For Those Keeping Score at Home

[JollyRoger]

Whatever. You can quibble the details, but each had 8 years. One had a loss, one more than tripled, and one more than doubled. In 2002, we wouldn't have had an Iraq war on the horizon if Clinton were President. Plus, how many dot coms are in the Dow?

 

[Gori the Grey]

I know this is a little tangential to the topic, but can I use this discussion of presidential impacts on the economy to run something by you all.

I'm no economist, but while Trump was delivering his inaugural, the economic metric by which I think I want to measure his performance (in that realm) popped into my mind: median household wealth. Median rather than mean, so he can't skew it by big gains to the already super-rich. Grounded in the real-folk families he claimed to be speaking on behalf of and wanting to work on behalf of. Should go up if he's good at bringing jobs back as he boasts he'll be.

There are good economists on this site. Would median household wealth be a good metric for measuring a president's economic impact?

 

[Timsup2nothin]

There are good economists on this site. Would median household wealth be a good metric for measuring a president's economic impact?

It could be, depending on how you measure wealth. I knew people in 2008 who could honestly say that their entire net worth was wiped out. They went from having six digit equity in their house, which was their only tangible asset, to having no equity in their house. On a practical level their house was still their residence, had never been intended as "wealth" in the first place, and this "wipeout" made no difference to them at all as long as their job remained stable and they kept on making their payments as agreed.

 

[Gori the Grey]

Well, I Googled it, before I asked, and at the very least it's a thing that people do track. The stats are available. The concept includes the very considerations that you mention: net assets minus debt. So, yeah, I'm sure there are periods where one can get underwater, and, like you say, where you can as an individual can rate at a low point, or underwater, but still be able to carry on. But I have to think that something like this, more than the Dow or whatever, is actually the stat that makes most households feel more or less secure, more or less prosperous. And therefore how we'll know when America has been made to be great again.

 

[rah]

And not to be picky but wasn't the last 2000 point gain after Nov 4th. We really shouldn't be crediting Obama with those.
But has been pointed out, there are many things that impact it that are not in the President's control. There is only so much the president can influence. And you can't really look at 8 year blocks. You shift those by a year or so and the results are different. But I will concede that Obama oversaw a recovery. Some might have occurred if Mickey Mouse had been president.

 

[JollyRoger]

So, for those further keeping score at home, Clinton is responsible at least until 2002 and possibly until the 2008 dip, but Obama does not get credit for his full term, but will surely be responsible for any dip that occurs on Trump's watch? Is that a fair assessment of the nitpicking?

 

[Timsup2nothin]

So, for those further keeping score at home, Clinton is responsible at least until 2002 and possibly until the 2008 dip, but Obama does not get credit for his full term, but will surely be responsible for any dip that occurs on Trump's watch? Is that a fair assessment of the nitpicking?

Good summary of standard Republican logic.

 

[Bamspeedy]

And not to be picky but wasn't the last 2000 point gain after Nov 4th. We really shouldn't be crediting Obama with those.
But has been pointed out, there are many things that impact it that are not in the President's control. There is only so much the president can influence. And you can't really look at 8 year blocks. You shift those by a year or so and the results are different. But I will concede that Obama oversaw a recovery. Some might have occurred if Mickey Mouse had been president.

Yes, the 'optimism' of a future Trump presidency. If you are going to adjust for that, then you need to research what the DOW was in November for the other presidencies as well. I have some guesses on what the changes would be, but don't have time to research it myself. I don't think they will change the result too much (less than 10%?) when we are talking about doubling, tripling of the value.

 

[Bamspeedy]

I know this is a little tangential to the topic, but can I use this discussion of presidential impacts on the economy to run something by you all.

I'm no economist, but while Trump was delivering his inaugural, the economic metric by which I think I want to measure his performance (in that realm) popped into my mind: median household wealth. Median rather than mean, so he can't skew it by big gains to the already super-rich. Grounded in the real-folk families he claimed to be speaking on behalf of and wanting to work on behalf of. Should go up if he's good at bringing jobs back as he boasts he'll be.

There are good economists on this site. Would median household wealth be a good metric for measuring a president's economic impact?

Only goes to 2011, but I like that it's adjusted for inflation.

https://econographics.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/median-household-income.jpg

Not going all the way back, but it soared under Carter, before it started tanking before Reagan took over. It soared under Reagan before Bush Sr. took over, where it tanked.
Then under Clinton it soared, but starting tanking before Bush Jr. took over. Bush Jr. saw a recovery, but it starting tanking before Obama took over. (more recent graphs show a little uptick around 2013 for Obama before a little downtick). Haven't seen 2016 numbers for a final judgement.

Moral of the story based on just this one stat: Don't let a Bush in the White House.

Don't have enough information for Obama, but doesn't look very promising. Of course, that's all on Bush, right?

Edit: oops, I did income, not wealth.

 

[Berzerker]

So other than in your imagination Trump hasn't endorsed such a plan. Good to know that we didn't elect even more of a dingbat than I've already accepted that we have.

Arbitrary invasion of neighbors based on "well if you go back a few millennia that was our territory" isn't acceptable behavior, period. The aggressor needs to be tossed, period. By a worldwide coalition, as it was.

Unfortunately when arbitrary invasion of not even a neighbor based on "well, we are dangerously paranoid and besides no one can stop us" came along the worldwide coalition that should have come together and tossed us out of Iraq on our heads lacked the fortitude to do so.

So you think the people who opposed the first gulf war are bigger dingbats than Trump? I dont blame them for the mess we created. Saddam's invasion of Kuwait wasn't arbitrary and could have been avoided if Bush told him we'd go to war over it, but Iraq and Iran had just spent close to a decade invading each other and the world sold them the weapons.

As for being tossed, why does that mean the USA has to invade the region and hang around until 9/11 gave Bush's son an excuse to finish destroying Iraq? You act as if short of war nothing would have been done, you're wrong. People all over the world demanded Iraq's withdrawal... and he would have withdrawn as Iraq became the target of condemnation, sanctions, and less overt pressures.

But Bush didn't give him the chance, he started whooping it up for war making it harder for Saddam to back down. While the war was a success, we stayed anyway. Thats when we started getting attacked by Al Qaeda, we didn't leave their holy lands and were instead using them as a base to enforce sanctions and no fly zones. They didn't like that and some dingbats decided terrorism is just the price we'll have to pay to babysit Saddam.

So we intervened militarily in a half dozen or more countries, destabilized various societies leading to millions dead or displaced and the world we see today because we had to quickly return a dictator to his throne in Kuwait. I dont know, I'd think Trump would turn that deal down so maybe he is a bigger dingbat too.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

We were targeted by Al Queda long before that for propping up the Saud regime. While I personally agree that propping up the Saud regime is morally indefensible, the American dream of trading guns for gas is not any particular president's fault. But maintaining that dream without resorting to outright warfare is the best that can be accomplished until Americans recognize that the costs of driving around in vehicles that in most countries would qualify as a residence are indeed too high.

Meanwhile, in my opinion there is really no reason to go soft on a regime that has demonstrated that they want to play guns and tanks. The first gulf war, in my opinion, was a measured and appropriate response. Saddam shouldn't have needed to be told that invading a smaller neighbor would have consequences.

 

[Berzerker]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_al-Qaeda_attacks

That was after the Gulf War... Bin Laden wanted to prop up the Saud regime, he wanted AQ to get the job of defending the country. That war laid the groundwork for 9/11 and the mess we made in the middle east. No war, no army sitting in Saudi Arabia, and no 9/11... Consequences indeed.