris, particularly with respect to the cost of living. But President doesn't seem to have gotten the message yet:

How Rich is the Supreme Court?

In our last post we wrote about how SCOTUS rulings today heavily favor the wealthy. And that there was also a clear split among Republican and Democratic appointed justices on how they voted on economic issues. But what about the net worth of the individual justices themselves? And how do they compare to ordinary Americans? 

There are currently nine justices on the Supreme Court (6 conservatives and 3 liberals). According to numbers crunched by Bloomberg (from 2023), the justices are collectively worth between $24 million and & $68 million. So, on average, between $2.6 million and $7.5 million per justice. But some of that skewed is by Chief Justice Robert's estimated net worth of ~$20 million. (Robert's net worth is the result of his private practice years at Hogan & Hartson, his wife's career, and a substantive investment portfolio.) Removing Roberts, the average is between $1.8 million and $5.2 million. Still richer than 90% of Americans. But not ‘ultra rich.’ While most justices are multimillionaires, only Roberts is really truly in the 1% (in 2023 to be a one-percenter you would have needed to have a net worth of at least $13.6 million). Nor is there is any statistically significant difference* in wealth between the conservatives and liberals on the court. So, the conservative justices do have principle, if not empathy. Below are individual justices' net worth based on financial disclosures (click to enlarge): 

H/T: unusual_whales on X. As of April 2023.

**Based on a two-sample t-test.

Supreme Inequality: SCOTUS Favors the Rich!

According to a January 2026 YouGov poll, 80% of Americans believe the rich have too much political and economic power. Indeed, both fiscal and monetary policies appear to favor the wealthy. For example, according to the Yale Budget Lab, President Trump's signature 'One Big Beautiful Bill Act' mostly favors the rich. And monetary policy? Well, even according to the Fed's own findings policy tools like quantitative easing ("QE") and ultra-lower rates have contributed to sharp increases in income inequality. And then, there's the 'Fed Put.' We've written in the past about compelling evidence showing the Fed has backstopped the stock market since the 1990s--because, who owns stocks?

Ok, so politicians and technocrats favor the rich, probably not that much of a surprise. But the Supreme Court? Isn't the judiciary supposed to be neutral? The NYT notes that "Supreme Court justices take two oaths. The first, required of all federal officials, is a promise to support the Constitution. The second, a judicial oath, is more specific. It requires them, among other things, to “do equal right to the poor and to the rich.” Commendable.

However, in a new study, "Ruling for the Rich," researchers from Yale and Columbia reveal some sobering truth about the nation's highest court. Economists Prat, Morton, and Spitz analyzed Supreme Court cases involving economic issues since 1953 and finds SCOTUS increasingly favors the wealthy. Based on the outcome of thousands of cases, they found "Supreme Court justices now rule for wealthy parties 70% of the time, up from roughly 45% seven decades ago." So, we went from a roughly 50/50 probability for SCOTUS cases in the 1950s to a point now where we could consistently make money betting on decisions (if allowed) on Kalshi! The study further finds a strong and growing partisan divide. Naturally. In the 1950s, "justices appointed by the two parties appear similar in their propensity to cast pro-rich votes. Over the sample period, [we estimate] a steady increase in polarization, culminating in an implied party gap of 47 percentage points by 2022. Republican appointees today side with wealthy parties 82% of the time compared to just 35% of the time for Democratic appointees.

The WSJ Editorial Board (unsurprisingly!) had issues with the paper's findings and the took time out of a busy news week to attack the study's methodology. While the paper's authors concede "there is a subjective component to classifying rulings as 'pro-rich'...they defend what they said was a transparent and replicable protocol" that is based on outcomes. The study's findings appear to "validate Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson’s June 2025 dissent, in which she wrote that “moneyed interests enjoy an easier road to relief in this court than ordinary citizens.”"

