Ben Carson: Because of Trump's candidacy fewer people are talking about my lack of political experience

Yeah, well, because Barack Obama is such a terrible president fewer people are talking about how bad Jimmy Carter was.

Ben Carson, quoted here:

"It’s a tremendous aid because fewer people are talking about my lack of political experience now."

Total crap: CNBC/Reuters blaming the weather for another GDP miss

The story is here.

Just how bad was the winter? Out of 69 winters in the post-war 2015 ranked 22nd worst for heating degree days, and all Obama could manage is 0.1% nominal growth over the prior quarter, $6.3 billion. But 1959 came in 21st and somehow America under Eisenhower could manage 2.0% nominal growth q/q in winter. And 1964 ranked 23rd and somehow America managed 3.1% nominal growth under JFK in winter.

The winter of 2014 ranked 10th worst, and Obama gave us a pathetic nominal growth of -0.2%, yet in 1977 which ranked 9th worst winter in the post-war Jimmy Carter, Jimmy Carter!, gave us +2.6% nominal growth. The 12th worst winter was in 1962 and again JFK gave us 3.4% nominal growth.

The story is the same for 2010 and 2011, 33rd and 35th worst winters, which is to say, not very bad. These winters appear in the warmer half of the record. Obama gave us just 0.8% and 0.1% respectively, flanked by winters of like severity in 1972, 1951 and 1957 posting nominal growth of 3.4%, 6.3% and 2.2% respectively.

2013? Only the 42nd worst winter. But 1967 was worse and we got 2.4% nominal then, thanks to LBJ. Obama gave us 1.0%. And 1950? 43rd worst, but it clocked in with 3.7% nominal growth.

2012? The warmest winter in the record at 69th. So the weather argument should have meant economic growth had been absolutely stellar by comparison with everything going before it, right? Instead Obama gave us 1.1% nominal. Well, that IS Obama's best performance in winter, so maybe the heat helped a little. But 1990, which ranked 68th, witnessed 2.3% nominal growth under George H. W. Bush.

You see the pattern here? Obama "underperforms" everybody around him in similarly situated weather. But actually his numbers are so bad in winter it's like he's not even in the game.

Average Obama score in winter outside of recession: +0.5%.

Everybody else in the same boat: +3.1%.    

The American Conservative is still a conmag

Oh yeah, like "relations" with Iran haven't been poisoned since the time of Jimmy Carter.

Libertarian free-trade presidents named BUSH get the most blame for lost manufacturing jobs

Since Jimmy Carter took office in January 1977, during whose term manufacturing jobs reached their zenith of 19.5 million, 5.6 million net manufacturing jobs have disappeared, and with them the middle class lives to which they gave birth and from which other good-paying, middle class service jobs had been spawned.

Manufacturing jobs had risen steadily from their post-war low in February 1946 at 11.9 million to their 1979 height, just before Ronald Reagan brought us the Libertarian Revolution in the guise of conservative Republicanism. He gave us both Alan Greenspan in 1987, Fed Chairman and disciple of Ayn Rand, who steered the country right up to the rocks before jumping ship in 2006, and a quixotic message of freedom and free-trade which has made the investor class rich while middle class families have seen their lives wrecked under Reagan's libertarian successors who presided over the export of their good jobs to foreign countries. 

The two Bush presidents in particular, George Herbert Walker and his son George W., get the blame for most manufacturing jobs lost since the 1970s peaks. And George W. far and away gets more blame than anyone else, exporting fully 80% of the net jobs lost:

Carter +0.8 million

Reagan -0.6 million

Bush I -1.3 million

Clinton +0.3 million

Bush II -4.5 million

Obama -0.3 million.

The last thing this country needs in 2016 is a BUSH named Jeb, or a PAUL named Rand.

Richard Duncan gets creditism wrong three ways

Richard Duncan gets creditism wrong three ways here for The Daily Reckoning last July in "Creditism and the Threat of a New Depression".

The most egregious error occurs right in the opening paragraph:

"Once we broke the link between dollars and gold, all the constraints on how much credit could be created were removed."

This is simply untrue, for two reasons.

