Worst Economic President in US history

[opebo]

Herbert Hoover -Gold
George W. Bush -Silver
Jimmy Carter -Bronze

Carter did nothing particularly bad economically.   Any ill effects at that time were entirely caused by oil shocks, and in any case the economy of Carter's term was far superior to anything since (though inferior to what had gone before).

[Nym90]

Coolidge, though Reagan and W are both up there.

[Ronnie]

Hm, talking about Obama's place in history now is a bit premature, but I don't like in general what he is doing and probably will do in the future.

Right now, I'll say the obvious Hoover, but Carter is closely behind.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Wow, what joke options. Well, Obama is the only one of these who didn't have MASSAIVE job growth. But this poll is really missing some obvious choices, like Coolidge, Hoover, both Bushes, and so on.

[War on Want]

     FDR, but LBJ was also trash. Clinton doesn't really deserve to be mentioned here since despite his refusal to gut entitlement programs, he did manage to balance the budget.

Balancing the budget really has little to do with the economy.

[Marokai Backbeat]

     FDR, but LBJ was also trash. Clinton doesn't really deserve to be mentioned here since despite his refusal to gut entitlement programs, he did manage to balance the budget.

Balancing the budget really has little to do with the economy.

People often forget this.

[The Duke]

You would have to be deranged to think Reagan was the worst.

Of the available choices, LBJ did the most long term damage and was, in my view, the worst.

Carter and Bush were poor, but it only people without a sense of history could think they were the worst.

There is no reasn to even put FDR in a poll for 'worst' except to appease libertarian ideologues.

Hoover is a strong contender for worst ever, but I have to agree with the people who have said Jackson was the worst.

Jefferson was also terrible and doesn't get enough blame for the embargo of 1807.

[bullmoose88]

You would have to be deranged to think Reagan was the worst.

Of the available choices, LBJ did the most long term damage and was, in my view, the worst.

Carter and Bush were poor, but it only people without a sense of history could think they were the worst.

There is no reasn to even put FDR in a poll for 'worst' except to appease libertarian ideologues.

Hoover is a strong contender for worst ever, but I have to agree with the people who have said Jackson was the worst.

Jefferson was also terrible and doesn't get enough blame for the embargo of 1807.

^Sensible Poster. I agree.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Jefferson, Jackson, Van Buren(though really he took the rap for the mess left by Jackson). Another one would be Harrison(RAising Tariffs too much too quickly) and Cleveland. Hoover, LBJ, Carter and lastly Bush. Its too soon to really judge Obama's impact.

[Marokai Backbeat]

The tax hikes and government aid to business did not really come until 1932, much closer to the bottom than the top. It is well worth nothing that the 90% top income tax bracket remained in place from 1932 until 1964, so it certainly did not prevent recovery from the Depression, nor did it cause the Depression. There are also scholarly reassessments of how much Smoot-Hawley actually contributed to the Depression.

It came towards the end of his presidency, but I'm not just referring to the top rate (although I personally have no doubts that does in inhibit productivity). Aside from raising the top rate from 25% to 63% he also reduced personal exemptions, increased corporate taxation, AND added a check tax. There is considerable evidence that the money contractions of the early 30s were exacerbated by the latter policy alone.

Not only does this fail to address the issue of my post, but every tax you speak of further reinforces my point. The more Hoover raised taxes in 1932 under the Revenue Act of 1932 (under which all of your taxes, and more, fall under) passed that June, the more evidence there is that tax hikes did not prevent the recovery in the stock market which began that July or the recovery in the economy which began the following March. FDR again raised taxes in 1934, 1935 and 1936. Compared to June 1932, taxes in 1936 were astronomically high and would remain so for decades. During this time the Dow rallied over 300%.

The the study you linked on the money supply is rather beside the point. After being on the downtrend for years, the money supply was on a clear uptrend from 1932 to 1934, as was the national economy. So even if some marginal connection between the check tax and a reduced multiplier can be found, it was not remotely central to the causes of the Depression, and it did not prevent a strong recovery.

Reagan hiked taxes throughout the mid-1980s, a time of great expansion. Of the Clinton tax hike of 1993, Dick Armey said "Clearly, this is a job-killer in the short-run. The impact on job creation is going to be devastating." Newt Gingrich opined that "The tax increase will... lead to a recession... and will actually increase the deficit."

And we are entering a depression right now with no tax hike in sight (nor indeed any major tax hikes of any kind, except on cigarettes, since 1993)- and Obama has committed to cutting taxes, just as was Hoover's instinct in 1929. If there is a comparison, it is in that. The idea that tax hikes are always bad economic policy just flies in the face of the accumulated facts.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

A.k.a. he engaged in voluntarism.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Hoover's voluntarism and his few infrastructure projects were swamped. To his credit, the size of the federal government was so small at that time and he didn't have enough time to expand it properly. The New Deal had more of an effect, but it was preceded by a dollar devaluation and shuttering the banks, remember.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Which did not come until mid-1932, again.

