MM> Here is a useful quote from soneone I know:   
      
    MM> "Something that I noticed. Four periods in the 20th century   
    MM> where we had the best economic growth. The Coolidge years,   
    MM> the Eisenhower years, the Reagan years and the Clinton   
    MM> years. What was not happening during those years? The   
      
    Well, sorry to have to tell you this, but your someone you know,   
    or someone he knows, doesn't know.   
      
    I pulled up the GDP rates for post WWII from the Fed's site, and   
    the pre-WWII and WWII stats for GNP from the "Historical   
    Statistics of the United States From Colonial Times to 1970"   
    which I have in hard cover and as a file from the Census Bureau   
    Stat Ab division.   
      
    All these numbers are inflation adjusted. I used GNP for   
    pre-WWII because that's how they are listed.   
      
    Reagan and Eisenhower and Clinton were all pretty mediocre. I   
    find a single term growth of anywhere around 15% is normal, or   
    about 30% for two terms. I also used the end of the year for the   
    succeeding president as the previous president's final year, and   
    the new president's inherited stat. I did that on the theory   
    that it takes a new president a year to get his policies in   
    effect.   
      
    If anyone would prefer to do it from taking office to leaving   
    office, that's ok, it makes Reagan look worse and Clinton look   
    better.   
      
    So, the real winners? Coolidge did do very well, about 40%   
    better than normal. However, the real champion is FDR. His   
    growth was about double that of Coolidge. That's his pre-WWII   
    growth. In WWII it was also quite good. For single term growth   
    the next rung of championship goes to Truman and JFK/LBJ.   
    Counting JFK/LBJ as one since JFK died in his first term.   
      
    What you may not know is, Coolidge took office after a serious   
    recession. Do you see a trend here? Ok, I'll explain. It seems   
    the key to having an outstanding growth is to follow a president   
    whose growth was really bad, or, better yet, negative.   
      
    Coolidge had a recovery from the post WWI recession, which was   
    quite serious. FDR had the recovery from the Great Depression,   
    which, while long, was also a huge jump in GNP. Going from   
    pre-depression, to full depression, back to pre-depression gave   
    FDR an 86% growth in the economy. That is truly spectactular, in   
    sheer numbers.   
      
    MM> country wasn't really at war during most of the time.   
    MM> Coolidge and Reagan kept us out of war (sorry by 7 days in   
    MM> Grenada doesn't really count). Eisenhower's second term was   
    MM> a time between the Korean and Vietnam wars. Clinton took us   
    MM> to the Balkans but it wasn't a large invasion or occupation.   
      
    And Truman beat Eisenhower and Reagan and Clinton for a single   
    term, as did JFK/LBJ for the first term. Overall JFK/LBJ for two   
    terms also beat Eisenhower and Reagan and Clinton.   
      
    They did it while fighting significant wars also. So, it seems   
    war or peace is not the dividing factor, recovery from a bad   
    economy is.   
      
    MM> During those peacetimes the economy expanded greatly. Even   
      
    No, they really didn't.   
      
    MM> in the case of Coolidge and Reagan who inherited weak   
    MM> economies.   
      
    Coolidge did, Reagan really didn't. Oh, and Reagan's first term   
    was his worst, because Reagan was not very successful in   
    reducing unemployment in his first term.   
      
    MM> War definitely sucks the life out of economies   
    MM> and doesn't make recovery easier." -Aaron Alghawi   
      
    And that guy considers himself a student of economics? No, it   
    isn't war that does it, at least not short term, it's economic   
    inequality and financial speculation.   
      
      
      
   BOB KLAHN bob.klahn@sev.org   http://home.toltbbs.com/bobklahn   
      
   ... "all the world's economists, laid end-to-end, could not reach a conclusion"   
   --- Via Silver Xpress V4.5/P [Reg]   
    * Origin: Fidonet Since 1991 Join Us: www.DocsPlace.org (1:123/140)