Out of Touch

So that's GDP growth over the course of different presidents' terms. This is, obviously, a very crude method by which to judge a president's economic performance. But surely this sort of thing ought to stop a New York Times reporter from writing that Bush "has spent years presiding over an economic climate of growth that would be the envy of most presidents."

See also Dean Baker and Ezra Klein. That a newspaper would let a demonstrably false assertion into its news pages is no longer surprising, but it is telling that this apparently didn't "sound wrong" to anyone charged with editing the piece. If you'd submitted something about "Manhattan real estate has been in the doldroms throughout Mr. Bush's two terms" presumably an editor would have noticed that this seemed wrong. By say that it's been a historically good economy, and the Times thinks that scans just fine.

Comments

it's not just that apparently ny times editors have had economically strong years during the bush regime, it's also that they have to make a concious effort to block out what paul krugman has told them right on their own editorial page.

Posted by howard | January 29, 2008 1:28 PM

an economic climate of growth that would be the envy of most presidents

Is "most presidents" pundit-speak for "George H. W. Bush and Martin Van Buren"?
.

Posted by Grand Moff Texan | January 29, 2008 1:31 PM

It has been an enviable period economically for the people the editors see on a regular basis in NYC.

Posted by zaleriana | January 29, 2008 1:31 PM

The top caption should read "Average Yearly Economic Growth By President...right?

Because if not, graph would indicate that the one-termers Carter and Bush I saw around twice the annual growth of the Reagan and Clinton eras.

Posted by James Gary | January 29, 2008 1:32 PM

The profane but soulful city editor probably caught this, but was overruled by the priggish, Pulitzer-craving, suspendered executive editor, who thought it captured the spirit of the times. Just another victory of the cruel logic of capitalism!

Posted by infirm | January 29, 2008 1:34 PM

Far be it from me to defend the New York Times, but presumably when the idiot reporter there refers to "years presiding over an economic climate of growth", she is referring to the last 4 or 5 years, rather than the entirety of the the Bush presidency.

Posted by Al | January 29, 2008 1:47 PM

And they complain about the NYTimes and the liberal bias...

Posted by freddiemac | January 29, 2008 1:49 PM

This is pretty much exactly the point of my comment at Ezra's. It astounds me that a person could hear this claim from anyone and not be totally incredulous. That is, even if it turned out to be true, given the way liberals pine for the 60s and 90s and conservatives pine for the 80s, one would have to just assume that those economies were better than this one. Who do news people talk to?

Posted by jhupp | January 29, 2008 1:50 PM

So that's GDP growth over the course of different presidents' terms.

Well fine, but Bush's "GDP growth" is coming off a bubble-inflated base, heading into two years of terrorism- and Enron-inflicted recession. Compare to Clinton who's growth comes out of Bush I's recession.

Al has it right. No one is asserting that the entire Bush presidency has been peachy economically. Only that the last few years have seen strong GDP growth, low unemployment and inflation, and high stock market returns. That, I think, would be the envy of most presidents.

Posted by right | January 29, 2008 1:58 PM

But right, hasn't this last year seen the opposite? Why would anyone envy two recessions sandwiching a bubble market?

Posted by freddiemac | January 29, 2008 2:06 PM

Dean Baker's claim is utter nonsense. You can't measure economic growth under different presidents using average annual GDP percentage growth. Doesn't this alleged "economist" know anything about the meaning of averages?

For example, the percentage growth in real GDP under Reagan was greater than the percentage growth in real GDP under Clinton. The exact opposite of what the chart above indicates.

Posted by Mixner | January 29, 2008 2:15 PM

But right, hasn't this last year seen the opposite? Why would anyone envy two recessions sandwiching a bubble market?

Of course. That's what the article is saying: before the troubles of the last couple months, the economy had been pretty good for the previous ~5 years.

I'm not defending Bush's economic record as a whole, just pointing out that the New York Times is not saying anything that's "demonstrably false", as Matt claims.

Posted by right | January 29, 2008 2:31 PM

So that's GDP growth over the course of different presidents' terms. This is, obviously, a very crude method by which to judge a president's economic performance. But surely this sort of thing ought to stop a New York Times reporter from writing that Bush "has spent years presiding over an economic climate of growth that would be the envy of most presidents."

