Macroeconomics, here are some facts:

[David]

I put these together so there's probably a mistake or two but for the most part these are the facts. I also added my own very unscientific "Car and Driver" style rating system.





If anyone has a suggestion for increasing the size and resolution of this excel spreadsheet I would be grateful





Over the past five Presidents, I don't see how a rational person couldn't say Clinton's economy was the winner and Bush II's is hovering around last place with Carter's. Now why are Republicans better for the economy?

[David]

How about this:

[David]

Close up:

[David]

Alright, I'll dig myself a little deeper, here's the close up with inflation fixed. My un-scientic rating system is showing how unreliable it is, but the facts are still there to play with :

[Zeke]

what are you concluding here, that GWB is a good pres?

[MRM]

Clinton benefited from the perfect storm of good economic events, some of his making, many not. He benefited from GHWB's No New Taxes and the internet bubble, that temporarily increased tax revenues. The labels "good" and "bad" president are value labels that depend on your perspective. I prefer the term "effective" president. I do not think Clinton was a good president, but I will grudgingly admit that he was more effective of a president than George Herbert Walker Bush and less effective than Reagan.

[kstar]

For Bush II it looks like receipts went way up a few years after 9/11 despite a relatively flat market . . . and with the Bush tax cuts. Am I reading this correctly? It looks like % numbers are year over year.

Bush flunks in the spending department, of course.

Also, MRM makes a good point. Policies of the previous president can have both negative and positive effects on the following president(s), which is very hard to quantify.

FWIW.

Best

[kstar]

Here's look at what happened before and after the Reagan tax reforms (another Repub, plagued by big spending but which spending arguably ended the cold war!):




Source: http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/bg1765.cfm

----

There is a great quote from Keynes on the same page:

When, on the contrary, I show, a little elaborately, as in the ensuing chapter, that to create wealth will increase the national income and that a large proportion of any increase in the national income will accrue to an Exchequer, amongst whose largest outgoings is the payment of incomes to those who are unemployed and whose receipts are a proportion of the incomes of those who are occupied...

Nor should the argument seem strange that taxation may be so high as to defeat its object, and that, given sufficient time to gather the fruits, a reduction of taxation will run a better chance than an increase of balancing the budget. For to take the opposite view today is to resemble a manufacturer who, running at a loss, decides to raise his price, and when his declining sales increase the loss, wrapping himself in the rectitude of plain arithmetic, decides that prudence requires him to raise the price still more--and who, when at last his account is balanced with nought on both sides, is still found righteously declaring that it would have been the act of a gambler to reduce the price when you were already making a loss.2

2˘

Best,

Kurt

[MRM]

I graduated from high school in 1983 and was a business major in college through the rest of Reagan's administration, so those economic stats from 78-83 brought back an old chill. Those were bad times. Inflation and interest rates flirting with 20%, unemployment in the teens. Those were bad, bad days. As we evaluate where we are today it would be good to remember those times. Did I mention those were hard times? In all seriousness, the Tax Reform Act of 1986 was one of the singular achievements of recent government history. We all live in a better world because of it and we would do well to return to the original Act.

[Seahawk]

Originally Posted by kstarnes

Bush flunks in the spending department, of course.

Agreed...but the President only proposes his budget, Congress approves it and
authorizes it, making it law.

Another real problem are indexed spending programs that make up the majority of the budget that can't be influenced or amended in the budget proposal since they are already law.

They have all flunked the spending test.

[Mo_Gearhead]

If ANYONE thinks the POTUS (by the mere act of being in office for 4-8 years)
can save all those jobs going to China, stop oil/gas/housing speculation from driving prices higher, stop certain corporations/banks/etc. from cooking their books, solve world hunger, bring peace to the Middle East, stop the earth from warming (or cooling), et al ...you need to get a new grip on reality.

Hope. Change. Balance. Equality. Fairness. Ahhhh, promises ..promises.

If the President (alone) could fix ANY of those problems, they have ALL had the chance to snap their fingers and 'magically' made it happen. Duh.

The U.S. (and the worlds) economic and social events occur randomly and also in cycles. Whom ever happens to be sitting in the oval office during any of those events is little more than ...a roll of the dice.

One can only hold out hope for the future that we will someday elect a POTUS that will begin to get government OUT of our lives, not MORE into it!

[hardflex]

inflation was a problem before Carter, so much so thatNixon tried controlling it with wage and price controls in the early 70's. Carter appointed Paul Volker and he was the one that "wrung" the inflation from the economy. Yes sir, it caused some hardship, but layed the groundwork for good years later in Reagan's term. . But Carter had a balanced budget too. The early Reagan years were no picnic either then Reagan began the crazy deficit spending that had a hand in reviving the economy. It's easy to make an economy hum if you spend spend spend.

[Porsche-O-Phile]

I also wouldn't agree that the government-reported inflation numbers are "fact". They're politically manipulated numbers.

Do you honestly believe that inflation is running anywhere close to where the government claims it is today? If so, I've got a bridge to sell you. Or possibly some oceanfront property in Missouri.

[David]

I'll also agree the inflation numbers aren't fact. The other numbers are except I made a mistake on the DJIA numbers, which I took from October of the year so they'd correlate to the fiscal year of the other numbers. Some how I got them off by two years, so the DJIA has annual average growth of 4.2% under Bush II, but he's still second only to Carter in worst DJIA growth in 30 years.

[hardflex]

If you put those charts together, kudos on your diligence. Interesting to go back and review, especially if you've lived through those presidents.

[kstar]

Originally Posted by hardflex

If you put those charts together, kudos on your diligence. Interesting to go back and review, especially if you've lived through those presidents.

I agree; thanks David!

Best,

Kurt

[sammyg2]

It is very dangerous to use statistics to justify short term results while ignoring long term effects.

Take a good look at what happened near the end of Clinton's term, the dot-bomb.
Much of what make Clinton look good was economical smoke and mirrors, trading short term gains for long term losses. I don't necessarily think he was responsible for it but he did gain from it image-wise.
I could take any company on this planet and increase profitability over-night and look like a genius for a few quarters. Just cut maintenance, cut expenditures, cut staffing, and implement a very aggressive add campaign that touted unsubstantiated and outrageous claims. That would make the bottom line look great for a short period, after than the company would probably fold.

[David]

Here's what I'm getting at with the data.

During the last 3 Repulican administations, the federal gov't spent more, brought in less revenue, put us deeper in debt, and for all that they didn't kept up with the DJIA and GDP gains during the Clinton administration (except for the GDP during Reagan who outspent everyone.)

I don't think Clinton was some master of the economy. I agree that the POTUS is just one part of what drives the economy, but to say that a Repulican POTUS is much better for the economy is just plain false according to recent data.

[RoninLB]

I've been saying forever that Gov't inflation #'s is bs

[fintstone]

Originally Posted by 125shifter

I put these together so there's probably a mistake or two but for the most part these are the facts. I also added my own very unscientific "Car and Driver" style rating system.





If anyone has a suggestion for increasing the size and resolution of this excel spreadsheet I would be grateful





Over the past five Presidents, I don't see how a rational person couldn't say Clinton's economy was the winner and Bush II's is hovering around last place with Carter's. Now why are Republicans better for the economy?

Could you source your data?