But what if the justices are just doing their jobs and aren't the real problem? Back to the two oaths the Supreme Court judges take. The first is to adhere to the Constitution and the second to be impartial amongst parties, regardless of economic status. What happens if those two oaths conflict? Per the NYT piece highlighted earlier..."at his confirmation hearings in 2005, Chief Justice Roberts mused about whether he would stand up for the powerless...“Somebody asked me, you know, ‘Are you going to be on the side of the little guy?’” he said. “And you obviously want to give an immediate answer, but, as you reflect on it, if the Constitution says that the little guy should win, the little guy’s going to win in court before me. But if the Constitution says that the big guy should win, well, then the big guy’s going to win, because my obligation is to the Constitution. That’s the oath.” This is particularly true among the conservative justices, who are more likely to be Originalists that interpret the Constitution based on its original intent rather than on the context of current times. Well, the Constitution was written (overwhelmingly) by elite property owners...so, what do you think the original thinking was? And how else is an Originalist majority on the SCOTUS supposed to rule?

Amar Mayor, Tomar Mayor!

At the stroke of midnight on January 1, 2026...Zohran Kwame Mamdani was sworn in as New York City's 112th mayor by New York Attorney General Letitia James inside the decommissioned Old City Hall subway station. It was a historic moment for NYC--by far America's largest city--on many levels: first Muslim, first South Asian, and first African-born person to hold the position. At 34, he is also the City's youngest mayor in over a century.

Funny enough, James, an early supporter of the new mayor couldn't still quite pronounce his name! (If she can't many others will struggle too!) Here's a TikTok tutorial.  

NY State of Mind: Mamdani Edition

With just over a day to go before Zohran Mamdani is inaugurated as NYC's first Muslim mayor, CNN's chief data analyst Harry Enten has some good news for the Mayor-elect. First, new polling shows that his net favorability rating among NYC residents has rocketed from +14 in Sep to +38 now! That's the highest for an incoming mayor ever? 

Further, if Republicans were hoping to use him a boogeyman to bring Democrats down statewide...well it seems Donald is the problem not Zohran; Mamdani's net favorability rating statewide is +15 versus -30 for the President. And lastly, all the talk of NYC's vaunted billionaires leaving the city to escape marginal tax increase...seems to be just talk for now. The Kalshi prediction markets (which is basically truth for the billionaire class) has the odds of the city's richest residents decamping to tax-friendly havens at just 21%! In fact, if you believe the old adage "money talks, bullshit walks" then the opposite is already happening with the city's luxury apartment market surging a month after Mamdani's win, including residences on famed Billionaire's Row.

Of course, every politician has their honeymoon period. And these numbers are likely change over the next three months. For now though, it represents a lot of optimism among New Yorkers for a new era of politics and government--where America's most iconic city and its bastion of free market capitalism is run by an Ugadan-Indian-American Democratic Socialist.    

When Donald Met Zohran...

Yes, that happened! Yesterday, NYC Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani met President Trump at the White House in a highly anticipated face-to-face that was covered extensively by the press, something the media-savvy President noted (see clip below). The two men, seemingly polar opposites, both ideologically and temperamentally, got along well shockingly well, despite the WH press pool's best efforts to stoke drama. Trump was genuinely warm and cordial, lavishing Mamdani with praise and even defending him against questions clearly designed to bait Mamdani. Moreover, he swatted down some of the racists attacks Republicans like Elise Stefanik were making against Mamdani, declaring "I want him to do a great job." Here's the Q&A session with reporters.

While the media was feverishly awaiting/hoping for a "slugfest" (ala the infamous Trump-Zelensky meeting), what they got was a remarkably affable meeting that left both rightwing and liberal media outlets shellshocked. Reporters were incredulously using words like "bizarrely chummy," "lovefest", and "bromance," to describe what they witnessed between a rising political superstar and a famously adversarial President. Here's a summary of the headlines spanning the political spectrum from the liberal Huffpost to the Mamdani-phobic NY Post:

(Click to enlarge)

It was all fascinating to watch and the President affectionately posted selfies on his social media account (even including a picture of Mamdani by himself!). Outlets like AP, CNN, and the Hill provided helpful key takeaways. 

