Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Actual left/right wing discussion -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Brumar89 who wrote (8279)	9/19/2008 11:48:00 AM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10087

There are so many reasons that these type of comparisons aren't very meaningful. But if you are going to do them the one year lag probably gives a better picture. LBJ should be downgraded, he inflated the economy, producing decent numbers (even with the one year lag included) but setting us up from the problems (mostly inflation) of the 70s. The 70s look better because your just measuring GDP not inflation or the "misery index" (which would make Carter look horrible, not just mediocre (straight stats) or very bad (one year lag stats)). OTOH Reagan supported the FED cracking down hard on inflation, and paid the price early in his presidency, but it was a price that had to be paid, and by paying it, and cutting and simplifying taxes (the latter being a very rare occurrence), he set up future administrations (through Clinton) to get better official economic results. Also he helped Clinton out by building up/restoring our military, which directly (by giving us a more capable force that could survive cuts), and indirectly (by helping to end the cold war) allowed Clinton to save a lot of money on defense spending. Normally I think presidents get far too much credit or blame for the economic situation during their presidencies, but this might not be the case with Reagan.