Well, you're assuming that "the envy of most presidents" means "good." That's more likely than not, but can't be taken for granted. Doesn't Marxist theory state that the conscious, self-interested goal of the monied elites is to keep the proletariat down? If that's correct, any president capable of raising the funds to get elected would absolutely hate to see more poor people get well-fed and educated and upwardly mobile.

Posted by Cyrus | January 29, 2008 2:35 PM

as soon as the economy comes up, the right-wing apologists come out.

mixner, for instance, neglects to tell us why average gdp growth over a president's term is a poor metric, although i'm sure there's a reason in there somewhere, and of course if he wants to play the "reagan presided over the awesomest economy ever" game, then i'm entitled to play the "look at gdp per capita and you'll see a different result." regardless, whether economic performance was better under reagan or clinton, neither of them would envy economic performance under bush, nor would any other sane president.

as for right, yes, as a matter of fact, all kinds of people (known, generically, as "republicans") have been saying that the bush years have just been so awesome economically.

putting that aside, the last few years (go ahead, pick out your favorite quarters, why doncha?) have not seen strong gdp growth: they've seen individual quarters of strong gdp growth, some of it overstated. i have no idea why "strong stock market returns" are supposed to be a meaningful indicator, since the stock market is a reflection of net present value of the future stream of profits, not a reflection of the economy as a whole. "low" unemployment is a shoddy indicator due to changes in the definition of the unemployment rate: the useful metric is labor force participation rate, and that's been decent but nothing special. finally, although inflation has been relatively low, it has crept up during the bush years.

finally, we get to the issue of distribution that al, right, and mixner all avoid: it's been a fantastic economy if you own capital or are in the upper one-tenth of one percent of households by income. if you are a median household, it's been a mediocre economy, with next-to-no real wage gains while at the same time your insurance out-of-pockets have increased and your likelihood of having insurance through your job has decreased.

and, of course, what has sustained consumption through all of this has been MEW, which is nothing for a president to brag about or be envied by his predecessors for, especially considering that now that the bubble has burst, we have millions of people with negative equity in their homes:
http://calculatedrisk.blogspot.com/2007/12/homeowners-with-negative-equity.html

PS. final note to right: i have no idea what you are talking about with respect to recession. as clinton led office, overinvestment in certain sectors (particularly telecom) led to a short recession that - with the exception of job loss - was relatively mild. The recession ended in october, 2001, and had no relationship to "terrorism," the excuse d'jour.

so, in short, clinton and bush had essentially the same circumstances: a recession at the start of their term in office.

Posted by howard | January 29, 2008 2:42 PM

so, in short, clinton and bush had essentially the same circumstances: a recession at the start of their term in office

What???

When Clinton entered office, we had been out of recession for almost 2 years. Indeed, Clinton inherited excellent economic times from Bush I.

Which is the precise opposite of Bush II, who was bequeathed a recession by his predecessor.

Posted by Al | January 29, 2008 2:48 PM

Mixner, for instance, neglects to tell us why average gdp growth over a president's term is a poor metric...

Don't feed the troll, dude.

Posted by James Gary | January 29, 2008 2:51 PM

howard,

as soon as the economy comes up, the right-wing apologists come out.

Left-wing idiots who don't know the first thing about economics or statistical analysis need someone to correct them.

mixner, for instance, neglects to tell us why average gdp growth over a president's term is a poor metric

Mixner didn't say anything about "average GDP growth." Mixner pointed out that average annual GDP percentage growth is meaningless as a measure of economic growth during a presidency. Percentage GDP growth under Reagan's presidency was higher than percentage GDP growth under Clinton's presidency.

Dean Baker is a moron. He obviously doesn't understand that the effect of an annual rate of growth on the total rate of growth for a multi-year period depends on which year the annual rate occurs in, and thus simply averaging the annual rates over the total period is meaningless as a measure of total growth. And clueless lefties like you and Matt and Ezra Klein fall for this nonsense.

Posted by Mixner | January 29, 2008 2:57 PM

i have no idea why "strong stock market returns" are supposed to be a meaningful indicator, since the stock market is a reflection of net present value of the future stream of profits, not a reflection of the economy as a whole.

...and so those future profits are supposed to be earned in a shitty economy? clearly you do have an idea why they're a useful indicator, when placed in context with other metrics to describe other aspects of the economy, as I did.

the useful metric is labor force participation rate, and that's been decent but nothing special. finally, although inflation has been relatively low, it has crept up during the bush years.

so... you agree with me?

as clinton led office, overinvestment in certain sectors (particularly telecom) led to a short recession that - with the exception of job loss - was relatively mild.

the recession was short when you define it as "negative GDP growth". we had unusually slow growth for most of 2001 and 2002. but yes, it was milder than a lot of other recessions.

so, in short, clinton and bush had essentially the same circumstances: a recession at the start of their term in office.

