Now use the hard numbers generated under Reagan,Bush I and Bush II........now is that number big or smaller than 950?
That doesn't make a lot of sense.
"Use the hard numbers", doesn't mean much of anythign by itself. Its not a procedure to give you a number. And you give no reason for comparing this number to 950.
The proper procedure in a setup like this, where you have two separate series of data, and your trying to ignore the change of the period between them, is to calculate a percentage change for the first period, then calculate a percentage change for the 2nd period, then multiply the two changes.
"Using the hard numbers", as I did before,
--
On Reagan's inauguration day, January 20, 1981, the DJIA closed at 950.68. On the day Bush I left office the DJIA was at 3,241.95, that's an almost 250% increase.
On the first trading day after Bush II entered office the DJIA closed at 10,578.24, the day he left it closed at 8,228.10. That just over a 22% drop.
---
Or if about and "almost", and "just over" aren't hard enough for you, I'll give you exact figures.
During the first period (Reagan and Bush I) you had an increase of 2291.27 over a base of 950.68, so you had a percentage increase of 2291.27/950.68*100 or 241% (and increase by a factor of 2.41, I multiply by 100 to express it as a percentage as an increase by a factor of 1 is an 100% increase).
During the 2nd period you have a decrease of 2350.14 from a base of 10578.24, so you have a decrease by a factor of .222 (or 22.2%), the same as multiplying the initial amount by 1 minus .222 or .778.
To get the size of the total change multiply 2.41 by .778 and you get 1.875. To get that in percentage form, multiply by 100 and you get 187.5% (less than my earlier calculation of 212% because I had rounded off to much the first time).
So under the last three Republican presidents combined you have a net gain in the DJIA of 187.5%. Not the loss you say there was. |
