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{at}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]