Good comparison of the presidents on GDP by Justin Fox at Bloomberg

Guess Which Presidents Really Oversaw Economic Booms

Fox well reminds his readers that GDP is an inadequate measure in many respects, and gives credit where credit is due even when the numbers don't seem to show it.

His second chart is the better chart since it is a political comparison, which is what this is all about, pegging beginning and end of analysis to fourth quarters when presidents are elected or eclipsed.

He has Kennedy and Johnson first and second (5.5% and 5%), followed by Clinton (3.8%), Reagan 3.6%), Carter (3.2%) and Nixon 3.0%), then IKE (2.5%), then Ford and Bush 41 tied (2.2%), with Obama (1.9%) and Bush 43 (1.8%) bringing up the rear. (Trump so far is seventh, ahead of IKE but behind Nixon, at 2.7%).

A few quibbles.

The data is plenty fine for Truman 1948-1952. He should be included. His performance is the best of them all on a full term basis (5.54%), using the same compound annual growth rate Fox uses. The secret to Truman's success? He slashed government spending in the wind-down from World War II. No one seems to get that. By cutting taxes and not slashing spending, Republicans since Truman only defeat themselves and discredit what works.

Secondly, JFK didn't serve out his first term, Nixon his second. Therefore it makes more sense to view JFK coterminous with LBJ (5.19% together), and Ford with Nixon (2.73%), evaluating them together in two eight year periods of Democrat and Republican political administration respectively, which is what it was.

Third, Fox rounds his numbers, which obscures how close Bush and Obama were in their terrible records (1.83% and 1.88% respectively). 

All in all, though, we come up with similar results: Truman is first (5.54), followed by JFK/LBJ (5.19), Clinton (3.81), Reagan (3.55), Carter (3.19), Nixon/Ford (2.73), IKE (2.52), Bush 41 (2.21), Obama (1.88), and Bush 43 (1.83).

Trump's first year through 4Q2017 is 2.47%. Measured 2Q2017 on 2Q2018 just completed he's at 2.85%.

Only by comparison with the previous sixteen years is this anything to cheer about, but thankfully we have that.

Seventeen months since his election, Trump ranks fourth since 1948 for putting people back to work

Presidents' first nine months of current dollar GDP compared, including LBJ

Typically I present the data for JFK/LBJ as a unit because Kennedy was shot and Johnson finished his first term and then one of his own, making eight years. Same with Nixon/Ford, because Nixon resigned and Ford finished Nixon's second term, making eight years.

But when comparing first time office holders, LBJ really should be included. The key difference is that LBJ was elected in his own right in 1964, while Ford was not in 1972. So LBJ should be included, but not Ford in order to compare apples to apples.

Johnson was like Truman in three respects: For serving out a dead president's term, for being elected in his own right, and for deciding against standing for re-election.

So, the updated chart including Old Guns 'n Butter himself (note that Trump thus ranks 7th out of 12 starts in this update):

Today's second estimate of GDP for 3Q2017 doesn't give Trump much of a bump in the rankings

Trump remains in 6th place among 11 starts since 1948.

If economic growth under Trump feels like it was under Bill Clinton, that's because it is: Trump so far ranks 6th best out of 11 starts

Trump's full-time jobs record so far puts him sixth out of eight presidents since JFK/LBJ

Trump's first six months of current dollar GDP aren't awful, but that's about it

Presidents ranked by performance of the S&P 500

Presidents ranked by average per annum real GDP growth rates

JFK/LBJ: 4.8%

Truman: 4.7%

Clinton: 3.8%

Reagan: 3.4%

Carter: 3.2%

IKE: 2.9%

Nixon/Ford: 2.7%

Bush 41: 2.2%

Bush 43: 2.1%

Obama: 1.5%


And we thought Jimmy Carter was bad.

He would have been a 113% improvement over Obama.