Edit: Also, nearly all of the loans made by the RFC were repaid, although this is probably partially a result of the program's timing. But it is worth nothing that the RFC's most active years were 1933 and 1934, just as things were turning around.

Debating conservatives on the Great Depression is exasperating. They feel so strongly about a historical matter in which the empirical evidence, as far as any historical economic story goes, is about as one-sided as it can possibly be against them. But they have so many sources and theories to try and explain it the other way. It's almost amusing. You never hear liberals trying to argue that Volcker's policies prolonged inflation. We know when we're beat.

*cough*

[The Duke]

Taxes had very little to do with the depression one way or the other.  The depression was primarily a monetary phenomenon.  When FDR changed the gold peg and instituted the bank holiday, you saw an almost immediate turnaround because the money supply stopped shrinking.  This change in the money supply from 1933-1936 was the main driver of recovery and overwhelmed whatever negative effects there were from the tax increases.

Suggesting that the economy of the 1930s moved one way or the other because of tax rates is like saying New Coke failed because of the color of the can.  I'm sorry, but there were simply more powerful forces at work than tax rates.  FDR's greatest accomplishment prior to World War II was changing the gold peg.  That decision saved our economy (And perhaps our Constitutional democracy with it).

[memphis]

Easily W. 

[Gustaf]

A point I believe should be considered is the context in which the presidents acted. Most people seem to agree that the state of the economy when the president takes power should be accounted for, but I personally think that the state of economics should also be included in the analysis. In the nineteenth century people didn't know much about economics, since the science had recently been founded. When the Great Depression hit people didn't really know how to handle it. Hoover largely acted on what was the conventional economic wisdom of the time (Keynes invented Keynesianism largely by studying the Depression).

For that reason George W Bush ranks highly on the list to me. Everyone of my 250 fellow students who took basic macroeconomics this spring could have told him how stupid it was to unbalance the budget and stimulate the economy with huge tax-cuts during a time of prosperity.             

[opebo]

You would have to be deranged to think Reagan was the worst.

Of the available choices, LBJ did the most long term damage and was, in my view, the worst.

Haha, you're hilarious.  Here we sit in the middle of a second great depression caused by the neo-liberalism which was initiated by the Reagan Revolution and merely continued by the presidents since, and you claim he wasn't bad.

Instead you blame LBJ who presided over the best economy the US has seen - ever.

[opebo]

For that reason George W Bush ranks highly on the list to me. Everyone of my 250 fellow students who took basic macroeconomics this spring could have told him how stupid it was to unbalance the budget and stimulate the economy with huge tax-cuts during a time of prosperity.             

The tax cuts didn't stimulate the economy - they were only tax cuts for the wealthy.

[memphis]

For that reason George W Bush ranks highly on the list to me. Everyone of my 250 fellow students who took basic macroeconomics this spring could have told him how stupid it was to unbalance the budget and stimulate the economy with huge tax-cuts during a time of prosperity.             

The tax cuts didn't stimulate the economy - they were only tax cuts for the wealthy.

To be fair, they stimulated a lot of speculative bubbles.

[pogo stick]

Carter. and in foreign affairs Carter again. and socially Nixon, he was president when Abortion was legalized.

[Gustaf]

For that reason George W Bush ranks highly on the list to me. Everyone of my 250 fellow students who took basic macroeconomics this spring could have told him how stupid it was to unbalance the budget and stimulate the economy with huge tax-cuts during a time of prosperity.             

The tax cuts didn't stimulate the economy - they were only tax cuts for the wealthy.

I don't understand what you get out from making a fool of yourself all the time. You should really stick to subjects like buying hookers that you actually know something about. It's frankly a bit embarassing to discuss economics with you.

(as a little hint this time, who gets their taxes cut is not relevant to my point in this case. But I guess you wouldn't understand, given that you don't know anything about economic policy)

[opebo]

The tax cuts didn't stimulate the economy - they were only tax cuts for the wealthy.

To be fair, they stimulated a lot of speculative bubbles.

Well stated.  Also indirectly, but perhaps more importantly, the bubbles were stimulated by the 'easy credit' and low interest rates which are a necessary result of a lack of demand precisely caused by right-wing economic policy of low tax rates and inadequate redistribution.

I don't understand what you get out from making a fool of yourself all the time. You should really stick to subjects like buying hookers that you actually know something about. It's frankly a bit embarrassing to discuss economics with you.

