patrick.net

I'd say that the random issues outside of the presidents control have a greater effect than the president for any particular term. However, if you look at it on the whole, it does seem that the Dems have done so much better. So, what are the chances that is due to coincidence? If you just looked at it from a statistical perspective, without trying to control for things like energy prices, the chances would be pretty low.

The authors gave a lot of credit to oil prices, which they list as being outside of the President's control. While that is largely true, the President's policies with regard to CAFE standards, other conservation and alternative energy policies do play a large role. Also, the ability to control / influence OPEC actions is within the presidents control. Interestingly, Carter did very well on a lot of these metrics despite having a big energy shock half way through his Presidency. It is odd to me that he had a huge drop in inflation despite the energy crisis in 1979. Also, he had the second highest average monthly job growth despite a very small change in unemployment. I would guess that this coincided with many women joining the work force. That's another headwind for him, I would think.

Which economies have been best for the President would be a more appropriate question.

Presidents usually have FAR less impact on the economy than people imagine. But they get credit or blame for it all the same.

IMO the presidents that are the best for the economy are the ones who did the least meddling. To that end I vote for Calvin Coolidge, Grover Cleveland, and Martin Van Buren.

Also to that end I would vote the worst to be Abraham Lincoln, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Lyndon Baines Johnson, Barack Obama.

turtledove says

Over the last six decades or so, history has tended to favor Democratic presidents in terms of economic performance. The country's unemployment rate has been lower at the end of every Democrat's tenure since Kennedy took office in 1961. Ronald Reagan, meanwhile, is the only GOP president since Dwight Eisenhower took office in 1953 who can say the same.

Nice article. I'm truly surprised. Even Carter was not that bad. Wow.
Reagan was still the best for bringing down inflation, which opened the gates to prosperity.
Bill Clinton is still my favorite.

Strategist says

Reagan was still the best for bringing down inflation

That credit goes to Carter who appointed Volker. Reagan also fired him. IMO a grave mistake as Volker was a great Fed Chairman and the last one with integrity. Truth is Carter wasn't as bad as the neocons think.

Clinton on the other hand was only held in check by Gingrich otherwise he might have been as fucked up as the current Prez.

indigenous says

Strategist says

Reagan was still the best for bringing down inflation

That credit goes to Carter who appointed Volker. Reagan also fired him. IMO a grave mistake as Volker was a great Fed Chairman and the last one with integrity. Truth is Carter wasn't as bad as the neocons think.

Clinton on the other hand was only held in check by Gingrich otherwise he might have been as fucked up as the current Prez.

What about Bush and Bush. I just can't figure out what to make of them.

They are warmongers but the long term fallout pales in comparison to O's handiwork with Common Core, Frank Dodd, and the ACA. Not to mention that he is still fighting the wars the Bushes started. The Bushes were not conservatives at all. Hell Prescott Bush helped finance Hitler and was found guilty of such in a US court of law.

Presidents that provide their workers with 401k plans, yearly raises for workers in liu of the president's salary going up 10 fold.
Presidents that allow their workers extensive break time as long as the job gets done, correctly, in the time allotted.
Presidents whose company shows profit year after year, regardless of the current financial trends...

turtledove says

Which Presidents Have Been Best for the Economy?

indigenous says

They are warmongers but the long term fallout pales in comparison to O's handiwork with Common Core, Frank Dodd, and the ACA. Not to mention that he is still fighting the wars the Bushes started.

The Islamists started the war.
Americans and their Presidents would rather not have any war. We want what makes us prosperous, not what makes us poor.

Strategist says

The Islamists started the war.

That is VERY debatable.

Strategist says

Americans and their Presidents would rather not have any war.

Bullshit, the Bushes started the war in Iraq. LBJ escalated the war in Vietnam. FDR was said to have wanted to get the US into the coming WW2 from the beginning of his campaign. Wilson definitely got us into WW1. The only country in the world that needed war to effect abolition was the US and the war monger Lincoln.

Strategist says

We want what makes us prosperous, not what makes us poor.

That is a whole heard of irrelevance.

indigenous says

Bullshit, the Bushes started the war in Iraq.

Should we have attacked Saudi Arabia? What about Afghanistan?

None of the above, we should have stayed out of the middle east period.

bob2356 says

Exactly when and where did the US go into the middle east in the 50's,60's, and 70's?

The Gulf countries, Saudi Arabia, Israel... The US didn't 'stay out' of those countries.

Bigsby says

bob2356 says

Exactly when and where did the US go into the middle east in the 50's,60's, and 70's?

The Gulf countries, Saudi Arabia, Israel... The US didn't 'stay out' of those countries.

The multinational oil companies hand and hand with the state department went in. Not government troops. There was only one small brief troop deployment, to lebanon in 1958, from WWII until reagan took office. The arab leaders, who certainly weren't stupid, switched sides constantly playing off the US against the russians to get huge amounts of military equipment and financial aid. The US government certainly played political games and blustered threats across the region constantly, much of which is haunting us today. But direct military involvement in the region wasn't until the 80's.

bob2356 says

The multinational oil companies hand and hand with the state department went in. Not government troops.

Regardless, our influence was and is huge.. Yes, the Shah and Saddam might have ultimately not worked out all that well, but it's hard not to attribute them largely to our influence. Even in the IRaq war, what was finally most effective was money (the surge) and not boots on the ground or bombs.

bob2356 says

But direct military involvement in the region wasn't until the 80's.

Right after the 2nd oil crisis. Our goal has always been to keep the oil supply lines open by making sure no single entity, wether Russia or Saddam Hussein gained control.
As we become less and less reliant on these supply lines, and China and India become more reliant on them, the burden to keep them open will shift to them.

Strategist says

As we become less and less reliant on these supply lines, and China and India become more reliant on them, the burden to keep them open will shift to them.

You are as mad as a bloody march hare if you think the US military/industrial/neocon complex is ever going to allow india or china to patrol the persian gulf. Way too much profit and ego involved. Very limited pirate patrol in the gulf of aden is ok. Actual china navy in the persian gulf, no way. China is much more vulnerable to and concerned about shipping disruptions in the strait of malacca anyway.

SA produces 89 octane.
IR 91.
Do the math.

Strategist says

indigenous says

Bullshit, the Bushes started the war in Iraq.

Should we have attacked Saudi Arabia?

Clinton prospered because of his being president was coincident with the computer revolution, the baby boom hitting peak earning years, no wars (one thing he did right), and Gingrich holding him in check.