Current dollar GDP growth by president in the post-war shows Obama in last place as the Baby Boomers fizzle

Obama:   29.6%

Bush 43: 39.0%

Clinton:  56.3%

Bush 41: 23.8% (4 years)

Reagan:  80.9%

Carter:    54.1% (4 years)

Nixon/Ford: 100.0%

JFK/LBJ:       79.6%

IKE:       42.1%

FDR/Truman: 72.7%

Ranked by performance divided by years in office:

Carter: 13.5

Nixon/Ford: 12.5

Reagan: 10.1

JFK/LBJ: 10.0

FDR/Truman: 9.1

Clinton: 7.0

Bush 41: 6.0

IKE: 5.3

Bush 43: 4.9

Obama: 3.7

Presidents ranked by average monthly additions to total nonfarm employment in the post war, not seasonally adjusted

Clinton: 235,000

Carter: 215,000

Reagan: 166,000

JFK/LBJ: 164,000

Obama to date: 136,000 (77 months 1-1-09 to 5-1-15)

Nixon/Ford: 115,000

Truman: 111,000 (1949-1952/drops to 87,000 going back to April 1945 when FDR died)

GHW Bush: 49,000

Eisenhower: 34,500

GW Bush: 13,500

Presidents ranked by average jobs created Q1 to Q2 since the 1970s

From total nonfarm not seasonally adjusted, average percentage achieved:

1. Clinton +2.22%

2. Reagan +2.07%

3. Bush 1  +1.69% (four years, accepts Profiles in Courage Award for raising taxes)

4. Obama  +1.68% (six years, blames drought, winter weather, hurricanes, earthquakes)

5. Bush 2  +1.38%.

Obama ranked worst president in post-war in Quinnipiac poll

Quinnipiac University

George W. Bush Falls To Last For GDP Performance Using 14th Comprehensive Revisions

"I redefined the Republican Party"

The revised GDP figures going back decades came out today, and may be conveniently viewed here. Using these figures based on time frames which span January on January of presidential term, calculating percentage increase in GDP overall and dividing by the number of months in term to arrive at a factor, the rankings are as follows:

1) .533 JFK/LBJ [best performance]

2) .458 Truman (72 months, 1-1-1947 to 1-1-1953)

3) .357 Clinton

4) .323 Reagan

5) .300 Carter

6) .245 Nixon/Ford

7) .214 IKE

8) .180 Obama (51 months, 1-1-2009 to 4-1-2013) 

9) .173 George H. W. Bush

10) .142 George W. Bush [worst performance].

Don't forget that government spending is counted as GDP.  

Presidents Ranked By Level Of Income Inequality: Gini Ratio Of Families, End Of Term

1. .349 JFK/LBJ (least income inequality)

2. .359 Truman

3. .363 Nixon/Ford

4. .369 Carter

5. .374 IKE

6. .401 Reagan

7. .429 Bush 1

8. .435 Clinton

9. .443 Bush 2

10. .450 Obama, to date (most income inequality) 

Presidents Ranked By Change Of Income Gini Ratio Of Families In Post-War

1. JFK/LBJ       -6.6%

2. Truman       -5.0%

3. Clinton       +1.3%

4. Obama        +1.5% (to date)

5. Carter         +1.6%

6. Bush2          +1.8%

7. Nixon/Ford +4.0%

8. IKE              +4.1%

9. Bush1          +6.9%

10. Reagan      +8.6%

Inequality of market income decreased most under Kennedy/Johnson and increased most under Reagan. The measure is before taxes and transfers, however. The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development figures after taxes and transfers for certain periods may be observed here. See the helpful discussion by Tim Worstall, here, including this:

"[E]ven in the post-tax and post-benefit numbers the US is still an outlier in the statistical methods used. In looking at inequality, poverty, in the US we include the cash that poor people are given to alleviate their poverty. But we do not include the things that people are given in kind: the Medicaid, SNAP, Section 8 and so on. It’s possible (I’m not sure I’m afraid) that we don’t include the EITC either. We certainly don’t in the poverty statistics but might in the inequality. All of the other countries do include the effects of such policies. Largely because they don’t offer benefits in kind they just give the poor more money and tell them to buy it themselves. This obviously turns up in figures of how much money the poor have."

That said, inequality of market income hasn't gone up very much in the twenty years since 1993, contrary to President Obama's recent comments here. 

The president might want to consider that Bill Clinton did a better job of reducing income inequality than he has. But, then again, Bill Clinton did a better job than Obama in most everything, and ranks number two behind Truman overall for the best economy in the post-war.

The S&P500 Is Up 12.31% Per Year In Obama's First Term

You can use the tool which generated this graphic here, anytime you want for anytime you want.

I measure November on November because elections mark the turning point psychologically, which counts for more than anything imho.

Elites have benefitted handsomely under Obama, which is what you would expect from a fascist. If that's too harsh for you, supply "national socialist" or "corporatist".

I reported in September, here, that stock market performance under Obama is the 4th best since Harry Truman, based on incomplete data showing inflation adjusted returns to date. Now that it's the new year, the data is in, but the conclusion is the same. Even though he slips from 12.66% to 12.31% for per annum returns, he's still safely in 4th place behind Truman, Clinton and Eisenhower.