That's totally wrong. Surely you understand the difference, when measuring cumulative growth, of growing off a base that is near the bottom of a recession (Clinton) and one that hasn't reached its recession yet (Bush). That's why metrics like the one shown in the chart are dumb -- because so much depends upon where you place the goalposts.

Posted by right | January 29, 2008 3:11 PM

Mixner,

Not to blogwhore, but here is the annual percentage change in real gdp per capita (after all, you do have to take into account population growth, right?) by administration.

My guess is that you won't like the results at all.

Posted by cactus | January 29, 2008 3:20 PM

Actually, the Bush years have been very good for those in the media, in particular the written press. His never-ending wars have increased the (relative and perhaps absolute) demand for their services, and his tax cuts have benefitted their senior editors and pundits. Moreover, the Bush years have made their jobs easier by the complete disappearance of substantive policy debate in DC (as opposed to politics). That's the "economic climate of growth."

Posted by SavageView | January 29, 2008 3:26 PM

Not to blogwhore, but here is the annual percentage change in real gdp per capita (after all, you do have to take into account population growth, right?)

Do you? Dean Baker's numbers don't take population growth into account, either.

And average annual percentage change in real GDP per capita is meaningless as a measure of total change in real GDP per capita for a multi-year period for exactly the same reason that Dean Baker's numbers are meaningless.

Posted by Mixner | January 29, 2008 3:32 PM

Al, yes, formally you are correct that the formal endpoint of the bush I recession was march, 1991, but let's turn the mike over to the NBER:

CAMBRIDGE, December 22, 1992 -- The Business Cycle Dating Committee of the National Bureau of Economic Research met by conference call yesterday. The committee maintains a chronology of the U.S. business cycle that is widely used in the analysis of business conditions. In its meeting, the committee determined that the U.S. economy reached a trough of activity in March 1991.
Previously, the committee had determined that the economy reached a peak of activity in July 1990. The eight-month period between July 1990 and March 1991 is a recession in the NBER's chronology. The committee thus determined that the recession ended in March 1991 and that an expansion began at that time.

The committee had waited to make the determination of the trough date until it was confident that any future downturn in the economy would be considered a new recession and not a continuation of the recession that began in July 1990. The committee noted that the broadest measure of economic activity -- gross domestic product in constant dollars -- had finally surpassed its previous peak by the third quarter of 1992. Only by December did the overall pattern of economic activity appear to be strong enough to warrant the determination of the trough date.

The behavior of the economy in 1991 made the determination of the trough particularly challenging. Two important monthly indicators related to the production and sales of goods -- industrial production and manufacturing-trade sales in constant dollars -- had unambiguous troughs in early 1991 (in March and January, respectively). Two other monthly indicators had declined to close to their minimum values by early 1991, but continued to decline slightly for the rest of 1991. Real personal income reached its trough in November 1991, at 0.07 percent below its level in April. Employees on non-agricultural payrolls reached its trough in January 1992, also at 0.07 percent below its level in April. Total hours of all non-agricultural employees reached its trough in April. The choice of March 1991 as the trough date was based primarily on the fact that various averages of the monthly indicators reached clear troughs in that month.

http://www.nber.org/March91.html

right: you miss my point. high stock market returns have to do with the future, not the present.

in terms of inflation, no, i don't agree with you: on a percentage basis, inflation has increased considerably during the bush years, even though in absolute terms it has been moderate. with inflation, trendlines are all-important: i'd rather be at 5% inflation and falling than 3% inflation and rising.

as for the comparison between bush II and clinton, let's separate two issues. the first issue is whether other presidents should envy bush's economic performance: for that question, the simple chart that matthew shows us is good enough.

but now, if you want to try and actually control for the business cycle and other factors, we can do that, and indeed, cactus at angry bear did it in great detail, here:

http://angrybear.blogspot.com/2007/02/god-punishes-us-when-we-collectively.html (part I)

http://angrybear.blogspot.com/2007/02/god-punishes-us-when-we-collectively_19.html (part V, which has links to the other parts)

in short, no matter how you slice it, including controlling for the business cycle, there is nothing impressive about growth under bush (and yes, i'm all for controlling for variables this way if our intent is to really dig in and analyze outcomes).

