George

Tsoukalas, George

Professor Jeannette Novakovich

English 213

16 September 2010

Final Draft of Summary Essay 1

In Scott Beyer’s article, the ties that economic 'gridlock' can have with political

affiliations are statistically analyzed through research in order to assess a corollary between

economic equity and political regiment. Various comparisons are demonstrated in tables in order

to prove an existing correlation between healthy equity and its political influence. This article

begins with a citation alluding to economic notions of 'gridlock' according to popular financial

analyst Rebecca Byrne. A claim is made about how a country's government largely depends on

economic equity.

The initial stage is introduced by a sub-title: Political Gridlock and Economic

Conditions. This stage of this essay examines the predominant facts regarding political influence

within the economy and how influential financial analysts use this to their advantage when

choosing times to invest and not to invest. An interesting example is used by the authors of

Gridlock’s Gone, Now What? to relate the significance of political harmony and economical

gridlock within the U.S. The author states: “For example, in May 2001, Senator Jim Jeffords of

Vermont switched his party affiliation from Republican to Independent, ending Republican

control of the Congress (Beyer 2006)”, further implicating a necessary relationship between

political gridlock and a stable market. At the end of this stage, the author describes how

important gridlock is for an equitable market.

 George

A second stage explains the actual study conducted using a sample of multiple indexes

ranging from 1949 to 2004 in order to provide a relationship of political influence and healthy

market. Qualitative classifications are later described in order to establish binary relations

between a divided government which leads to economic ‘gridlock’ and a unified government

equals harmony. Various income returns were thoroughly analyzed in this stage of the essay

leading to an in-depth analysis of various significant statistical results including an F-Test. This

was typically the method of experimentation within this statistical analysis: a study of periods of

gridlock and their volatility. In brief, this stage highlights the importance of gridlock and

explains how this study was conducted as a means to further illustrate the intermittent

relationship between gridlock and political influence.

In a third stage, the results of the experiment conducted on various statistical surveys and

analysis were explained. The author explains the periods of gridlock according to the data

collected and compares the results in a table. He states: “Bond markets may prosper during

gridlock because the lack of legislative action dampens government spending, inflation and

deficits (Beyer 2006)”, which strengthens the principle argument of economic prosperity during

times of political ‘gridlock’. This stage gives a detailed outline of how these results only

strengthen the initial hypothesis and how T-Bonds were used in the experiment to demonstrate

how periods of gridlock accentuate the process of political hegemony and is steeper on a

mathematical slope during periods of political harmony than those of ‘gridlock’. The regression

is later discussed in order to identify the principle argument of binary of monetary policy and

political affiliations.

The final stage which is the conclusion of the experiment sums up the experiment by

proving the causal relationship between the economic gridlock of the U.S. throughout 1949 and
 George

2004. Three important factors are later discussed by Scott B. Beyer: the so-called myth about

‘gridlock’ and how it negatively affects the economy, the relation of store returns with that of the

country’s policies and, finally, the high return rate of stores and their statistical relevance.

This research analysis can safely confirm how political equity does strongly correlate

with harmonious ties within a government. This research does primarily focus on the U.S.’s

government, but proves how gridlock does not always lead to a negative economy. Furthermore,

the ties between income and link with political parties fluctuates in such a way that politics can

have an impact on our economy, but isn’t always beneficiary in terms of monetary equity.

Works Cited

Beyer, Jensen and Robert R. Johnson. “Gridlock’s Gone, Now What?” Financial

Analysts Journal 62.5 (2006): 21-28. JSTOR.