Free market capitalism isn't practised in the United States and hasn't been since at least Woodrow Wilson. The corporatist model in the United States is mediated primarily through banking and the institution known as the Federal Reserve, which attempts to manipulate the economy through control of money, lending and interest rates, rewarding those first in line the most, the bankers, and leaving a few crumbs for the rest of us in a descending pecking order: corporations, unions, insurance companies, etc.  To a lesser extent, the tax code is used to reward friends and punish enemies, which is why it has grown so enormous in size and complicated to follow. The fascists' biggest coup in recent years was the tax reform of 1997 and the banking deregulation of 1999, both under Clinton and Gingrich, which unleashed a torrent of capital stored in decades of the housing stock from which elites skimmed and got very rich. You know it as the housing bubble, the result of the bursting of which has been 5 million homes repossessed and massive unemployment on a scale not scene since FDR. As a socialist, Obama is entirely happy with this arrangement because it offers him political opportunities. Idealism is merely a tool. He uses it to get power and get rich. And like dopes, Americans continue to hand it over, election after election. And some of these prisoners even grow to love their jailers.

The Worst Presidents For The Economy Club

1

2

3

4

4

5

5

On a scale of 7 to 70, 7 being best and 70 being worst, these guys score the following:

Obama 53, Bush the Younger 51, Bush the Elder 50, Nixon/Ford 48, Carter 42, Reagan 42.

The Best Presidents For The Economy Club

1

2

3

4

4

On a scale of 7 to 70, 7 being best and 70 being worst, their scores are:

Truman 21, Clinton 24, Eisenhower 26, JFK/LBJ 29.

Obama Replaces Bush For Worst Economic Conditions Since WWII

If you thought George W. Bush was the worst president ever, you were right . . . until now.

Compared to every president since WWII in seven broad categories of economic measurement, Bush came in dead last. But in just four short years President Obama has managed to mess up what it took George Bush to do in eight. Call President Obama "The Quicker Screwer Upper."

My readers know that I have been examining and ranking every president from Truman to Obama in recent days from best to worst in a variety of broad economic categories: increase in the national debt, control of the rate of inflation, growth of the economy, real stock market performance for investors, increase in housing values for savers, increase in household net worth and rate of unemployment. Follow the links to examine the results for each one.

When put all together, it's easy to see who has been the best president overall, and who the worst. The ideal president, naturally, would score a 7 overall on this scale, placing first in every category compared to his peers. The worst president would score a 70, placing last by every measure. That last number tells you how I have counted the presidents. JFK, who was assassinated in his first term, is grouped together with his VP LBJ. Nixon, who resigned in his second term, is grouped together with his VP Ford. That leaves eight others: Truman, Eisenhower, Carter, Reagan, Bush the Elder, Clinton, Bush the Younger, and Obama, stretching from 1948 until 2012.

Here's the list showing them all, from best to worst, including the numerical ranking in each category, and the overall score. Democrat Harry Truman comes out on top, and Democrat Barack Obama comes up in dead last. Over time the economic difference between Republican leadership in the White House and Democrat has been infinitesimally small, a difference of just 0.13 percent, slightly favoring Republicans who average 6.03 compared to Democrats who average 6.04.

Otherwise the main take away is that the only president to score in the 20s like long ago Truman, Eisenhower, and JFK/LBJ has been Bill Clinton, who spent the majority of his term in office with Republicans in control of the Congress. Any president who can again score in the 20s like him will necessarily be two times better economically for the country than George Bush and Barack Obama have been. They've both been unmitigated disasters.

Ranking for Debt+Inflation+GDP+SP500+Housing Values+Household Net Worth+Unemployment = score

Truman 1+6+2+1+4+6+1                       = 21

Clinton 4+5+3+2+1+4+5                        = 24

Eisenhower 2+1+5+3+6+7+2                 = 26

JFK/LBJ 3+3+1+6+8+5+3                     = 29

Carter 5+10+7+8+3+1+8                        = 42 (tie)

Reagan 10+8+4+7+2+2+9                      = 42 (tie)

Nixon/Ford 8+9+6+9+7+3+6                  = 48

Bush The Elder 6+7+8+5+9+8+7           = 50

Bush The Younger 9+4+9+10+5+10+4  = 51

Obama 7+3+10+4+10+9+10                   = 53