Posted by howard | January 29, 2008 3:35 PM

Mixner,
If you calculate average rate of growth by just averaging growth numbers for each year, you will get a small error. The better way is to divde GDP at the of the presidency by the beginning GDP, and raise the fraction to the (1/n) power where n is the number of years in office.

From the quick calculations that I did, that is how these numbers were probably attained.

Oh, in addition, if you just look at Bush's best 4 years (12.46% growth, or 3.02%/year), he still loses out to Carter.

Posted by Njorl | January 29, 2008 3:39 PM

cactus, nice of you to venture over here, especially as i was busy providing links to your epic survey! can you please fill in any blanks that i left (i tried searching all 5 parts through google and was unsucessful).

that said, i meant to note that i was taking james gray's advice and ignoring mixner....

Posted by howard | January 29, 2008 3:41 PM

Mixner,

Technically, the geometric mean would work, but that's pretty clearly not what Matt used, and I think the reason for the distinction is lost on him and most of the audience anyway. Dean Baker should know better, but he's playing to the crowd.

The rest of you, Matt especially, really need to learn how compound interest works, because this sort of nonsense makes you look foolish.

Posted by heedless | January 29, 2008 3:43 PM

Uh, pardon the Yglesias typing method. Formula above should be:

(GDPend/GDPstart) ^ (1/years in office)=average yearly growth

Posted by Njorl | January 29, 2008 3:46 PM

Njorl,

I posted before I saw you response. Sorry for the implication of innumeracy.

Question: Are the Carter numbers inflation adjusted? As I recall that was sort of a problem during his presidency.

Posted by heedless | January 29, 2008 3:50 PM

yes, heedless, although there was significant inflation during carter's years in office, nonetheless the economy grew perfectly well right up until volcker squeezed inflation through substantially higher interest rates, which led to a recession (despite which the overall numbers for carter are still pretty decent).

you might want to know this sort of thing before you start ripping people for innumeracy....

Posted by howard | January 29, 2008 3:55 PM

The Carter numbers are inflation adjusted, otherwise they'd be 11.1% per year.

Posted by Njorl | January 29, 2008 3:56 PM

Nkorl,

From the quick calculations that I did, that is how these numbers were probably attained.

My guess is that Dean Baker was using average annual GDP growth rates from the BEA. But since his link to his source doesn't work, it's hard to know. In any case, his numbers are meaningless for the reason I explained.

Oh, in addition, if you just look at Bush's best 4 years (12.46% growth, or 3.02%/year), he still loses out to Carter.

Carter's presidency began in 1977 and ended in 1981
Real GDP 1977: $4,751 billion
Real GDP 1981: $5,292 billion
Real GDP growth 1977-1981: 11.4%

Is 11.4% higher or lower than 12.46%, Njorl?

Posted by Mixner | January 29, 2008 3:57 PM

"And average annual percentage change in real GDP per capita is meaningless as a measure of total change in real GDP per capita for a multi-year period for exactly the same reason that Dean Baker's numbers are meaningless."

Nonsense. First of all, Baker's figures aren't averages; they're annualized compound rates of growth. Since Reagan and Clinton each served eight years, their annualized compound rates will be proportional to the actual real GDP growth rate over the period. I just ran the numbers; for Reagan, real GDP growth over eight years was 30.63 percent; for Clinton, it was 33.81. Those translate into compound annual rates of 3.4 for Reagan, 3.7 for Clinton--exactly what Baker reports. Mixner--we can run these numbers quite well, thank you; present some yourself, along with a clear explanation of how you got them, and we might listen to you.

Posted by David | January 29, 2008 3:58 PM

David,

Nonsense. First of all, Baker's figures aren't averages; they're annualized compound rates of growth.

You're the one talking nonsense. Did you even read Baker's post? Quote: "Here the ranking of the presidential terms since 1960 by average annual GDP growth ..."

Posted by Mixner | January 29, 2008 4:08 PM

But right, hasn't this last year seen the opposite? Why would anyone envy two recessions sandwiching a bubble market?

Of course. That's what the article is saying: before the troubles of the last couple months, the economy had been pretty good for the previous ~5 years.

right,
Well yeah, but the growth of the previous 5 years were the cause of the troubles in the last few months. You're basically saying, "Barry Bonds had an amazing career if you overlook the whole steroids thing."

