Presidential Scorecard: GDP

[ArmHayseed]

There’s been a lot of talk coming out of DC about the economy and how good it is. Since some of the terms that are being used are comparative, (i.e.: “higher than the average of the 70s, 80s and 90s”) I thought it might be interesting to compare today’s numbers to those in the past.

The first set of numbers looked at was the GDP. The percent of change in the GDP, adjusted for inflation, was calculated for each of the presidential terms since Truman took office in 1949. This covers 14 presidential terms.

Here is how they ranked in descending order:

21.81% _ Johnson
21.00% _ Truman
19.86% _ Kennedy/Johnson
17.87% _ Clinton (2nd)
15.98% _ Reagan (2nd)
13.67% _ Carter
13.53% _ Clinton (1st)
13.45% _ Eisenhower (1st)
12.63% _ Reagan (1st)
12.38% _ Nixon
10.91% _ Eisenhower (2nd)
10.62% _ Nixon/Ford
09.56% _ Bush 43
08.81% _ Bush 41

Here’s where the numbers can be found:
http://www.bea.gov/bea/dn/gdplev.xls

[sasha031]

1. this is a nice find

welcome :hi:

[ticktockman]

2. Presidential scorecard on other economic indicators

That reminds me of an article by Michael Kinsley titled "Do the Math" in which he compared a number of economic indicators under Democrat and Republican administrations. The following table is based on that article:

             ECONOMIC INDICATORS FROM THE ECONOMIC REPORT OF THE PRESIDENT FOR 2004
.
                                                     Percent of GDP            Per capita 2000 $
                                           ----------------------------------- ------------------
                     Real Unemploy                               Non-  Surplus  Personal  Dispos.
                      GDP    -ment   CPI-U    Total    Total  defense       or consumpt. personal
OFFSET  1960-2002  % chng     rate  % chng Receipts  Outlays  Outlays  deficit   expend.   income
------ ---------- ------- -------- ------- -------- -------- -------- -------- --------- --------
 none  Democrat      4.09     5.33    3.81    18.39    19.58    13.76    -1.21    15,566   17,129
       Republican    2.76     6.44    4.85    18.12    20.87    14.97    -2.74    16,061   18,049
.
 1-yr  Democrat      3.92     5.08    4.22    18.68    19.57    13.84    -0.90    15,968   17,554
       Republican    2.91     6.65    4.50    17.87    20.89    14.90    -3.01    15,712   17,680
.
 2-yr  Democrat      3.16     5.22    4.33    18.80    19.63    13.94    -0.84    16,346   17,982
       Republican    3.57     6.53    4.40    17.77    20.83    14.82    -3.06    15,383   17,307

The sources and numbers on which this table is based can be found at http://home.att.net/~rdavis2/kinsley1.html . As can be seen, Democratic administrations scored better on all of the economic indicators except for the last one or two.

[ArmHayseed]

3. It is similar in some ways

Thanks for the link, it is an interesting read.

I wanted to see how the different presidents, Bush in particluar, compared to one other over a 4 year term so I put mine together a little differently.

[ticktockman]

4. Yet another view of GDP

Thanks for the link, it is an interesting read.

I wanted to see how the different presidents, Bush in particluar, compared to one other over a 4 year term so I put mine together a little differently.

Yes, my table shows one-year increases in real GDP and your table shows four-year increases. However, it does look like the underlying numbers are pretty much the same. For example, the 2.7, 4.0, 2.5, and 3.7 percent increases that my table shows for Clinton's first term combine to equal the 13.53 percent shown in your table (1.027 * 1.04 * 1.025 * 1.037 = 1.1353).

A few years back, I did create the following graph which looked at 8-year growth in GDP and receipts:



The actual numbers and sources are at http://home.att.net/~rdavis2/recgrow.html . The numbers after 2001 are projected so it's only valid through Clinton. However, it does show that GDP growth under Clinton was as good or better as it was under Reagan. This seems to contradict the claim that the Reagan tax cut increased GDP growth. It also shows that the growth in revenues was much greater under Clinton. So much for supply-side theory.

Anyhow, thanks again for your table. It shows how consistent this trend favoring Democrats has been since Truman.