Per Capital GDP Growth by President

[Toro]

Figure 1 below shows growth rates in real GDP per capita for every administration beginning in 1929, the first year for which the BEA provides data:

(Note – FDR I was through 1940, FDR II was most of the War years. We broke up the sample that way because there are a lot of people who either out of ignorance or some odd desire to spread BS insist that under FDR, the Great Depression got worse or that growth only picked up with the start of WW2. Either way, I’ve found it is safe to use a person’s pronouncements about FDR as a signal about the accuracy of other things they choose to share. Also note – the remaining graphs in this post focus on the period from 1952 – 2008, as that was the main focus of the book from whence they come.)

As the graph shows, when it comes to real economic growth, Reagan did better than other Republicans. But growth under Reagan was also slower than it was under most of the Democrats since 1929. While the growth rate under Reagan is far less impressive when that last detail is mentioned, it is less impressive still if you remember the definition of GDP:

A Few Graphs Describing the Reagan Presidency

 

[Zander]

and.....

 

[william the wie]

and.....

You have to remember that G (Government expenditures) is always counted as additive to GDP a much better way to measure is to use only private sector GDP.

 

[xsited1]

And this means nothing, but Toro will never, ever figure it out.

Taking Stock of the Parties | Richard W. Rahn | Cato Institute: Commentary

Also notice how the graph goes all the way back to FDR. There have been significant changes in the two political parties over the years, but Toro always likes to look at a ton of data regardless of whether it is significant or not.

No offense.

 

[william the wie]

And this means nothing, but Toro will never, ever figure it out.

Taking Stock of the Parties | Richard W. Rahn | Cato Institute: Commentary

Also notice how the graph goes all the way back to FDR. There have been significant changes in the two political parties over the years, but Toro always likes to look at a ton of data regardless of whether it is significant or not.

No offense.

I think that criticism is a bit harsh. Toro is a fiscally conservative D based on his posts and his job requires looking at a ton of data. However OPs like this one gains him access to data like your link that he doesn't have time to get on his own and I do the same thing to guide my trades so I think you have misunderstood the cause of this thread. I am a community assistant at another more left leaning board and I pick up a lot of actionable intelligence from people who just want go "Nyah-nyah so is your mudder." to me. I pick up much less intelligence on this board and even less on another more libertarian board that I enjoy posting on. You don't learn much from people who share your POV.

 

[xsited1]

And this means nothing, but Toro will never, ever figure it out.

Taking Stock of the Parties | Richard W. Rahn | Cato Institute: Commentary

Also notice how the graph goes all the way back to FDR. There have been significant changes in the two political parties over the years, but Toro always likes to look at a ton of data regardless of whether it is significant or not.

No offense.

I think that criticism is a bit harsh. Toro is a fiscally conservative D based on his posts and his job requires looking at a ton of data. However OPs like this one gains him access to data like your link that he doesn't have time to get on his own and I do the same thing to guide my trades so I think you have misunderstood the cause of this thread. I am a community assistant at another more left leaning board and I pick up a lot of actionable intelligence from people who just want go "Nyah-nyah so is your mudder." to me. I pick up much less intelligence on this board and even less on another more libertarian board that I enjoy posting on. You don't learn much from people who share your POV.

Not harsh at all if you know the history. He's been openly hostile to me on numerous occasions and the mistakes he makes in analyzing data are blatantly obvious. The fact that he starts a thread with 'growth by President' further proves he's clueless.

BTW, did you get out of the market before it crashed a few years ago? I did. If you didn't, why not?

 

[william the wie]

Actually I stick to a strategy that doesn't have a position on whether or not the market goes up or down which most people can't stomach and a small negative carry that blows off most professional traders. So unless you can stomach a lot of small losses and the relatively rare jackpot you probably don't want to know about my strategies.

 

[Toro]

And this means nothing, but Toro will never, ever figure it out.

Taking Stock of the Parties | Richard W. Rahn | Cato Institute: Commentary

Also notice how the graph goes all the way back to FDR. There have been significant changes in the two political parties over the years, but Toro always likes to look at a ton of data regardless of whether it is significant or not.

No offense.

First of all, this thread is not about the stock market. It is about the economy. The economy is not the stock market. At the beginning of 1966, the Dow Jones Industrial Average was 969. At the end of 1981 it was 875. During that time, real GDP of the United States rose from roughly $800 billion to $3.2 trillion. People who equate the performance of the stock market with the economy have a shallow understanding of how financial markets work in relation to the economy.

Xsited, you are an intelligent guy but you are making a basic mistake equating the two. You are also engaging in data mining and exhibiting confirmation bias to support your ideological worldview, which is common for people attempting to reinforce deeply held beliefs. Using a piece by the CATO Institute detailing the past 25 years as evidence of the efficacy of political influence on the financial markets and economy when we have experienced two of the biggest asset bubbles of all time during those years is the highest of fallacies. I have repeatedly cautioned both liberals and conservatives alike not to use the stock market as a barometer for economic success because it often gives false readings. The Venezuelan stock market under Chavez far outperformed the US stock market under Bush (+96% v -32% in US dollars from 01 to 08), but is anyone really going to make the case that Chavez is more pro-business than Bush? Asset markets have their own rhythm often separate and away from politics, but political partisans want to look at the world through an ideological prism when forces outside of politics often drive events.