Posted by Mo | January 29, 2008 4:12 PM

Sorry Howard,

I jumped the gun a bit (well, more than a bit). I'll work on my self restraint, but I'm not all that hopeful.

One quibble, though.

The recession from Volker's tightened money supply occurred in 1982-83. (inflation didn't peak until 1981) Carter kept inflating the currency right until he left office.

If anything, these numbers give Reagan too little credit, since he accepted the reduced growth rate necessary to reign in inflation. Carter hired Volker, but Reagan let him do his job, and even renominated him in 1983.

Posted by heedless | January 29, 2008 4:16 PM

Carter's presidency began in 1977 and ended in 1981

It began in January 1977, so you probably want to look at 1976-1980 to see growth during his term. Seems weird to exclude growth in 1977 over 1976.

with inflation, trendlines are all-important: i'd rather be at 5% inflation and falling than 3% inflation and rising.

Trendlines are hardly "all-important". It's unclear whether they have any relevance at all.

high stock market returns have to do with the future, not the present.

They have to do with both, as I'm pretty sure you understand.

Posted by right | January 29, 2008 4:19 PM

It looks to me like Baker did use arithmetic mean, which is incorrect, but in this instance does not produce very flawed numbers.

Baker's numbers: (proper calculation in parentheses)
Kennedy-Johnson -- 5.2% (4.8%)
Clinton -- 3.6% (3.7%)
Reagan -- 3.4% (3.4%)
Carter -- 3.4% (3.3%)
Nixon-Ford -- 2.7% (2.8%)
Bush II --2.6% (2.4%)
Bush I --1.9% (2.1%)

Of course, Bush II looks worse if you do the numbers properly.

Adjusting for population (debatable to do, and to what extent, since babies add to consumption, but not production):

Johnson 4.03%
Kennedy 2.65%
Clinton 2.47%
Reagan 2.45%
Carter 2.14%
(50 year average 2.08%)
(100 year average 1.93%)
Nixon 1.68%
Ford 1.53%
Bush II 1.40% (first 6 years)
Bush I 0.91%

Posted by Njorl | January 29, 2008 4:28 PM

Howard, I'm not sure what your point is in citing the NBER paper. Of course the NBER look at all the variables, and comes up with a date - March 1991. But the fact that Clinton inherited an expanding economy is shown even if you look at the most lagging indicator - employment. After all, the NBER points out that the trough in employment ended in January 1992 - which was a full year before Clinton entered office.

There's no possible way of looking at the data except to state that Clinton entered into office at the most beneficial possible moment: the very beginning of a great expansion. He inherited good times from Bush I in precisely the opposite manner that Bush II inherited bad times from Clinton.

Posted by Al | January 29, 2008 4:29 PM

David,

I just ran the numbers; for Reagan, real GDP growth over eight years was 30.63 percent; for Clinton, it was 33.81.

I don't know what you're blabbering on about here, either. From BEA National Accounts Table 1.1.6, Real Gross Domestic Product, Billions of chained (2000) dollars:

Reagan:
1981: $5,292
1989: $6,981
Change: +31.92%

Clinton:
1993: $7,533
2001: $9,891
Change: +31.30%

Posted by Mixner | January 29, 2008 4:29 PM

heedless, you're jumping the gun again!

there was a recession from 1/80 - 7/80, followed by a recession from 7/81 - 11/82, so yes, as i noted, carter did preside over a recession brought on by tight interest rates (which is not to say that you aren't correct that inflation didn't peak until 1981):

http://www.nber.org/cycles/cyclesmain.html

right, i have no idea why you don't think trendlines matter for inflation: the fed is deeply (and i suspect justifiably) convinced that inflationary expectations are all-important (here's a discussion of that point that i have bookmarked: http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2007/07/bernanke-inflat.html). inflationary expectations are anchored in current realities. to the extent that people start to become convinced that 3% inflation is going to be the norm, that starts to factor into all their economic decisions which helps embed the inflation rate (when i lived in london in the '70s, there was a vivid real-time demonstration of this very point).

so yes, reagan, bush I, and clinton all benefitted from a declining level of inflation and inflationary expectations; as bush II is leaving office, inflationary expectations are incresaing.

as for stock market returns, they represent the present discounted value of the future profit stream; the present is only relevant insofar as it helps us determine likely future profitability and the appropriate discount rate.

if the present were all that important to stock prices as such, then we wouldn't see stocks report higher earnings and fall because they were below "expectations."

