The Republican mantra last week was about change. I thought it would be beneficial to determine what actually needs to be changed by looking at hard economic data and comparing the presidency of President Obama to that of his four predecessors. I realize that all of these measures can be effected by things outside of the control or influence of the president, or even the government. They are presented merely as a means of comparing how the economy has actually fared during the time period that each president was in office.
Last week I posted on the percentage increase in the stock market during the tenures of each president. Based on that measure, President Obama has done at least as well as his four predecessors. Investors have bet and won during the last 7.5 years. The post generated quite a bit of excellent comment. Let’s see how this one goes, which is not nearly as favorable to our current president.
This week we will look at growth in the US Gross Domestic Product during the terms of each of the Presidents.
According to the Federal Reserve, “Gross domestic product (GDP), the featured measure of U.S. output, is the market value of the goods and services produced by labor and property located in the United States.”
Ronald Reagan began his term with a GDP at about $3.1 trillion. At the end of his term it was $5.5 trillion, for an increase of 176% over his 8 years. That is the best result of the five presidents.
Bush I’s term ended after 4 years at $6.7 trillion, for a 122% increase. Not bad for half the time the others had.
Clinton ended at $10.5 trillion, for a 156% increase.
Bush II ended at $14.4 trillion, for a $137% increase.
The current GDP with six months left in President Obama’s term is $18.2 trillion, for a 127% increase. This is in the realm of the others, but last when compared with the three other two-term presidents, and not all that much above single term Bush I. If we assume the GDP will, over the next 6 months, grow at the same rate it has over the first 7.5 years of President Obama’s term, increasing the current GDP by about $257 billion, the increase would be 129% for his full eight years.
Is this the result of policy and leadership, or simply changes in global trade pressures? China, for example, was not a player at all during the Reagan years, and most of the Bush I years. While Clinton dealt with the early China years, Bush II and Obama have had to address the bulk of China’s exponential growth as an exporter. The European Union coalesced into a legitimate economic force after the Bush I years. I will leave you all to the interpretation. These are just the facts.
These numbers are based on the GDP as reported by the Fed for the first quarter of each president’s tenure, to the first quarter of the next president’s term. As mentioned, Obama’s information is obviously incomplete, since his term has not expired. The chart of the history of GDP can be found here. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/GDP
