First, there’s “The Democrat Effect,” which is “the rational response by entrepreneurs, businesspeople, and investors to imminent or already present excessive government intervention, overbearing regulation, crippling litigation, and taxation, all of which seriously curtail economic activity to a greater extent than initially estimated.” When Democrats took full control of Congress in January 2007, initially reported economic news started to come in “unexpectedly” bad, and took serious turns for the worse when revised. Then, in the five months or so leading up to the 2008 presidential election, Pelosi, Obama and Reid deliberately frightened the economy’s key players with promises of steep tax increases, wealth redistribution, government control of medicine, punitive regulation, and energy starvation. This led to the almost unimaginable recessionary data declines described above. Perhaps Bush 43 could have done something to stop the madness; sadly, he really didn’t even try.
That's found at the bottom of a post on PJM. It does, however, have it's opposite reaction...remember, for every action, there's an equal and opposite reaction? That's called The Conservative Effect,
For what should be obvious reasons, the flip side of The Democrat Effect is not called “The Republican Effect.” Its proper name is “The Conservative Effect,” which is “the rational response by entrepreneurs, businesspeople, and investors when The Democrat Effect has either ended or is sufficiently reined in, enabling a reasonable level of free-market activity to occur, and causing the economy to perform better than initially estimated.” From 2003 until 2006, the Bush administration’s across-the-board income and investment-related tax cuts enabled The Conservative Effect to take hold in the job market, where initial results routinely and “unexpectedly” beat predictions, and subsequent revisions moved the numbers further upward. Unfortunately, the millions of hours of busywork caused by Sarbanes Oxley, as well as the onerous costs the law added to going public — which caused and continues to cause growing firms which might have gone public in the U.S. before the law’s passage to either decide against it overseas – kept GDP growth, which could have been at least as strong as the late 1990s, at a mostly mediocre level.
and these were created by a guy who writes
Frequent BizzyBlog commenter “JoeC” formulated the foundation of the negative side of what I call “revisionomics” almost four years ago, and worked up the positive side earlier this year.Perhaps, after next November, we'll have a good dose of the conservative effect. Here's hoping for some change, 'cause we're strangling on what hope and change has done to us since 2007.