The Fed tries to manipulate presidential elections. Here's the evidence.

[hvn_nbr_2]

http://david_brubaker.home.comcast.net/~david_brubaker/FedIntRateChart.v3.htm

This paper is a bit out of date but the same pattern has held through the last couple presidential election cycles. That makes 12 in a row. Probability of that happening: 1 chance in 4096.

Summary:

During every four-year presidential term, there is a period of 24 months when the Federal Reserve Board's actions on interest rates will have the most impact on the state of the economy during the next presidential election.

During the periods when their actions will most affect the state of the economy during the next presidential election season, the Fed's actions are diametrically opposite depending on the party currently in the White House; but at other times their interest rate actions are similar regardless of the party currently in power.

During that sensitive period of time in every presidential term since 1960, the Fed has acted to stimulate the economy if the incumbent is a Republican and to slow the economy if the incumbent is a Democrat. Through recession and boom, inflation and stability, deficits and surpluses, there is not a single exception to that partisan pattern.

My conclusions: The Federal Reserve acts as a de facto agent of the Republican presidential campaign committee. All of Alan Greenspan's obscure statistics that no one else ever heard of are just a smoke screen to camouflage the Fed's blatantly partisan activity. The Fed seems to have deliberately induced a recession specifically to benefit the Republican presidential candidate in the 2000 election.

[JuniperLea]

1. Trollish unrec'ing already...

I wonder if we have a bunch of trolls, or a bunch of real idiots who think that by unreccing an OP, they are saying "down on the OP content."

Either would be ridiculous.

We've heard these things before, and it's good to review once in a while.

[DrToast]

2. Haven't had time to review the whole thing, but....

George Bush Sr. blamed Alan Greenspan for his loss because he kept interest rates high.

That doesn't seem to jive with the thesis.

[hvn_nbr_2]

3. The Fed decreased rates 6 times during the "window of opportunity" in Bush's term

Six decreases of half a point each. No increases.

I guess Bush wanted them to decrease the rates even more than they did.

[blm]

14. You believe Bush1 was being honest? He NEEDED to lose in Nov92.....

the BCCI report was coming out in Dec1992, and that meant certain hearings in the Senate and certain impeachment for him.

Of course he'd want to say he lost because of any reason other than he NEEDED to lose.

[SIMPLYB1980]

4. Did the Fed manipulate so Obama could win?

I don't think so.

[uponit7771]

6. Yes the fed manipulated but not so Obama can win, read the article Greenspan LOWERED

...rates after he increased them and the housing boom went bust.

Greenspan was open and honest about why he kept the rates so low for so long and it was because raising them "wouldn't be popular" or some shit like that.

[SIMPLYB1980]

8. I don't necessarily disagree with you,

just putting it out their because if we try to make it an issue the water will get muddy real fast.

[uponit7771]

10. true

[RaleighNCDUer]

5. Is a different explanation possible?

Is it not possible that when a republican president is incumbent, the economy always NEEDS a stimulus because of the gawdawful republican economic policies? And when a democratic president is incumbent, the economy is plugging along so well that the danger is the economy overheating, causing inflation, and so needs cooling down?

Which is the chicken and which is the egg?

[uponit7771]

7. The monetary policy should change based on whos in office. It should be stable as possible

...and if a reThugs fiscal policies are the thing that is messing up the economy it's the rethugs fiscal policies that have to be the variant to fix things not the feds monetary policy.

The fact that they ARE a varying their monetary policy so often and trying to effect the economy instead of stabilizing the dollar is scary in and of itself.

Stable and boring is what the feds were SUPPOSED to be, not trying to be popular like GreenSpan was by keeping the money pressure high with low interest rates.

[hvn_nbr_2]

13. That's a very good question that the paper doesn't address except tangentially

It would require a whole lot more analysis to determine that. However, it is mighty suspicious that during the other 24 months of presidential terms, their actions are balanced, just as one would expect.

[Uncle Joe]

9. I guess Paul Volker never used this same third derivative of an obscure statistic

to make his decisions; which preceded the same general pattern of Greenspan, maybe the people caught on to this political/financial manipulation pattern and thus the fig leaf became needed?

"There have been numerous instances when pundits have expressed thoughts such as "But Greenspan's such a hawk on inflation, why isn't he acting now?" and "But there's no inflation in sight; why is he acting as if there was?" These inconsistencies are always explained by his favoring of the third derivative of some obscure statistic that no one else ever heard of before. I suspect that these seeming inconsistencies can be more easily explained by presidential election cycles than by Greenspan's obscure statistics, which are probably just a smoke screen to hide highly partisan actions."

Thanks for the thread, hvn_nbr_2.

[uponit7771]

11. Yeap, when a reThug is in office speed things up

[Joe Chi Minh]

12. The stock-market always did that for the Tories in the UK. Yet Labour's record

on the economy was invariably better than that of the Tories. NuLab(c), by the way, is not the Labour Party. It's lurched to the far right - in fact, they are of a pronounced, neoliberal persuasion, although they are clearly more politically savvy than the neoliberals' customary minions, the Tories.

Well, selfish people don't put the country first, do they? Even if they wrap themselves in the flag. Do figs grow on thorns?

[indepat]

15. Tammy tell me it is not true for who would'a ever thunk it?

:P