One: Total credit market debt outstanding (TCMDO) has been doubling like clockwork in the post-war every six to eleven years, both prior to 1971 and after. The doubling of TCMDO occurred at its fastest pace -- two episodes of six year doubling times -- under Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan, five years after the close of the gold window in 1971. Otherwise the doubling has never taken as much as twelve years, whether before 1971 or after.

And two: 1971 is irrelevant. It was not the end of the gold standard. The gold standard ended under Roosevelt. In fact, the close of the gold window under Nixon was the first patriotic act with respect to gold by an American president since Roosevelt. With the stroke of a pen, Nixon single-handedly stanched the outflow of America's gold reserves, which had dwindled under Democrat and Republican presidents alike from 20 tonnes to 8,134 tonnes.

Secondly, because Duncan doesn't understand just how often TCMDO has been doubling in the post-war, he completely misses its needed and now missing rate of growth, and the accompanying fact that under normal circumstances of creditism in the United States, TCMDO ought to be at least $81 trillion by now instead of $59 trillion:

'But at this point, the question is will credit ever begin to grow again enough to drive the economy? We now have such a large base, 59 trillion dollars. If we assume that the inflation rate is two percent, then we need total credit to grow by four percent so that total credit, adjusted for inflation, will hit this “two percent recession threshold”.'

The last time TCMDO doubled in the post-war was in 2007, at $50 trillion. At the slowest pace of its actual growth in the post-war, it should hit $100 trillion by 2018. We aren't going to make it. It is shocking that a former head of equity research for Salomon Brothers is so completely unfamiliar with the Rule of 72. When something doubles in six years, the implied annual rate is between 11% and 12%. When something doubles in eleven years, the implied annual rate is 6%. 4% isn't going to cut it, buddy, and the current rate between 1% and 2% is truly catastrophic by all historical norms.

Thirdly, because Duncan hasn't properly imagined our past, the future also eludes him:

"If you look at all the big sectors of the economy, there are just a few of them. You can see that none of them are going to expand their debt enough to make total credit grow by two percent."

That's right in its way. There is no sector currently capable of driving credit expansion as it did in the past. And the reason is because it was mostly housing in the past which drove the borrowing, and housing is effectively dead for such purposes now because of the way greedy Baby Boomers, whether as homeowners or bankers, fiddled with it to plunder the equity stored there or drive securitization. The effect has been to gut the basis of Americans' wealth and poison the balance sheets of the banking system.

The way out of this mess is so filled with trouble that it is little wonder neither John McCain, Mitt Romney, Hillary Clinton nor Barack Obama have made fixing it a priority. It is the glaring need of our time, a Goliath with no fear of a David anywhere. It is why the economic meltdown remains the leading story of our time. It is why our other over-commitments will be our undoing. Until we settle it upon a firmer foundation as was done in the 1930s, or find a different, surer basis for economic growth, many decades of economic shrinkage await, not just one or two:

"If this collapses now, we’re going to have an equally protracted crash, and it’s not going to be a matter of taking a pain for a couple of years. The consequences of it would, I think, be a replay of the 1930′s and the 1940′s, but this time with nuclear weapons involved."

PIMCO's Bill Gross wakes up to the wall hit by TCMDO, but not fully

Others saw this in April 2013.

Here's Bill Gross in September 2014:

The current outstanding total [credit] approximates $58 trillion and has been expanding at an average annual rate of 2% for the past five years, and 3.5% for the most recent 12 months. Put simply, if credit needs to expand at 4.5% per year, then the private and public sectors in combination must create approximately $2.5 trillion of additional debt per year to pay for outstanding interest. They are underachieving that target in the U.S., which is the reason why GDP growth struggles at 2% real or lower and nominal GDP growth seems capped at 4.5% or lower. Credit creation is essential for economic growth in a finance-based economy such as ours. Without it, growth stagnates or withers.

-------------------------------------

What Bill Gross doesn't seem to appreciate is the gravity of this slowdown historically to total credit expansion of just $1.14 trillion annually. TCMDO, total credit market debt outstanding, in the post-war DOUBLED every 6 to 11 years until 2007. That implies that normal credit expansion until 2007 was between 6% and 11% PER ANNUM. At 8.5%, an average level, TCMDO should grow well in excess of $4 trillion annually at these levels. 4.5% isn't going to cut it. And the actual 2% or even 3.5% is a catastrophe compared with the historical record.