Basically, the winners were:

1. Mamdani, who cemented his status as an important new political figure 

2. Trump, who found common ground with Mamdani on affordability which had contributed to his falling approval ratings

3. New York City, their shared love

The losers, for the time being, were:

1. The GOP overall, whose "hopes of running an anti-Mamdani scare campaign next year just took a big hit, straight from the president."

2. Elisa Stefanik, specifically, who is aiming to take Kathy Hochul's job as NY Governor. She meekly "agreed to disagree" with the President.     

History: NYC Elects Zohran Mamdani!

A historic night: Mamdani to become the first Muslim mayor of NYC, the youngest mayor in over 100 years (at 34 years old), in election with the biggest voter turnout (2+ million) since 1969!!! A Democratic Socialist in the financial capital of the world to boot! And it looks like, despite the tens of millions spent against him by the billionaire class, he will have an outright 50%+ majority win. Mabrouk beta!

Mayor In Da Club?

On Tuesday Zohran Mamdani shocked the political world by upsetting favorite Andrew Cuomo in a landslide to be the Democratic nominee for New York mayor. He took on the billionaire class, the MSM, the Democratic establishment, and bipartisan Islamophobia, and still came out ahead. It was a remarkable outcome given that Mamdani was barely known, even to NYC residents, just a few months ago--polling at 1%. But he quickly gained prominence through hard work, a savvy online presence, and laser focus on making NYC more affordable for the middle class who feel left behind in their own city. A healthy dose of charisma and a great debate performance helped as well. Mamdani's performance was so impressive even critics like MTG and Bill Ackman acknowledged it.

But before he upended Democratic politics, Mamdani was an aspiring...rapper(?) going by the stage name Mr. Cardamom. CNN even played a clip of one of his videos...and just like his campaign, it's fun and positive with a distinctly South Asian flavor. It's called Nani (grandma) and features Madhur Jaffrey--the Julia Childs of India. Enjoy.

Say My Name, Say My Name...

Today is the final day for early voting ahead of Tuesday's Democratic primary election for New York City mayor. Since NYC is a heavily Democratic city, so the winner of the primary will be heavily favored to win the general mayoral election (in November). Andrew Cuomo, the former disgraced NY state governor, is the front runner. But an exciting insurgent campaign from a young, charismatic state senator, Zohran Kwame Mamdani, has shaken up the race. Mr. Mamdani,33, is an Indian American Muslim born in Uganda, who is running on a socialist platform to tackle NYC's most pressing problems: the high cost of living and gaping economic inequality. Mamdani is the son of Columbia University professor, Mahmood Mamdani, and Oscar-nominated filmmaker Mira Nair and has represented New York's 36th State Assembly district in Queens since 2021.  

In the primary debates, Mamdani took Cuomo to task a number of times, no more so when asked why he would be a better candidate that his opponent. After rattling off a multitude of important reasons why he is the better choice, he pointedly corrected Mr. Cuomo that his name is pronounced Mamdani...M-A-M-D-A-N-I. Mic drop...

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by NYC-DSA (@nycdsa)

Mamdani has been a staunch defender of Palestinian rights for years and has not shied away from his position even as he seeks to be the mayor of a city with almost a million Jews. Not surprisingly he's had to defend himself against allegations of antisemitism. Here Whitney Tilson, another candidate, tries to bait him with the same. But Mamdani gives such an eloquent response that even Tilson seems persuaded. 

Go vote!! Ve a votar!!

The Harvard Humble Brag

Last week Harvard rejected demands from the Trump Administration that threatens $9 billion in federal funding and its non-tax status. University president Alan Garber wrote in a message to the Harvard community: "No government — regardless of which party is in power — should dictate what private universities can teach, whom they can admit and hire, and which areas of study and inquiry they can pursue.” Harvard's defiant stance is very different from that of major law firms and other universities, notably Columbia, who quickly agreed to the government's demands.

That's made Harvard, or Hahvadh, popular again; with individual donations skyrocketing over the past week. Harvard is elite, it's also wildly rich...so naturally, both the Right and the Left have issues with it. Which has forced many Harvardians over the years to hide where they went to school from their less smarter, less richer, less capable non-Harvard peers. Because, apparently, things become awkward when you drop the "H-bomb." 