Posted by howard | January 29, 2008 4:34 PM

"Carter's presidency began in 1977 and ended in 1981
Real GDP 1977: $4,751 billion
Real GDP 1981: $5,292 billion
Real GDP growth 1977-1981: 11.4%
Is 11.4% higher or lower than 12.46%, Njorl?"
Posted by Mixner

You're a year off Mixner.
You should compare GDP of 1976 with 1980. Unless, you know where to find numbers for GDP that begin and end on January 20th or so.
1976 $4540.9G
1980 $5161.7G

Posted by Njorl | January 29, 2008 4:37 PM

You should compare GDP of 1976 with 1980.

No I shouldn't. Jimmy Carter wasn't president in 1976, and his presidency ended in 1981, not 1980.

Posted by Mixner | January 29, 2008 4:46 PM

Al, i cite the NBER because it reminds us that the economy was still quite weak when clinton took office as the after-affects of a brutal recession were still felt.

in comparison, the 2001 recession was mild in every respect save one - loss of jobs - and purely serendipitously, bush was the economic beneficiary of the post-9/11 collapse of fiscal discipline that led to an orgy of keynesian stimulus.

despite which, the bush-period economic performance is mediocre and the clinton-period economic performance is good. we might also note that the bush recovery was the weakest of all post-world war ii recoveries.

again, the point here is whether any president should be looking with envy at bush's performance, and the answer remains no.

Mo, you remind me of a point i meant to make in here: at one stage, what we today call "economics" was called "political economy." that's because people recognized that there was more to understanding the economy than simply the headline numbers, which is why i reject that the 2002-2007 period was "pretty good."

it was great for owners of capital and great for the top one-tenth of one percent of households by income and essentially mediocre for most everyone else. to me, that doesn't average out to "pretty good."

Posted by howard | January 29, 2008 4:47 PM

Nonsense. First of all, Baker's figures aren't averages; they're annualized compound rates of growth.

You're the one talking nonsense. Did you even read Baker's post? Quote: "Here the ranking of the presidential terms since 1960 by average annual GDP growth ..."

Mixner,
I'm not sure which average Baker used, but annualized compound rate of growth is also known as the geometric average. Both the arithmetic and geometric averages can correctly be called average. Much like the mean, median and mode are all considered averages, as well. The word average is a pretty bad word to use.

Posted by Mo | January 29, 2008 4:50 PM

... proper calculation ...

Sorry, you need to identify the data source and methodology of your "proper calculation." Since you seem to think that 11 > 12, who knows what errors this "proper calculation" involves.

At least you people have stopped trying to defend Dean Baker's nonsense. Of course, I'm charitably assuming that his errors are due to stupidity and ignorance. But maybe he knows he's talking crap and is just hoping his audience is gullible enough to fall for it.

Posted by Mixner | January 29, 2008 4:51 PM

Since GDP numbers are generally the Dec. 31 GDP numbers, the most accurate numbers will be election years. This is because it will only misappropriate 20 days of a presidency rather than 340 days. So the 1976-1980 numbers will show growth from Dec 31, 1976 to Dec 31, 1980, while the 1977-1981 will show Dec 31, 1977 to Dec 31, 1981. Since the Carter administration went from Jan 20, 1977 to Jan 19, 1981, the former range is a closer approximation.

Posted by Mo | January 29, 2008 5:01 PM

Okay, I'm going to stop commenting on this thread, because I realized I've been more or less on Mixner's side here, and he's just ridiculously trolling.

Posted by right | January 29, 2008 5:03 PM

Mixner,

You can see figures calculated here, step by step. It includes the data source.

You can get it on a t-shirt here if you'd like. Also, percentage of the time spent in recession. Plus one graph you might actually like. And the data for calculating it all.

And BTW... the reason to go with 1976 to 1980 for Carter is that you want to look at how things grew since Carter took office. The year before he took office is the baseline. His last full year in office is the end point. Using 1981 makes no sense at all... the new pres takes office in January, after all.

Howard,

I always appreciate a plug. Thanks.

Al,

Check here for percentage of time each administration spent in recession. By sheer coincidence, I'm sure, it seems to happen far more frequently under Rep presidents.

Posted by cactus | January 29, 2008 5:10 PM

Al, i cite the NBER because it reminds us that the economy was still quite weak when clinton took office as the after-affects of a brutal recession were still felt.