By 2013, according to historical norms, TCMDO could have already reached $100 trillion if it matched the fastest pace on record under Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan. Instead it's stuck at $58 trillion in 2014.

The system has hit the wall. Decades of economic shrinkage, to borrow Chris Whalen's phrase, lie ahead, and we're already in the first one.

Incidentally, nonfinancial corporate debt has grown on average $567 billion annually between 2010 and 2014, accounting for about 50% of the average increase in TCMDO. And in 2013, corporations bought back something like $600 billion worth of their own stock. 

Jimmy Carter appointee in Wisconsin overturns Defense of Marriage Amendment

As usual, the meaning of liberalism is to overturn by the decree of a single individual what the voters have passed into law. In other words, to impose what they can't pass. In this case the now 75 year old judge waited like a sleeper for many years until Barack Obama made it safe to unleash rulings against the people.

Barbara Brandriff Crabb, who has been inflicting herself on the voters since 1979 thanks to an appointment to the US District Court by Jimmy Carter, has previously ruled in 2010 the National Day of Prayer unconstitutional. A federal appellate court subsequently ruled she had no standing. She has also ruled in 2013 against the clergy exemption from income of housing allowances. In 2009 she ruled that Wisconsin's restrictions on judges against joining political parties, endorsing candidates and raising campaign funds violated their First Amendment rights.

Story here:

A federal judge in Madison on Friday overturned Wisconsin's gay marriage ban, striking down an amendment to the state constitution approved overwhelmingly by voters in 2006 and prompting an emergency action by the state to halt the scores of weddings that began in the state's two largest cities. ... In Wisconsin, voters in 2006 resoundingly approved the same-sex marriage amendment, 59% to 41%. Every county in the state except Dane voted for it.

Monetarism on the rocks: TCMDO has grown less than 19% in 6.5 years

Deflation in today's economy is not a decline in the general price level but a decline in the expansion of total credit market debt outstanding, now unhelpfully called "all sectors credit market instruments liability level". The monetarists keep trying to get the borrowing engine going again, but to no avail, and the bottle of Viagra seems to be always in need of a refill. In six and a half years total credit market debt outstanding has grown by a paltry 18.7%. During the good old days of Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan TCMDO twice doubled in as little time. At this rate it will take 35 years from 2007 for TCMDO to double again when the longest it has taken in the post-war is about eleven and a half.

Conservatives may well mock the flacid, shriveling manhood of our metrosexual economy, but in the absence of structural measures designed to reward savers in the form of strong currencies and honest rates of return and punish spendthrifts with budget disciplines, what we are witnessing is a crack-up of epochal proportions which threatens to wipe away the achievements of centuries.

Who could possibly be happy about that?

The best that we can hope for is an arrangement which will buy us time to pay back what we have borrowed from the future for the prosperity of the past. It will require us to sober up. It will require personal repentance. The alternatives are a long slow decline into poverty, bankruptcy and war if we do nothing, or a stimulation-induced heart attack if we keep on the present path. 

Barry Ritholtz Is Against The World Religion Of Gold

Barry Ritholtz here recently had some fun with the goldbugs, whom he ridicules as devotees of a "religious cult".

The piece is regrettably inflammatory. Doesn't he know he's writing off the whole world as a bunch of religious kooks in this temper tantrum? That's pretty much what ideologues do when reality won't cooperate with their theories, but surely he must know that sovereigns and central banks the world over continue to build their hoardes of gold year upon year, now approaching 32,000 tonnes and 20% of all the stuff ever pulled out of the ground. That's quite the foundation for the edifice of the worldwide church of gold.

In fact, many of the central banks in particular have been on a tear recently, acquiring the stuff in quantities not seen in 30 years. Evidently they are to a man possessed by the Oracle of Au (pronounced "Ow"). But try as they may to acquire new gold reserves, no one of them yet even comes close to the chief priest bowing and scraping before the barbarous relic, namely the USA, the number one holder of gold in reserve to the tune of 8,134 tonnes (not to be confused with tons). 