But now that Harvard finds itself at the forefront of the nation's political/culture wars, people all across the political spectrum have cover to speak about their personal connection to the esteemed university. Not to remind you how smart and capable they are. No, of course not. But to "helpfully" set the context for whatever for/against argument they want to make. But things can still be a little awkward. Take it away Ronnie... 

Love Me Some Eminem

 President Obama living his best life...at a rally for Harris. Lose yourself in cool.

Israeli Exceptionalism

In a powerful segment, Jon Stewart calls out American hypocrisy when comes to America's favorite ally. Referring to the conflict in Gaza, Stewart remarks that justice is beginning to "look like cruelty," but not to worry America is on the case with its "universal values." And then proceeds to expose the contrasts and glaring contradictions in Joe Biden's approach to the wars in Ukraine and Gaza. The journalist Spencer Ackerman effectively made the same argument in a scathing op-ed in the NYT, arguing America is undermining its credibility by having a different standard for Israel. As Stewart dryly notes, "Every time America tells the world that there’s something we won't allow, Israel seems to say, 'Challenge accepted.'"

Thanks Jon... it's all very "concerning".  

Ramy: God, Free Palestine!

Arab-Muslim comedian Ramy Youssef hosted a "spiritual" SNL last night with ongoing Ramadan and Easter Sunday coming together. Youssef gave a funny and heartfelt monologue, riffing on the Arab-American experience, politics, and prayer. He ended the segment by asking God to "free the people of Palestine" and "free all the hostages." His plea for the liberation of Gaza and West Bank received rapturous applause from the audience as polls show the majority of Americans (55%) oppose Israeli action in Gaza. Among Democrats it's closer to 80%. Ya habibi!

There was also a funny bit on Ramadan Ozepmic:

Ilhan Omar: Lost in Translation

Ilhan Abdullahi Omar made history in 2019 when she became the first Somali American in the U.S. Congress and the first woman of color to represent Minnesota. She was also one of the first Muslim women in Congress along with Michigan's Rashida Tlaib. Both are core members of the "Squad", an informal group of progressive Democrats, who are a favorite target of many Republicans. The latest brouhaha flared up earlier this after a clip of Omar making a speech in Somali went viral on X. In it she was purportedly bragging about advancing a Somalia First agenda in Congress. As context, Omar was expressing support for the Somali government in its dispute with a breakaway republic within Somalia, called Somaliland, that is not recognized by the U.S. 

The meltdown from the right was swift and predictable. Fellow Minnesotan and GOP Majority Whip, Tom Emmers, demanded Omar resign in disgrace. Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis said that she should be expelled from Congress, stripped of her citizenship and deported. Naturally, Majorie Talyor Greene called her words treasonous and sought to censure her. Except...that Omar never said any such thing. The video of Omar’s speech was circulated on social media with distorted English captions. 

As per the Intelligencer, the "captions made it appear that Omar had said that she and her audience were “Somalians first, Muslims second,” and that “The U.S. government will only do what Somalians in the U.S. tell them to do. They will do what we want and nothing else. They must follow our orders.” 

However independent reviews by the Minnesota Reformer and the Minneapolis Star Tribune found significant differences between the videos’ claims and what Omar actually said. 

Per the Star Tribune, that part of Omar’s speech actually went as follows: “My answer was the U.S. government will do what we tell the U.S. government to do. We as Somalis should have that confidence in ourselves. We live in this country. We pay taxes in this country. It’s a country where one of your own sits in Congress. As long as I’m in Congress, no one will take Somalia’s sea. And the United States will not support other people to rob us. Rest assured, Minnesotans. The woman you sent to Congress is aware of you and has the same interest as you.”

In fact, Omar's position on the issue of Somaliland is in line with U.S. policy. So, there shouldn't have been any controversy. But if you're Somali, Muslim, and/or both, things are always a little more complicated. Best for Omar keep her speeches in English at all times...so nothing gets lost in translation.

Why Bidenomics Gets So Little Love? Blame David Brooks!