It does? Not as far as I can tell. In fact, the NBER noted that the economy had gained back all of its recession-related loss of GDP at least 6 months prior to when Clinton entered office. By any measure, the economy in January 1993 was quite strong.

And, BTW, the 1991 recession was not "brutal" at all. It was relatively mild - not as mild as the 2001 recession, but certainly not as bad as, say, the prior recession.

despite which, the bush-period economic performance is mediocre and the clinton-period economic performance is good. we might also note that the bush recovery was the weakest of all post-world war ii recoveries.

Well, when you have a mild recession, you have a weak recovery, because their isn't much of a loss to recover from. And, no, I don't think the Clinton economy is all that much better than the Bush II economy. I prefer to look at Misery Index rather than GDP growth. And by that measure, Bush's economy is quite similar to Clinton's.

again, the point here is whether any president should be looking with envy at bush's performance, and the answer remains no.

As I mentioned above, I think the point of the story was whether any president should be looking with envy at the economy's performance over the past few years, not over the entirety of the Bush Presidency. And there, the answer is yes.

Posted by Al | January 29, 2008 5:15 PM

Since GDP numbers are generally the Dec. 31 GDP numbers, the most accurate numbers will be election years.

BEA annual GDP numbers are not Dec 31 numbers. They are averages of GDP numbers for the year by quarter or month.

Of course, the idea that there is any meaningful relationship between a president's economic record and the GDP numbers on the exact dates he entered and left office is a whole other level of meaninglessness, but that fact only serves to illustrate the point that Dean Baker's goal here is to try and score cheap rhetorical points against Bush and the New York Times rather than engage in anything that remotely qualifies as serious economic analysis.

Posted by Mixner | January 29, 2008 5:18 PM

By sheer coincidence, I'm sure, it seems to happen far more frequently under Rep presidents.

I'm sure it's a coincidence, too. Presidents have little to no effect on the operation of the business cycle.

Posted by Al | January 29, 2008 5:19 PM

I'm sure it's a coincidence, too. Presidents have little to no effect on the operation of the business cycle.

Are you saying that a President's fiscal policy doesn't effect economic growth?
If so, why all the fuss about tax cuts?

Posted by WillieStyle | January 29, 2008 5:28 PM

cactus,

And BTW... the reason to go with 1976 to 1980 for Carter is that you want to look at how things grew since Carter took office. The year before he took office is the baseline. His last full year in office is the end point.

"Baseline" and "endpoint" of what? What, exactly, are you claiming to be measuring here?

Posted by Mixner | January 29, 2008 5:29 PM

Dean Baker's goal here is to try and score cheap rhetorical points against Bush and the New York Times rather than engage in anything that remotely qualifies as serious economic analysis.

I agree: pointing out the fanciest paper in the United States made a claim with no basis in reality is cheap rhetoric.

Also: it's unconscionable that a blog whose purpose is to engage in media criticism is engaging in media criticism. Oooooh, it makes me so mad!

Posted by 23456 | January 29, 2008 5:40 PM

I agree: pointing out the fanciest paper in the United States made a claim with no basis in reality is cheap rhetoric.

He didn't point out any such thing. He pretended the reporter's statement referred to a specific empirical claim about GDP growth, tried and failed to show that that claim is incorrect, and made a fool of himself in the process.

Posted by 7891011 | January 29, 2008 5:48 PM

He pretended the reporter's statement referred to a specific empirical claim about GDP growth

Outstanding point! Yes, as you'd expect from America's fanciest newspaper, the reporters just issue vague pronouncements that have no empirical meaning. It could have read "Mr. Bush has spent years presiding over jumpin' jehosophat" and it would have had exactly the same content.

Again, it's really a scandal that a blog devoted to media criticism would say anything about that.

Posted by 23456 | January 29, 2008 5:58 PM

Why would G W Bush's numbers be the envy of, say, Carter who produced higher annual GDP growth?

well, GWB's growth was noninflationary, was sustained over a 2 term period and was in spite of inheiriting the Clinton crash and al-Qaida's attack

Look at the Federal Reserve's Flow of Funds for the past 19 quarter's - household wealth has ground by 10% annually (aritmetic) in real terms - can any of you find a better performance?

Posted by Jozef | January 29, 2008 6:32 PM

Why would G W Bush's numbers be the envy of, say, Carter who produced higher annual GDP growth?