That even the USA with all its fiat money still considers this gold to be the most sublime of all currencies can be seen in its own gold issues. Gold Eagles, in one ounce sizes down to tenth ounce, are denominated from $50 down to $5. It says so right on the coins. (I understand if you don't believe me because you haven't seen one. They are expensive these days.) I myself haven't seen one of these things in my change at Walmart recently, or anywhere else, but theoretically you could. In various places around the country they are in fact found in Salvation Army kettles from time to time, usually around the time of a holiday formerly known as "Christmas".

There is a reason for what appears on a Gold Eagle: The US government has decreed that gold is money, and that the price of gold cannot fall. It has fixed the price at $42.22 per troy ounce since 1973, and it hasn't fallen since. The one ounce $50 Gold Eagle thus closely approximates this valuation, as it should if America wants to maintain its credibility as the leader of the free world and the spokesman for truth, justice and the, well, American way. The excess, in case you were wondering, is simply a small bonus in exchange for providing the world with both its security and its reserve currency, both of which are quite costly to the inhabitants of the land of the free.

Over our long history, the price of gold has indeed risen despite the best efforts of "manipulators" to stop it from doing so. For a long time the price of gold had been ruthlessly kept down at $20.67, from the War Between the States to FDR, but suddenly became $35 when the greatest Democrat ever saved us from the bad old ways. Not to be outdone, however, the great Republican Richard Nixon managed to make gold higher still, at $42.22, where it has stood ever since.

See, the price of gold hasn't ever fallen in America, it's only risen, just like Jesus. It's God's will. It is our manifest destiny.

That said, more people these days do need to come to accept the reality of this defacto gold standard to which our benevolent government all too secretly adheres. Younger generations of mockers actually have arisen among us who need to repent of their intemperate outbursts against gold and believe in the Gold Gospel once again. Instead of denying the reality of this kingdom of gold, which is really present here and now in the sacramental dollar, they need to wake up and consider the future possibilities of our great civilization and its gold religion.

Perhaps then there would be more public support for all these central bankers who print funny money to drive gold prices higher, especially for our own Ben Bernanke at the Federal Reserve who far excells all others at this. What he really needs most right now is more public encouragement to use that funny money like our competitors do in the world. Like them, we need to start augmenting our gold reserves once again using funny dollars to buy gold just as they are doing using, say, funny yuans. After all, this is actually a divinely sanctioned practice, what the Bible calls making use of "unrighteous mammon". You can look it up, it's right in there. Ben really needs to get on this right away. It should be a matter of his monetary policy to drive up the price of gold by hoarding it. Who knows, maybe we can even get our tonnage back up where it used to be after WWII, around 20,000 tonnes, and just think, all it will cost us is some paper and ink.

Meanwhile gold continues to work for us in season and out of season, in good times and in bad. Our reserves have seen us through thick and thin, whether it's been the boom times under Reagan/Bush/Clinton or the misery index years of Jimmy Carter or the new depression years of Barack Obama. Our gold is still there, just like the flag. It hasn't rusted, shrunk in the rain, or even tarnished. Good as gold as they say. Things might be even better if we had more of it, but you've got to be thankful for your blessings, thankful for what you do have.

The truth is, even in the very worst of circumstances imaginable gold has performed miracles for people. A few well-placed gold coins not that long ago meant the difference between some of our fellow countrymen coming here or going to the gas chambers. Ask them and their progeny if escaping an apocalypse wasn't "just fine", even if they were penniless afterward.

No, the only suckers when it comes to gold have been those who let theirs go when misguided government came looking for it. Some of those babies confiscated in 1933 now fetch $300,000. The rest appreciated in value in their melted down form in the government's vault, but only 6600%. You could go to Harvard today with just 120 of those ounces. In the present banks and governments across the globe are finding the collateral gold provides rather more reliable than US Treasuries in a pinch, which is why they keep acquiring it. Evidently we haven't yet understood the message that this sends. 

It's true in a sense that gold is a rejection of government control, but only in the sense of its opposite, self-control, which is what in America is the unique basis of our form of government. It was an idea bequeathed to us by Protestantism, and also by Plato, both of which are unhappily out of favor. But seeking to control your own destiny, which is what many foreigners are doing by acquiring gold, is actually the sincerest form of flattery of what the United States used to stand for. Free from the control of a reserve currency, there's no telling what others in the world may accomplish without us. But under a universal currency, there's no telling what we could still accomplish together. 