Bidenomics is the President's signature economic plan, meant to grow the economy from the middle out and bottom up. It is a rejection of the Republican party's core policies of "trick-down economics" and is expected to be financed in part by greater taxes on the wealthy and corporations. And it seems to be working: (i) 13 million jobs added since Biden's inauguration (January 2021)--including 800K of those elusive manufacturing jobs, (ii) unemployment at less than 4%, and (iii) the strongest growth since the pandemic of any major economy. Yes, inflation reached a 40-year high in June of last year with a yoy increase of 9.1% but thanks to the Fed's aggressive rate hikes and supply chain normalization, CPI has steadily declined (though still elevated at 3.7%). If the conventional wisdom about elections is true, that "it's the economy, stupid", then Biden should be sitting pretty. 

Yet, despite robust job growth, rising wages, and falling inequality the electorate is anxious about the state of affairs, very anxious; an NBC poll at the end of June found 74% of Americans feel the country is heading in the wrong direction. Huh? Why is Biden not getting credit for the economy?

Inflation is certainly a part of it. A September Harris poll for the Guardian newspaper found that "two-thirds of respondents (68%) reported it’s difficult to be happy about positive economic news when they feel financially squeezed each month (Republicans: 69%, Democrats: 68%)." And there is hard data to support such disquiet. While most measures show real wages are up since prior to the pandemic, Jason Furman (Harvard economist and chair of the Council of Economic Advisers under President Obama) calculates that [they] are still 3-5% below their immediate pre-pandemic trajectory. In other words, things were already improving under Trump then the pandemic hit, followed by nearly double-digit not transitory inflation causing real wages to plummet. Workers' real incomes are now back up to Q1 2020 levels, but still below the trajectory they were on in the waning years of the Trump administration. Simply put, Americans feel real wages should be higher.   

But the Harris/Guardian survey finds another, more dire, reason for voters' dissatisfaction: mistrust in media and government. Two-thirds of Americans (65%) believe that the economy is worse than the media makes it out to be. For example, while the unemployment rate was close to a 50-year low in August at 3.8%, the poll found that "51% [surveyed] wrongly believe that unemployment is nearing a 50-year high rather than those who believe it’s actually low (49%)". And it wasn't just Republicans, a sizable number Independents and Democrats also felt the same.

Taken together, it's not much of a surprise that more than half of Americans (53%) believe the economy is getting worse instead of better or staying the same. Republicans and independents were more likely to think it’s getting worse (72% and 58%, respectively, v Democrats: 32%).

That brings us to David Brooks, the New York Times' conservative columnist and recovering neocon/Republican.  In a June op-ed, he also explored why Biden was struggling to make his economic case. Sure, inflation was a part of it, but Brooks believed the media and (crucially) a bruised national psyche were mainly to blame. What's that again, David? National psychology. Brook argues that during the Trump era Americans suffered "a collective moral injury, a collective loss of confidence, a loss of faith in ourselves as a nation". It is reflected in a recent Gallup poll showing Americans' "satisfaction with their personal lives is nearly four times as high as their satisfaction with the state of the nation". And the media isn't helping, over the past couple of decades headlines have grown starkly more negative, particularly from right-leaning outlets, stoking anger and distrust. Hmm...like if a nationally syndicated columnist were to tweet on his NYT X account about the outrageous price ($78) of an airport hamburger and fries meal as an example of why Americans are so gloomy about the economy, while conveniently omitting that 80% of the tab ($62) was for his bar bill.

Maybe he was speaking an "emotional truth". Regardless, intentional or not, he validated his own media thesis about trust. Does this mean Biden is toast...no, not really. Because, at this point Trump is almost a lock for the Republican nomination leading by 50 points over his nearest rival, Ron DeSantis in recent polls...but Biden wins against Trump in a rematch! Politics!!

Is the Patriarchy Romantic?

It's the 2020s, women today make up 60% of college undergraduate enrollments; among married couples almost half of women make as much or more than their husbands. Even Barbie is a feminist now? Still, there is one tradition that's going strong, despite its deep patriarchal roots: American women taking their husbands' last names. As the NY Times reports, a 2023 study from the Pew Research Center reveals nearly 80% of U.S. women changed their names after marriage.

