Figure 1 does not do much for me. All it shows is how a specific sector of the economy is doing. The jobs figure can be harder to assess given that Clinton was riding on forces beyond his control(not saying he was a bad economic president at all). This is especially hurt given that the subprime crisis has been having a large impact on the economy for the last 2 years, which will skew any results between presidents given that Bush does not hold a lot of responsibility for something like that.
Figure 2 is more important. The issue is when the 2007 statistic was gotten. However, the Bush economic policies are just crap, and that is certainly from a left-wing standpoint, however, it should hold true from a right-wing standpoint.
Figure 3 and Figure 2 conflict with each other. Unless the US has had an average population growth rate above 2.3%, which it hasn't. That being said, once again, one has to recognize that Clinton had a lot of good fortune whereas Bush started off with an internet bust and is ending with a real estate bust, both of which are not things he could do much to control. That being said, the Bush tax cuts are bad policy.
Figure 4 seems valid, and supply side economics is crap.
Figure 5 is rather meaningless unless we argue that the President can control gas prices, which seems unlikely.
Figure 6 is reasonably valid, once again, I will have to point to the 2 economic struggles during the Bush administration. However, Bush tax cuts are not likely the best thing for the stock market.
Figure 7 is rather meaningless. Average unemployment rate is more important as the unemployment rate at a given point is only reflective of the economic health at a period of time.
Figure 9 is rather meaningless. The comparative value of the dollar is only important so much as it relates to other important things. Frankly, a lower dollar is a natural reaction to a trade deficit. This is not to say that the Bush dollar drop is a sign of economic health, it is just that I think the statistic is not driven by the notion "rapid currency fluctuations are bad" so much as "look, the dollar is weaker, we want a strong dollar", the former being valid, and the latter being less valuable.
Figure 10 only has 2 important figures, the last figure is completely unimportant as it seems ridiculous to argue that we should both blame Bush for bad ending economic figures, and for trying to solve them with a loose money policy. Not only that, but Bush is not responsible for inflation so much as the federal reserve is. I mean, we can argue that Bush is responsible for bad economic situations but that does not seem that true.
Anyway, all of that said, these figures don't say much at all. Only a few of them seem to and they lack a level of necessary analysis, and two figures seem to contradict each other. So, really, the figures aren't interesting so much as they are just trying to attack Bush. That said, I would bet that Clinton's economic policies are better than Bush's.
03 Oct 2008, 12:45 am