Bush And Obama Piss Down The Backs Of Older Workers And Tell Them It's Raining

In the post-war period, the unemployment level for workers 55 and over first reached the 400,000 mark in 1948, and rattled up and down around that for five decades, briefly doubling during the recessions after 1980 and 1990. The weakness was already apparent however by July 1974, when the level last got effectively to 400,000, at 402,000. The superlative growth of GDP under Truman, Eisenhower and JFK/Johnson had propelled the country strongly forward but ran out of gas, quite literally, the summer after I graduated from high school. It was the immediate aftermath of the Arab oil embargo, and also the summer when Richard Nixon's presidency went tits up. The Vietnam denouement occurred the following year, Jimmy Carter got elected a year after that, and within four years interest rates and inflation rose to crippling levels. America had lost her way. The reforms during the Reagan/Bush years would take until the presidency of Bill Clinton in the 1990s to make GDP look once again like it did during the immediate post-war years. Things got so good by the late 1990s that people routinely quit their jobs, looking for greener pastures elsewhere. Finding and keeping qualified workers became very difficult for employers. But it was not to last.

It was in May 2001 that the unemployment level for America's oldest workers last saw that old normal territory, at 493,000, and it hasn't looked back since.

Since that date there has been a sustained problem of unemployment for older workers, for whom the new normal level quickly became 800,000 during the Bush administration. Now it has ramped up much higher than that under Obama, the new normal since 2008 rising five times the old normal to 2 million. The unemployment level for workers 55 and over has gone from 493,000 in 2001 to a peak of 2.233 million in 2010, an increase of nearly five fold. Today the level remains stuck just under 2 million.

Under George Bush the unemployment level for older workers never really came down, and under Obama it has hardly moved after ramping up so high. It is hard to believe that it isn't by design, since older workers tend to be the highest earners. You can save a lot of money as an employer by firing them. 2 million workers no longer making $50,000 a year comes to a savings of $100 billion annually.

Older workers no longer working aren't depreciating assets. They're expenses, written-off.

Who will be next?

Obama Racks Up Worst GDP Record In Post-War Period

President Obama has the dubious distinction for the very worst GDP record, measured November on November, of any president in the post-war period.

And that's saying a lot when you consider that George W. Bush had been the worst before Obama,  with his average report of GDP over 32 quarters of just 2.0%, which was worse than his dad who over four years posted a 2.2% average report. Hell, Jimmy Carter's record at 3.0% is to die for compared to the Bushes.

But Obama comes in with a pathetic, ridiculous average report of GDP over 16 quarters of just 0.86%, over twice as bad as Bush.

No wonder it seems like a depression. Considering Obama had complete control of the government in 2009 and 2010, his 1.9% average report for just 2011 and 2012 to date speaks for itself. We're not working. What Obama is doing isn't working. He may have a nice crease in his trousers, but the suit is as empty as the chair in The Oval. 

Here's the table from the pdf of today's report of GDP from the BEA:

Republicans Still Don't Get It: Obama Is Not Carter Redivivus

Until the Republican Party comes to grips with the fact that the Bushes were two of the very worst presidents for the economy in the post-war period, it is never going to understand the current problem and offer America a decent alternative, which is that Obama is continuing in the Bushes' footsteps and is actually worse than them, if that were possible.

Obama is the second coming of George Bush, not of Jimmy Carter.

If only we had an economy like Jimmy Carter's, lousy as it was for its time. But total household net worth never increased more as a percentage than under his short tenure, and he ranked third best in the post-war period for increasing housing values. Those two categories, incidentally, were also where his successor Ronald Reagan shined the brightest as well.

Erick Erickson should know better:

"There are a lot of elitist Republicans who have spent several years telling us Mitt Romney was the only electable Republican. Because the opinion makers and news media these elitists hang out with have concluded Romney will not win, the elitists are in full on panic mode. They conspired to shut out others, tear down others, and prop up Romney with the electability argument. He is now not winning against the second coming of Jimmy Carter. They know there will be many conservatives, should Mitt Romney lose, who will not be satisfied until every bridge is burned with these jerks, hopefully with the elitist jerks tied to the bridge as it burns."

