From: MEDELMA@cms.cc.wayne.edu (Michael Edelman)
Subject: Re: Republicans bad for Economy?
Organization: Wayne State University, C&IT
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 13:19:50 GMT

In article <1992Aug17.171453.25391@henson.cc.wwu.edu>
n8443916@henson.cc.wwu.edu (John Gossman) writes:
 
>
>
>        I wanted to compare GNP growth under different administrations, and
>what I found surprised me and may surprise you.
>
 
It's easy to be surprised when you ignore trends. Pay attention, now:
 
>        The following figures were taken from the Presidents Report on the
>Economy, Feb. 1991, Appendix B-2.  The figures are based on real, inflation
>adjusted GNP in constant 1982 dollars.  The chart starts with 1929, skips
>to 1933, and then gives GNP figures up to 1990.
>
      [...]
 
>Nixon/Ford  1968-1976         2.3% avg. annual growth
>Carter    1976-1980           3.0% avg. annual growth
 
What's going on here? Wasn't the Carter era marked by an atmospheric
"misery index"? Yes. What happened was that Carter inherited a pretty
good grwowth rate from the Nixon/Ford era. Carter didn't take office
until 1977, so including 1976 includes Ford's 1976 recovery from the
minor '75 recession.
 
But by 1980, when Carter's full economic plan was in place, economic growth
was actually *negative*. The average, as we see, was artificially boosted
by included a year of Ford (two years, actually, since in 1977 the economy
was still cruising on Ford policies). The overall effect of Carter was
economic devistation from uncontrolled spending and high taxes and inflation.
 
>Reagan/Bush 1980-1990         2.7% avg. annual growth
>
Once again, Regan was't President in 1980! The first two years- 1981-82-
were recovery from Carter's recession. It took Reagan that long to get
his policies in effect. Remember 10, 10 and 10? The first year of the
Reagan program- the year the tax cuts got passed- was 1983. And the 1983
growth rate was phenomenal. Look it up.
 
>If you just take the Reagan years,
>Reagan 1980-1988              2.9% avg. annual growth
>
>The book does not have figures for 91 or 92 of course, but I know they
>would not help the Reagan/Bush record.
>
Obviously. Bush endorsed the Carter plan instead of keeping the sucessfull
Reagan strategies. If you look at the detailed figures, you see that the
downturn began the quarter that the "compromise" tax bill was signed.
>
>        1) The 60s Kennedy/Johnson years also saw inflation and unemployment
>steadily below 4%, and often as low as 1.5%
>        2) Carter's first 3 years were 3.6% growth, but the election year
>of 1980 was flat, and inflation and unemployment jumped that year.  Reagan
>on the other hand had his best year in 1984, with 6.5% growth, and his next
>best in Bush's election year of 1988 with 4.5% growth.  No other years were
>above 4% growth.  This may explain the apparent contradiction between
>popular belief about Carter's economy record and the figures above.
 
If you look at the trends, instead of the averages, you see why. And if
you think Carter's first year was 1976, you really should pay more attention
to the election laws!
 
>
>        I'm also going to go back and recalculate the rates based on a
>1 or 2 year lag in an administrations policies taking effect.  This would
>make Carter look worse (he'd gain the bad years of 1981, 1982) and Reagan
 
Plot the trends, too, and get a better idea of the actual effect of the
policies.
 
>look better (just the opposite).  The other presidents would remain mostly
>unchanged, and would not much help the overall Reagan/Bush combo.
 
Only if you group Reagan and Bush together- and as is fairly obvious, the
two pursued vastly different strategies.
 
>        -JG
 
-----------------------------------------------------------------
 Michael Joseph Edelman           Wayne State University
 medelma@cms.cc.wayne.edu         Computing & Information Technology
 mje@pookie.pass.wayne.edu        Detroit, Michigan
 medelma@waynest1.bitnet          (313) 577-0742
 KE8YY