Politics and social media do not mix well together; so it is best to stick with facts: 1. State and Local government spending ($3.1 trillion, Q2 GDP) has a bigger direct impact on the US economy than Federal government spending ($1.9 trillion). 2. Any fiscal (or monetary) policy changes have a lagged impact on the economy. Due to the timing lag, size a complexity of the US and global economies, and the fact that Congress sets the federal budget, it is very difficult to statistically assign economic failure or success directly to actions from the Executive branch. 3. If we ignored #1 and #2 and assigned rankings to presidential terms and concurrent real GDP growth (since the 1950s) it would be LBJ, Clinton, and Reagan ... LBJ's tenure was during one of our most political/social chaotic periods and Clinton and Reagan saw high economic growth during their second terms, when presidents are thought to be lame ducks.
Alex Lamb
3mo
Brian, I read something recently that helped me make more sense of the political climate: “After counting all transfer payments as income to the recipients and taxes as income lost by taxpayers, and adjusting for household size, the average households in the bottom, second and middle quintiles all have roughly the same incomes”. wsj.com The perception is that some people are working hard to “get ahead” (of whom?), while others have support in the form of social welfare payments “just given to them”. I personally take it as a given that being poor is a lot of work, and obviously not all valuable human contributions are directly economic, so framing the income quartiles this way doesn’t resonate with me, directly. However, it is a perspective on redistribution, guaranteed income, etc.
Mark Strand
3mo
Presidents are mostly just lucky or unlucky in terms of how thier terms synch up against the business cycle and impacts of events and cumulative prior investment decisions. If they are lucky in timing, they take all the credit. If they are are unlucky they get all the blame. And we apparently like it that way. At least, I think the media likes it that way because it gives the option of using the economy narrative in support of, or as a cudgel against, an administration…depending whether said administration is favored or unfavored.
Hum. I wonder if the data could be filtered and displayed by political party, and then caculate overall averages?
Great data. It seems like the 2nd term of a president seems to be generally better then the 1st with the exception of Eisenhower. I wonder if that’s a coincidence or the policies enacted in the first term lag to take effect in the 2nd?