It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Presidential Average Misery Index

page: 1
4

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 20 2010 @ 06:58 PM
link   
I just saw this for the first time after it was mentioned in a news article about Jimmy Carter. It's an index about how people "feel" about the economy during the terms of different presidents.

Some of the data was quite surprising to me ...

source

For one thing, it says that Carter had the worst misery index numbers and that George W. Bush had better numbers than either Clinton, Obama, Bush Sr., or Reagan. The index says we had it best under Eisenhower (1), Johnson (2) and Kennedy (3).


The misery index is an economic indicator, created by economist Arthur Okun, and found by adding the unemployment rate to the inflation rate. It is assumed that both a higher rate of unemployment and a worsening of inflation create economic and social costs for a country.[1] It is often incorrectly attributed to Chicago economist Robert Barro in the 1970s, due to the Barro Misery Index that additionally includes GDP and the bank rate.[2]
A 2001 paper looking at large-scale surveys in Europe and the United States concluded that the basic misery index underweights the unhappiness caused by joblessness: "the estimates suggest that people would trade off a 1-percentage-point increase in the unemployment rate for a 1.7-percentage-point increase in the inflation rate."[3]




edit on 9/20/2010 by centurion1211 because: added more text




posted on Sep, 20 2010 @ 08:43 PM
link   
reply to post by centurion1211
 


they didnt ask me man my misery index is 100.99

yeah bush is better than carters and reagans and obamas and after only 2 years if the next two are anything like the first to it will be well over 18


i do find that link very telling.



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 09:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by centurion1211
I just saw this for the first time after it was mentioned in a news article about Jimmy Carter. It's an index about how people "feel" about the economy during the terms of different presidents.

Some of the data was quite surprising to me ...

source

For one thing, it says that Carter had the worst misery index numbers and that George W. Bush had better numbers than either Clinton, Obama, Bush Sr., or Reagan. The index says we had it best under Eisenhower (1), Johnson (2) and Kennedy (3).


You are looking at averages...which is not an accurate measure of a Presidency.

The accurate measure of a President's "Misery Index" is what CHANGE they effect during their term.

Not my opinion, but the folks that created the index.

See here...Reagan reduced the misery index the most, but to be honest he was pitched a softball given the economy was at rock bottom when he took office.

Ronald W. Reagan -9.61

Clinton did better than GWB and G HW Bush...

William J. Clinton -3.27

George H.W. Bush 0.23

George W. Bush -0.44

And Obama? he is less than 2 years in. To compare him we need to wait for him to at least complete 1 term to compare apples to apples. I can understand the political/rhetorical convenience of picking and choosing numbers and comparing 20 months to 8 years etc., but I prefer to be accurate with these kinds of broad indexes.

www.miseryindex.us...



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 11:02 AM
link   
reply to post by maybereal11
 


Good observation to also look at the change between presidencies.

Did things get better or worse than the previous administration, and by how much.



Looking at those numbers, the most negative (positive numbers in the table) presidencies were in order; Nixon, Carter, Eisenhower, and Obama (so far).

The most positive (negative numbers in the table) presidencies were in order; Truman, Reagan, Ford, and Clinton.

After the November elections, Obama will basically end up being a "lame duck" for the last two years of his presidency, so I'm not sure how he will be able to do much to turn his numbers around.




edit on 9/21/2010 by centurion1211 because: added more text



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 11:28 AM
link   
The problem with those observations is that they are deceptive. Coming out of the Clinton years we had a budget surplus, the economy was booming and people were feeling good about things. It wasn't until late into the Bush prsidency that the rapid economic deterioration became evident to people and by the time he was leaving office the country's economy was on the verge of collapse. I'm sure if the 'misery index' was measured at the beginning and then at the end you'd get different results.

Personally, I did very well through the Clinton years and into the early Bush years. But by 2005, as the economy began to unravel, the bottom fell out. My family and I were eviscerated. We would have lost our home (if not for the modification program) but were reduced to financial rubble. Most of the people I know are in similar straights. However, after being out of work for nearly two years, very recently things have begun to look up.



