CARTER GREW THE ECONOMY MUCH BETTER THAN REAGAN Post #4978 • Liberal Forum

AmazonTania » 16 Feb 2014 7:08 pm » wrote:Also, while I'm here I guess I might as well take the time to correct some economic illiteracy.

GDP is normally adjusted for inflation, but the way we get the real GDP is by using what is called a GDP deflator. This will determine whether or not the economic growth gained in a particular period is mostly attributed to inflation or whether or not it is genuine economic growth. The GDP deflator is considered one of the most comprehensive metrics when calculating inflation because it covers a wide array of goods and services in the economy, including the construction/production of this goods and services.

Real GDP = Nominal GDP / GDP Deflator.

Also keep in mind, when using a metric such as the GDP Deflator, you always need to remember that it metrics the level goods and services increase relative to a base year.

For example, during the Carter Administration, nominal GDP grew from 1,992.5 billion from the start of his administration to 3,131.8 billion to the end, which is an increase of 57%. However, the prices of goods and services also increased 52% according to the GDP Deflator indexed for 1977. This means that Real GDP actually grew 49%.

Reagan on the other hand had a nominal GDP growth from 3,167.2 billion to 5,527.3, a 74% increase, however according to the GDP Deflator indexed for 1981, prices increased a total of 38%. This means Real GDP actually grew 74% percent.

In very simple terms, the GDP growth for the Carter Administration is higher annualised simply because of the rate of inflation, which the GDP Deflator accurately captures. GDP averages an annualised rate of 3.3% during the Carter Administration, however you have prices increasing at a rate of 7% or more.Reagan averaged an annualised rate of 3.5%, while prices only increasing by 4.75.

In very simple terms, Reagan's economic growth was actually genuine economic growth, while Carter's was the result of the double digit inflation of the 1970's.

I don't know why I had to calculate this just to demonstrate this fact. I thought this was common knowledge.http://www.bea.gov/iTable/iTableHtml.cfm?reqid=9&step=3&isuri=1&910=x&911=0&903=12&904=1977&905=1989&906=a

Finally, a post with some teeth from you - a post that takes a good hard punch at the OP. I was beginning to think you a dilettante and a cheap seater - my apologies.

Now, I have a couple of questions for you:

How do we properly account for the fact that Reagan used Keynesian economic stimulus, and Carter didn't? When you add a couple of trillion dollars of debt to the economy, are you not essentially eating tomorrow's supper, today? Reagan inherited an economy of 3 trillions, then BORROWED two trillions - and then claimed he "added" it to the economy - did he not? Hell, I can take 3 dollars, borrow 2, and say, "Look! I turned 3 into 5! Dayum, I am GOOD!" Isn't that what Ponzi did?

I mean, if you judged my CREDIT LINE as part of my personal "economy," it would make my economic picture look pretty damned flattering. When the precious, precious unborn are PAYING for Reagan's "good" economy, will it still have been all that "good?"

Also, how much of that "economy" was new government workers? How much of it was manufacturing bombs and missiles (some of which ended up in Iran) - MORE Keynesian stimulus?

You accuse ME of smoke and mirrors, but if you are REALLY here to add clarity, then show your stuff - take on those issues. look at the SIZE OF GOVERNMENT under Reagan and Carter - because all of that counted as "economy." Look at GOVERNMENT SPENDING.

The issue here is who was better for the economy - not who was better at big borrowing and big spending. Goofy and Clem will curse Keynes all day long, then extol the virtues of Reagan on the economy.

When you complain, ur friends roll their eyes and ur enemies rejoice

"Because I SAY I am" is a todler's tantrum, not "science"

You cannot betray me - only yourself, to me.

Who cuts off your dick is not a friend

An opinion you won't defend is not your own

Humanity's Law of the Jungle: Survival NOT of the fittest, but of the tribe

When peeing in the pool, stand on the edge

If gender is not sex, why should a gender claim change what sex you shower with?