Looking a little deeper into the data, views on marital naming diverged somewhat by politics (naturally) and education: "Among conservative Republican women, 90 percent took their husbands’ name, compared with 66 percent of liberal Democrats, Pew found. Eighty-three percent of women without a college degree changed their names, while 68 percent of those with a postgraduate degree did." Also, younger women (<50) are twice as likely to keep their names than older women (50+). 

These findings are consistent with a scholarly paper examining the same behavior. A 2004 paper by Harvard economist Claudia Goldin and Maria Shim in the prestigious Journal of Economic Perspectives found largely the same set of correlates to changing one's surname: higher education (less likely to), delayed marriage (less likely to), highly educated spouse (less likely to), children (more likely to), etc. Still these factors seem to be overwhelmed by larger cultural factors. Regardless of age, education, or status, women's desire to "make a name" for themselves appear to be subsumed by their longing to conform to tradition and customs. 

That tradition, at least among Anglo-Saxons, is rooted in Western society's patriarchal history. Until the middle-ages, women were simply referred to as "wife of [insert husband's name]"--like in the Handmaid's Tale (Offred or Ofjoseph). Then coverture arrived in England around the 15th century and a husband and wife became a unified entity. But not in the way the Spice Girls cooed about. Rather coverture held that "no female person had a legal identity...[she was] covered by [first] her father's identity, and then, when she was married, by her husband's". As coverture caught on, the practice of wives adopting their husband's surname became firmly entrenched in English society. So much so, in 1765, it was codified into law. 

   

The custom was carried over into the U.S. and other British colonies. In the spirit of the revolution Abigail Adams (wife of John) pleaded with her husband to change the practice, in her famous "Remember the Ladies" letter of 1776, but he apparently thought she was joking (oh Ofjohn, you're so funny). So, it would take a couple of centuries before women were recognized as separate from their husbands. Until the 1970s women in the U.S. could not get a driver's license, passport, or register to vote unless they took their husband's surname.

And yet, today despite a great deal more financial, political, and social freedom, women continue to be drawn to patriarchal gender norms. In fact, many even find changing names compelling because as JLo explained when she became Mrs. Affleck: it's romantic! Since it is commonly viewed as a sign of love or commitment to their husbands and their new life together, many women happily take their spouse's surname. Now to be fair, for the less famous, there are also practical considerations. As the Times article referenced earlier notes, many women "find it easier to have the same name as their future children, and to simplify dinner reservations or utility bills."

It's also important to note, the custom of marital name changes is by no means universal. In China, Korea, and other East Asian countries women traditionally retain their surname after marriage. The same in many Muslim countries. Even in Western countries things have changed; in Italy, France, the Netherlands, and Greece, women by law are required to keep their maiden names. So maybe it's just another case of Americans being WEIRD. We simply assume that's how the world works, because we do it that way.  

Covid-19 is Partisan Too

And why not? In the U.S. everything these days is either Left or Right. Why should a virus infecting the world be different when it come wrecking havoc here? Even the solutions are political. The NY Times' David Leonhardt has great piece highlighting the large gap in vaccination rates between Democrat-leaning areas and Republican-leaning areas of the country. He writes "the political divide over vaccinations is so large that almost every reliably blue state now has a higher vaccination rate than almost every reliably red state." That pattern further extends to the county-level of each state. And that's led to significantly higher deaths among Republicans:

Why is this happening? It's predictably about conspiracy theories and "own the left." But even conspiracy minded right-wing pundits are beginning to question their side's rejection of vaccines..."In a country where elections are decided on razor-thin margins, does it not benefit one side if their opponents simply drop dead?" Maybe the easiest way to own Liberals is to stay healthy and vote?

This is Us: The Economy Under Democrats and Republicans

President Trump was very proud of the economy and especially the stock market, pre-Covid. While it's debatable how much influence Presidents actually have on the economy or financial markets, they are more than happy to take credit when things go well and ascribe blame to others when they don't. 