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 11:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by centurion1211
reply to post by maybereal11
 

After the November elections, Obama will basically end up being a "lame duck" for the last two years of his presidency, so I'm not sure how he will be able to do much to turn his numbers around.


That's easy. The Republicans have told us they know exactly what needs to be done and if they had been in control everything would be skittles and zebras by now. So when they get in (ostensibly) in November, they're going to fix everything just like that and make Obama look like a star.



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 01:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by jtma508

Originally posted by centurion1211
reply to post by maybereal11
 

After the November elections, Obama will basically end up being a "lame duck" for the last two years of his presidency, so I'm not sure how he will be able to do much to turn his numbers around.


That's easy. The Republicans have told us they know exactly what needs to be done and if they had been in control everything would be skittles and zebras by now. So when they get in (ostensibly) in November, they're going to fix everything just like that and make Obama look like a star.


Well, that's exactly what would have to happen if obama's "misery index" numbers are to be turned around. Otherwise obama does end up going down in history - at least from this perspective - as "Carter II".



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 02:10 PM
link   
I absolutely hate the nearly constant Rep v. Dem / Left v. Right diatribe that seems to have taken over people these days. Everyone seems to be obsessed with clinging to dichotomous answers for complex problems. Few seem to have the capacity for critical thinking these days and are way too quick to accept what they are fed. The Republicans have people believing that they are the party with the greates skill in managing government and the economy. Democrats are typically labelled 'tax-and-spend'. And people seem to accept all this as fact. Is it?

Since the start of President Roosevelt's term in 1945 there have been 16 presidential terms; 9 Republican and 7 Democrat (excluding Obama's since his is not yet complete). During that time government has racked-up $9.8T in debt. $7.75T (or 80%) has been accumultaed during Republican presidential terms and $2.05T under Democratic presidents. Of that total, $576T (or 60%) was created by papa and baby Bush alone. Republican presidents have accumulated national debt at an average rate of $861B per term. That's 3-times the Democrat rate of $293B per term.

Compared to the GDP, national debt has fallen relative to GDP at an average rate of 10.8% under Democratic presidents but increased at a rate of 4.9% under Republican presidents. Of the 9 Republican presidential terms, 3 showed decreases in the rate of national debt relative to GDP and 6 showed increases. Of the 7 Democratic terms, all showed decreases in debt relative to GDP.

During this period since 1945 there have been 11 economic recessions totalling 122 months. 70% of those occurred during Republican presidencies. The average length of these recessions was 11mos. All but 1 of the worst (> 11mos) occured during Republican presidencies and that 1 was when we were coming out of WWII.

Now personally, you could run the whole lot of them through a wood chipper and it would be a good day in my view. But this incessant drone by the Republicans that they are somehow better fit to run government and the economy isn't borne-out by history. But then no one really seems to care about the truth anymore. They eagerly lap-up the koolaide as long as it's 'their team' pissing it out.

Recession data: NBER
Debt data: OMB



edit on 21-9-2010 by jtma508 because: Sources



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 02:27 PM
link   
Unless they have a compliant, cooperative Congress, I really don't see how the POTUS can be blamed or credited with the nation's economic health (or lack thereof). The first 2 years of Clinton he had a Dem lead Congress, thus... he bears the blame. The last 6 years, GOP lead Congress, thus... distributed credit for growth. Bush enjoyed a GOP lead Congress during the rebuilding years from the 2000 recession... unfortunately, that shifted to the dems and the bottom dropped out of the economy.

CHecks & balances are a good thing.



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 02:42 PM
link   
reply to post by jtma508
 


You're getting just a little off the track here. How does what you posted relate to the OP? Also, convenient to exclude obama when in only 2 years his "accomplishments" would skew the numbers in the opposite direction if included.

Anyway, the table quoted in the OP really doesn't discriminate between left and right ...



new topics

top topics



 
4

log in

join