Mitt Romney is a fiscally conservative social liberal who doesn't really have a home in either of the two major political parties, which is why he's being attacked from all sides. It is not because of his social liberalism but because of his fiscal conservatism. Which is to say that both parties have expunged that idea from their lexicons since LBJ and no one really knows what it even means anymore.

But Romney may indeed know, and always gives the impression of knowing, which is why he is having a likeability problem. He comes off as the bad banker who won't increase your credit limit until you start catching up on your payments.

No one really likes a guy like that, but that is the kind of guy whom we most need right now, holding the veto pen. If he loses, fear of that will be the reason.

No one likes a spending party pooper.

Jeffrey Lord Doubts This Race Is Close

In The American Spectator, here:

After the election, Ed Rollins ran into the Washington Post's blunt-speaking editor Ben Bradlee and "harassed" Bradlee "about his paper's lousy polling methodology."

Bradlee's "unrepentant" response?

"Tough sh…t, Rollins, I'm glad it cost you plenty. It's my in-kind contribution to the Mondale campaign."

Got that? ...

How does one explain a president who, like Jimmy Carter in 1980, is increasingly seen as a disaster in both economic and foreign policy? How does a President Obama, with a Gallup job approval rating currently at 49% -- down a full 20% from 2009 -- mysteriously win the day in all these polls?

How does this happen?

Can you say "in-kind contribution"?

Can Liberals Count? Can Liberals Remember?

George Bush won Ohio in 2004 by 118,000 votes, but Andrew Sullivan remembers it differently, here:

"At this point in 2004, one recalls, George W. Bush was about to see a near eight-point lead shrivel to a one-state nail-biter by Election Day."

The real nail-biters were in Iowa, where Bush won by just 10,000 popular votes (7 electoral college votes), and in New Mexico, where Bush won by just 6,000 popular votes (5 electoral college votes), neither of which separately or together would have given victory to Democrat John Kerry.

Be that as it may, the real point of Sullivan's story is this:

"If Obama wins, to put it bluntly, he will become the Democrats’ Reagan."

Ah, no, he'll become the Democrats' W, or maybe their George H. W. Bush. Or if he's really really lucky maybe their Richard Nixon.

Obama's economic performance in the next four years would have to improve by 40 percent in seven key categories of economic measurement in comparison with all previous presidents to achieve the fair-to-poor record achieved by Ronald Reagan, whom I have shown elsewhere scored a lousy 42, just like Jimmy Carter.

President Obama's current score after 4 years is already 2 points worse than George Bush's score of 51 after 8 years, the worst two records in the post-war period. That means Obama would have to pull out  of his hat a veritable golden age to make him look as good as Reagan, which as I've said isn't saying much. To do it Obama would have to score a 32 in the next four years just to average out to a 42.

Can you imagine an Obama second term turning in an overall performance roughly close to that of JFK/LBJ, who rank 4th best out of 10 since WWII? Because that is what it would take.

Obama would have to go from worst for unemployment to 4th (think Clinton and W), starting tomorrow. He would have to go from worst to 4th for GDP (think Reagan and Eisenhower), for the next four years. He would have to go from worst to 4th for housing values (think Harry Truman). Only George Bush has been worse for the increase in Americans' total household net worth than Obama has been. To address that Obama would have to restore at least 1960s levels of prosperity to the country, if not Clinton era levels.

Fat chance.

Despite all the ruin which one man can rain down on a country through sheer incompetence and arrogance, the American people are a resilient lot and things will improve no matter who gets elected. The economy adjusts and moves on, and in many respects there is only one way to go but up. But if it's Obama who is elected again, I don't expect him to finish much better than a 48 after 8 years overall, because the first 4 have been such a disaster.

Net Worth Up Most Under Carter, Least Under "W" Since WWII

It's shocking, but true.

Total household net worth as reported by the Federal Reserve in its Z.1 Releases of the Flow of Funds Accounts shows that Jimmy Carter wins the award, hands down, for the increase in this metric during the course of his presidential term as compared with all other presidents in the post-war period.