It is however interesting to see what how the data falls. Using data from the BEA and thebalance.com, we can get a sense of different Presidents' stewardship of the economy over the last 40 years (with the acknowledgement numbers alone never tell the whole story). Republicans fancy themselves as better financial managers. Yet the US economy has clearly fared better under Democract presidents, growing at 2.8% per year vs 2.3% under their counterparts (click to enlarge):

From Reagan to Trump, the US economy has grown around 2.5% per year, on average. Breaking the data out by the Presidents themselves, the economy grew fastest under Clinton (3.9%) and Reagan (3.5%) and below trend over the others' terms. (The data for the Trump years include CBO's GDP projections for 2020)

Yes, Trump faced a once-in-a-century calamity. But even without 2020, the economy grew only at around 2.5% under his administration. Basically on trend.

Obama also faced a grave economic crisis in his first term. Excluding 2009, the economy grew about by 2.2% per annum on his watch. Not as good as Trump, pre-Covid (...though Obama and Biden will make the argument they laid the foundation for Trump's economy).

But what about the stock market? Which increasingly has little relation to the real economy but nonetheless is still held as a barometer of economic health and consumer sentiment ("...it's forward looking"). Don't investors favor business-friendly Republican administrations? 

Not necessarily. The chart below shows the cumulative price returns of the S&P 500 under different presidents. Clinton (1993-2000) had the best stock market. He certainly rode the Internet Bubble and left just in time. "W" had the worst. He inherited the Tech meltdown on the way in (a consolation of sorts for internet "founder" Gore) and oversaw the subprime meltdown on the way out. The stock market actually performed much better under Obama than under Trump (through 12/24/2020) and even Reagan!

Can Biden nuture the economy back to health? We'll see...but if you're looking to the stock market for any indication (you shouldn't, but if you are)...then the verdict is in. The S&P 500 is having the best post-election performance in at least 40 years (more due to Pfizer, Moderna and the promise of easy money than anything else, but I'm sure the Biden folks won't mind taking some credit).

The Electoral College is Undemocratic...Too Bad

That's the gist of Steven Teles' recent op-ed in the NYT and Ezra Klein's article at Vox. An asymmetry exists in the American politics because the current system weights the votes of small states and rural areas more heavily than that of big states with significantly more people. Add in aggressive gerrymandering and you have electoral rules that favor Republicans. In effect, to win the Presidency Democrats must win the popular vote by 3-4 percentage points. To win the Senate, by 6%-7%; the House by 3%-4%. So to win, as Klein argues, "Democrats must appeal to voters ranging from the far-left to the center-right, but Republicans can win with only right-of-center voters." In a sense, we really are a center-right nation.

These fault lines are further divided by differences in race and wealth. Republicans dominate rural areas that are predominately white, while Democrats control big cities that are far more racially mixed. A relatively small number of, mainly Democratic, districts also drive the lion's share of the nation's economy (e.g. <500 of the counties won by Biden this election generated 70% of the US GDP in 2018 versus >2400 of the counties Trump won that generated only 30% of GDP).

And while other federal states, like Germany, Australia and Canada have similar deficits in their constitutions, they do not, as Teles points out, have "the same degree of representative inequality that the Electoral Collage and the Senate generate between a citizen living in California versus one living in Wyoming."

Ultimately, these structural imbalances are bad for democracy itself. As Klein argues, "what motivates parties to change, compromise, and adapt is the pain of loss, and the fear of future losses. If the party is protected from that pain, the incentive to listen to the public and moderate its candidates or alter its agenda wanes." 

This imbalance and "unfairness" looks set to continue for the foreseeable future (or at least until Texas flips). And a rationale Republican party will do everything it can to hold onto its advantage.

    

Fox News: Need to Concede

Yes, Fox News has been very vocal about the need to concede the election...that is, the 2018 Georgia Governor's race when Stacey Abrams (D) narrowly lost to Brian Kemp (R). 

The Daily Show has compiled a reel of Fox hosts and guests dismissing voter fraud claims and labeling Democrats 'sore losers'. Exquisitely hypocritical.