I believe that highly ideological people on both sides of the political spectrum deeply underestimate the capacity and industriousness of the American people. I did not post this thread as a testament to the wisdom of Democrat policies and Presidents, nor am I arguing that Democrats and economic performance are causal. Far from it. I generally support less government, lower taxes, fiscal responsibility, less regulation and free trade, which are generally thought of as conservative policies. My political hero is Margaret Thatcher and I thought Reagan was a good President. I posted this primarily out of general interest but also as a rebuttal to conservative ideologues who insist upon emphasizing politics in the economy. Politics and policies matter but they generally matter much less than partisans believe. This is also true of liberals who, for example, overstate the affects of FDR’s New Deal, or who believe that Republicans and Bush are the primary causes of the Financial Crisis. The argument that I have repeatedly made has been that partisans and ideologues skew data to support their political beliefs, or in this case, to support policies of their political icons.

 

[rdean]

Anyway you care to look at it, Republicans, for the most part have been failures at government. No surprise since they tell us constantly how much they hate it.

 

[william the wie]

Anyway you care to look at it, Republicans, for the most part have been failures at government. No surprise since they tell us constantly how much they hate it.

If you had included "and Democrats" your statement would have some value.

 

[uscitizen]

Anyway you care to look at it, Republicans, for the most part have been failures at government. No surprise since they tell us constantly how much they hate it.

If you had included "and Democrats" your statement would have some value.

But the democrats do not claim to hate govt and plan to make it smaller.

And I cannot even imagine why libertarians even want in govt they hate it so bad.

 

[william the wie]

Anyway you care to look at it, Republicans, for the most part have been failures at government. No surprise since they tell us constantly how much they hate it.

If you had included "and Democrats" your statement would have some value.

But the democrats do not claim to hate govt and plan to make it smaller.

And I cannot even imagine why libertarians even want in govt they hate it so bad.

It depends on type of libertarian.

 

[uscitizen]

If you had included "and Democrats" your statement would have some value.

But the democrats do not claim to hate govt and plan to make it smaller.

And I cannot even imagine why libertarians even want in govt they hate it so bad.

It depends on type of libertarian.

True they do vary a bit and several are just embaressed Bush supporters.

 

[Samson]

Figure 1 below shows growth rates in real GDP per capita for every administration beginning in 1929, the first year for which the BEA provides data:

(Note – FDR I was through 1940, FDR II was most of the War years. We broke up the sample that way because there are a lot of people who either out of ignorance or some odd desire to spread BS insist that under FDR, the Great Depression got worse or that growth only picked up with the start of WW2. Either way, I’ve found it is safe to use a person’s pronouncements about FDR as a signal about the accuracy of other things they choose to share. Also note – the remaining graphs in this post focus on the period from 1952 – 2008, as that was the main focus of the book from whence they come.)

As the graph shows, when it comes to real economic growth, Reagan did better than other Republicans. But growth under Reagan was also slower than it was under most of the Democrats since 1929. While the growth rate under Reagan is far less impressive when that last detail is mentioned, it is less impressive still if you remember the definition of GDP:

A Few Graphs Describing the Reagan Presidency

Indeed the Growth rate of the economy seems to have little to do with Presidential Party Affiliation (about 3% higher for Dems over a 60 year period), and this difference is mainly between Hoover and FDR.

 

[uscitizen]

Figure 1 below shows growth rates in real GDP per capita for every administration beginning in 1929, the first year for which the BEA provides data:

(Note – FDR I was through 1940, FDR II was most of the War years. We broke up the sample that way because there are a lot of people who either out of ignorance or some odd desire to spread BS insist that under FDR, the Great Depression got worse or that growth only picked up with the start of WW2. Either way, I’ve found it is safe to use a person’s pronouncements about FDR as a signal about the accuracy of other things they choose to share. Also note – the remaining graphs in this post focus on the period from 1952 – 2008, as that was the main focus of the book from whence they come.)

As the graph shows, when it comes to real economic growth, Reagan did better than other Republicans. But growth under Reagan was also slower than it was under most of the Democrats since 1929. While the growth rate under Reagan is far less impressive when that last detail is mentioned, it is less impressive still if you remember the definition of GDP:

A Few Graphs Describing the Reagan Presidency

Indeed the Growth rate of the economy seems to have little to do with Presidential Affiliation

Of course it has nothing to do with it unless it favors your political affiliation.

 

[Toro]

Indeed the Growth rate of the economy seems to have little to do with Presidential Party Affiliation (about 3% higher for Dems over a 60 year period)

Right. Tell me where all the earth-shattering differences in policies between the parties are on this graph.

See that little squiggle here? That's because of tax cuts. And see that tiny little change there? That's because of government investment.

 

[Samson]

A Few Graphs Describing the Reagan Presidency

Indeed the Growth rate of the economy seems to have little to do with Presidential Affiliation

Of course it has nothing to do with it unless it favors your political affiliation.

Well, the operative phrase is "POLITICAL."

Almost nothing anyone does has any significance until it is made political.

 

[Samson]

Indeed the Growth rate of the economy seems to have little to do with Presidential Party Affiliation (about 3% higher for Dems over a 60 year period)

Right. Tell me where all the earth-shattering differences in policies between the parties are on this graph.

See that little squiggle here? That's because of tax cuts. And see that tiny little change there? That's because of government investment.

But where is the Giant Red Arrow pointing at the squiggle Shouting Partisan Rhetoric?

Do you really expect me to be able to independently interpret this information without some political slant?

 

[rdean]

Anyway you care to look at it, Republicans, for the most part have been failures at government. No surprise since they tell us constantly how much they hate it.

If you had included "and Democrats" your statement would have some value.

OK, "Republicans hate government and democrats". Did that help?

 

[psikeyhackr]

So when are people going to figure out that Economic Growth is increase in

NET WORTH

not increase in INCOME?

But increasing income means increased credit rating and bombarded with credit cards. So Per Capita Income doesn't say who income goes from and to. Then ignoring depreciation ignores LOSS OF NET WORTH.

Oops! Where does planned obsolescence fit into the PSEUDO-economic growth theory.

psik