In point of fact, the zenith of growth in total household net worth clusters around ole Jimmy with Nixon/Ford just preceding him taking 3rd position and Ronald Reagan coming after him taking 2nd. The whole period from 1969 through 1988 represents the time when Americans made their biggest gains in overall wealth.

I measured the overall gain from January 1 of the year of inauguration to the January 1 of the year leaving office, as summarized here by the St. Louis Federal Reserve. The overall percentage gain is then divided by the number of years in office, either 4 or 8, to get an annualized score, which is not the same thing, obviously, as actual annualized performance. Data from Truman is only for three years from 10-1-1949 to 1-1-53. For Obama, who just barely beats Bush The Younger for dead last, the data is for 1-1-09 to 6-30-12 taken from the very latest Z.1 Release yesterday (here).

Carter                 +16.02 percent per year

Reagan                 11.80

Nixon/Ford           10.21

Clinton                    9.74

JFK/LBJ                  8.78

Truman                   8.49

IKE                         7.39

Bush The Elder       6.17

Obama                    4.92

Bush The Younger  3.43

US Gross Public Debt Grew Most Under Reagan, Least Under Truman Since WWII

The record of Ronald Reagan for increasing the US gross public debt is so bad in the post-war era it is a veritable outlier compared to everyone else.

It represents the price this country paid for hefty tax cuts at the same time defense spending was increased to defeat the Soviet Union in the Cold War. Conservatism as understood by Ronald Reagan was primarily anti-communist, not fiscal. This is more in keeping with the Democrat Party of the time which he abandoned as communist influence over it grew through the labor unions. Along with the rest of his record, it is arguable that Ronald Reagan out-liberaled the liberals in many respects, making the Republican Party the home of liberals while the Democrat Party got radicalized by the so-called progressives.

Maybe Mitt Romney had a good reason not to think of himself as a follower of Reagan back in the 1990s. This country could use a Republican in the mold of Eisenhower again to restore some credibility to the Republican Party from the fiscal side.

The 170 percent increase in the public debt metric over an 8 year period under Reagan makes his predecessor Jimmy Carter look almost moderate by comparison, who racked up a 40 percent increase in 4. And Bush The Younger was actually in the very mold of fiscally liberal Ronald Reagan, cutting Clinton's tax increases and increasing spending on The War On Terror as well as Drugs For Seniors. Bush The Younger's 99 percent increase in the debt over 8 years comes out to roughly 12.38 percent per year, but it must be remembered that some of Obama's emergency spending in early 2009 became part of Bush's fiscal record, which ended October 31, 2009, another price of electoral defeat. The winners write the history.

Harry Truman narrowly beats out his successor Dwight Eisenhower for being the king of fiscal rectitude, posting an 11 percent increase in the debt in 4 years with Ike logging 23 percent over 8 years.

The numbers on which I relied for the following come from usgovernmentdebt.us, but not for Barack Obama, for whom I relied on the very latest figures available from treasurydirect.gov, which regrettably go back only through 1993. The percentage average annual increase in the debt shown below is for illustration purposes only since the percentage increase in the debt is calculated from beginning of the fiscal period to the end, not for each individual year. Multiply by 4 or 8 to get the actual figure for the term of office (but shown values are rounded, and Obama's record will not be complete until October 31, 2013, over a year from now, in which case multiply by 3).

Reagan                     21.25 percent

Bush The Younger  12.38 percent

Nixon/Ford              11.75 percent

Obama                     11.64 percent

Bush The Elder       11.50 percent

Carter                      10.00 percent

Clinton                      4.50 percent

Kennedy/LBJ           4.38 percent

Eisenhower              2.88 percent

Truman                    2.75 percent

Over time, Republican presidents have averaged a 12 percent annual increase in the debt while in office, while Democrat presidents have averaged almost 6 percent per annum.

Neither record is good, but things are not what they seem in the Republican Party, so-called home of the fiscal conservatives. 