Exactly the right question to ask! After all, the NY Times article in question stated that Bush "has spent years presiding over an economic climate of growth that would be the envy of, say, Carter."

There are so many excellent points being made and questions being raised here it's hard to keep track.

Posted by 23456 | January 29, 2008 6:57 PM

Mixner,

""Baseline" and "endpoint" of what? What, exactly, are you claiming to be measuring here?"

Why the percentage change in the real GDP per capita, of course.

Posted by cactus | January 29, 2008 7:23 PM

Why the percentage change in the real GDP per capita, of course.

The percentage change in the real GDP per capita relating to what? Again, what is it exactly that you claim to be measuring with these numbers?

Posted by Mixner | January 29, 2008 7:32 PM

Why would G W Bush's numbers be the envy of, say, Carter who produced higher annual GDP growth?

Jimmy Carter's disastrous presidency was marked by high unemployment and high inflation. The average misery index under Carter was over 16, the highest on record, and it got worse as his presidency went on.

Posted by Mixner | January 29, 2008 7:42 PM

"The percentage change in the real GDP per capita relating to what? Again, what is it exactly that you claim to be measuring with these numbers?"

Sheesh. That allows you to look at the real GDP per capita that the guy inherited, what he left behind to the next guy, and the percentage difference. And you can do that for each of the presidents. They all tell you they're going to "grow" the economy. They all tell you their policies work. So here's a simple way to check who is closer to the mark.

Now, any given president can be sideswiped by history - an oil embargo or whatever. But if one party is always the party of excuses, maybe you have to start to wonder about its policies and whether they work.

Posted by cactus | January 30, 2008 10:21 AM

Nixner -- go check your data

You have no idea what you are talking about.

Essentially everything you have said is factually incorrect.

The unemployment rate was double digit under Reagan, not Carter. The average unemployment rate in Reagan's first term was actually higher than the average unemployment rate during Carter's term.

The data in the original article is correct.

Even if you throw out the first two years of Bush the average growth during his best four years was still only 3% -- worse then under every administration but Bush I. The long term growth rate of the US economy has been 3.5% and Bush has experienced only one year of above trend growth.

The criticism of the NY Times article is completely right.

Posted by spencer | January 30, 2008 10:22 AM

cactus,
That allows you to look at the real GDP per capita that the guy inherited, what he left behind to the next guy, and the percentage difference.

Your numbers certainly don't show that. If we're going to indulge your pretense that a president's economic policies can be judged on the change in GDP per capita that occurred while he was president, then you need to provide those numbers for at least the approximate dates each president took office and left office. You haven't done that. As I said, the BEA's annual GDP numbers are averages for the year. You can't attach any particular date to them, but if we assume they reflect the midpoint of the year, they're off by around 6 months from the time presidents enter and leave office.

spencer,
You're the one who doesn't know what he's talking about. I never said unemployment peaked under Carter. But the Misery Index (unemployment plus inflation) did. Carter's Misery Index was the worst ever, and got worse over the course of his disastrous term in office. Reagan inherited that mess.

Posted by Mixner | January 30, 2008 11:56 AM

Mixner,

The reason to use the annual average is that quarterly data can fluctuate overly dramatically. Real GDP per capita is generally discussed on a yearly basis as a result.

To borrow some terms from old econometrics prof, the excessive granularity creates an illusion of precision.

Posted by cactus | January 30, 2008 9:00 PM

Mixner,

The reason to use the annual average is that quarterly data can fluctuate overly dramatically. Real GDP per capita is generally discussed on a yearly basis as a result.

To borrow some terms from old econometrics prof, the excessive granularity creates an illusion of precision.

And no, the GDP figures are not the midpoint of the year. If you go to the BEA's NIPA table 7.1 (the BEA is the agency that compiles GDP) and pull data both quarterly and annually, you'll find that the annual data is just about dead on the average of the four quarters of the year.

Posted by cactus | January 30, 2008 9:03 PM

cactus,

You need to read more carefully. I said the annual GDP numbers are averages for the year. And as such, they do not represent the dates presidents entered and left office. Not even approximately. They don't represent any time period more specific than a year. That is why they cannot be used to measure what you're trying to use them to measure--change in GDP (or GDP per capita) during a president's term in office.

Not that that change would be a meaningful indicator of the merits of the president's economic policies even if you were measuring it properly.

Posted by Mixner | January 30, 2008 9:36 PM