Inflation Was Worst Under Carter, Best Under Eisenhower Since WWII

Average of the annual inflation percent change December over December using CPI from here, with Obama's 2012 August over August (1.7 percent) counted as the fourth full year:

1948-1952 Truman                   2.65 percent

1952-1960 Eisenhower           1.4 percent

1960-1968 Kennedy/LBJ           2.2 percent

1968-1976 Nixon/Ford               6.4 percent

1976-1980 Carter                   10.4 percent

1980-1988 Reagan                    4.3 percent

1988-1992 Bush The Elder        4.2 percent

1992-2000 Clinton                     2.6 percent

2000-2008 Bush The Younger   2.4 percent

2008-2012 Obama                     2.2 percent.

Democrat presidents do slightly better on inflation than do Republican: 3.55 percent per annum vs. 3.69 percent, which is about 3.8 percent better on average.

But this isn't saying much, except that when it comes to your money, there's hardly a dime's worth of difference between the two political parties. Both have agreed on policies to trash the buying power of the dollar. That's the real enemy: the liberal consensus to impoverish the people through monetarism.

On average, post-war presidents have done a terrible job managing inflation, which is up 841 percent in the 64 years between 1948 and 2012. You might even say that inflation is their policy. By contrast, inflation jumped 146 percent in the 35 years between 1913 and 1948. The post-war liberal consensus has been nearly 6 times harder on the American people than the prior period.

Both parties need to be neutered. 

Obama Ranks Fourth Best For Stock Market Since WWII, George W. Bush Worst

November on November of term (Obama to last data available), dividends reinvested in the Standard and Poor's 500 Index, adjusted for inflation, annual rates of return:

1948--1952 Harry S. Truman  17.84 percent

1992--2000 Bill Clinton           15.27 percent

1952--1960 Eisenhower           13.54 percent

2008--2012 Barack Obama      12.66 percent

1988--1992 Bush The Elder     10.76 percent

1960--1968 Kennedy/LBJ          9.40 percent

1980--1988 Ronald Reagan        8.98 percent

1976--1980 Jimmy Carter           2.60 percent

1968--1976 Nixon/Ford             -3.09 percent

2000--2008 Bush The Younger -6.12 percent.

Obama Bungles Mideast Worse Than Jimmy Carter In 1979, Gets Ambassador Killed

Hot Air, here, has that old weird feelin':

Once again, we had an American government encourage the “democracy” movement run by radical Islamists in chasing our ally out of power.  Once again, we seem surprised when the radical Islamists put radical Islamists in power.  And once again we have “students” assaulting our embassy in the capital, this time Cairo, without so much as an apology from the radical Islamist government now running the nation. ...

Qaddafi had at least been somewhat more cooperative since the fall of Saddam Hussein, and the West’s military attack on Qaddafi that caused his fall — led by the US initially — sent a big message on the futility of cooperation with the US and the West to all of the other governments in the region.

Since WWII, Stocks Have Done Much Better Under Democrats Overall

Doh!

The following table is compiled from data available here.

The results are annualized rates of return, dividends fully reinvested, adjusted for inflation. In other words, these are the real annual rates of return of the Standard and Poor's 500 Index.

Dates for each presidency are marked from November 1 of the year of election to November 1 in the year losing or leaving office. Truman's service before 1948 is excluded since it overlaps the war when he took over from FDR, who died in office. Kennedy's service is combined with LBJ's because Kennedy was assassinated in his third year. Ford's service is combined with Nixon's because Ford never was elected but finished the second term of Nixon, who resigned. Obama's performance is only to July 2012, the last available data.

2008--2012 Barack Obama        12.66 percent

2000--2008 Bush The Younger  -6.12 percent

1992--2000 Bill Clinton             15.27 percent

1988--1992 Bush The Elder      10.76 percent

1980--1988 Ronald Reagan        8.98 percent

1976--1980 Jimmy Carter           2.60 percent

1968--1976 Nixon/Ford             -3.09 percent

1960--1968 Kennedy/LBJ          9.40 percent

1952--1960 Eisenhower           13.54 percent

1948--1952 Harry S. Truman   17.84 percent

Real gains per annum under Democrats have averaged 2.06 percent for their almost 28 years in control of the executive. Real gains per annum under Republicans just .67 percent for their 36 years in control. How the gains were achieved is another matter, but clearly the Democrats have done three times better than the Republicans.