(as a little hint this time, who gets their taxes cut is not relevant to my point in this case. But I guess you wouldn't understand, given that you don't know anything about economic policy)

Your post seems to be a personal attack Gustaf.  I know all about your side's idea of economic policy, I just disagree.  Tax cuts for the wealthy, particularly like the one's we had in the early 2000s (from 40ish to 30ish percent) do nothing to stimulate demand, which is the only effective way to stimulate the economy.  As memphis points out above the only thing such cuts could stimulate would be destructive speculative bubbles.

I would say that your supply side claims are rather more embarrassing, since instead of simply saying openly that you support privilege you try to justify it with all sorts of absurd claims.

[Gustaf]

The tax cuts didn't stimulate the economy - they were only tax cuts for the wealthy.

To be fair, they stimulated a lot of speculative bubbles.

Well stated.  Also indirectly, but perhaps more importantly, the bubbles were stimulated by the 'easy credit' and low interest rates which are a necessary result of a lack of demand precisely caused by right-wing economic policy of low tax rates and inadequate redistribution.

I don't understand what you get out from making a fool of yourself all the time. You should really stick to subjects like buying hookers that you actually know something about. It's frankly a bit embarrassing to discuss economics with you.

(as a little hint this time, who gets their taxes cut is not relevant to my point in this case. But I guess you wouldn't understand, given that you don't know anything about economic policy)

Your post seems to be a personal attack Gustaf.  I know all about your side's idea of economic policy, I just disagree.  Tax cuts for the wealthy, particularly like the one's we had in the early 2000s (from 40ish to 30ish percent) do nothing to stimulate demand, which is the only effective way to stimulate the economy.  As memphis points out above the only thing such cuts could stimulate would be destructive speculative bubbles.

I would say that your supply side claims are rather more embarrassing, since instead of simply saying openly that you support privilege you try to justify it with all sorts of absurd claims.

Since I'm not like you I don't confuse my personal political opinions with facts. I'm not sure what claims I did that you think are wrong. I'm claiming that (unfinanced, one should maybe add) tax-cuts stimulate the economy. That is a given. Where they go is not of fundamental importance. This is clearly true, given how things turned out.

Whether the stimulance is a good thing is another matter. I explicitly said it was not.

And I don't see it as a personal attack. You've admitted the obvious yourself in the past - that you don't know anything about economics. I gently pointed it out to spare you the embarassement of barging in through open doors with political ramblings unrelated to the topic at hand.

[Хahar 🤔]

Jackson, then Grant.

[opebo]

I'm claiming that (unfinanced, one should maybe add) tax-cuts stimulate the economy. That is a given. Where they go is not of fundamental importance.

And I am claiming that tax cuts for the owners do not stimulate demand.

This is clearly true, given how things turned out.

Clearly true?  We're in a depression caused by lack of demand, you silly Swead.

economics... political ramblings unrelated to the topic at hand.

But that is precisely the point, Gustaf - you imagine that economics is separate from or independent of politics.  This is your error.  Economics, even giving it the most credit, is just the accounting of political power.

[Gustaf]

I'm claiming that (unfinanced, one should maybe add) tax-cuts stimulate the economy. That is a given. Where they go is not of fundamental importance.

And I am claiming that tax cuts for the owners do not stimulate demand.

This is clearly true, given how things turned out.

Clearly true?  We're in a depression caused by lack of demand, you silly Swead.

economics... political ramblings unrelated to the topic at hand.

But that is precisely the point, Gustaf - you imagine that economics is separate from or independent of politics.  This is your error.  Economics, even giving it the most credit, is just the accounting of political power.

Against all reason I will give you the benefit of the doubt a little bit longer. It may be genuine ignorance on your part, after all.

You seem to think that demand = the economy. This is wrong. Do you think the economy was shrinking during the early Bush years? That demand was collapsing? That is nonsensical. I thought everyone knew that the economy over-heated. That is the reason for the current problems. The economy was over-stimulated. That's what created the bubbles in the stock market and in the housing market. People had too much money.

Also, you seem to think that money which isn't immediately consumed by its owners disappear. This is not true. Money which is saved is borrowed by other people who use it to consume (or directly invested).

Let's say Fred is an owner and gets a lot of money through a tax-cut. Fred can consume for this money, but let's assume that he doesn't. He may then invest it. Maybe he builds a factory or a house. In that case the money goes to the workers building the house, or factory, or whatever and they in turn consume and demand is stimulated. I can already hear you say that most of it will be pockted by another owner. Well, then that owner faces the same choices. Eventually, the money goes to consumption.

Fred may also save it, putting it in his bank account. What does the bank do? Deposit it in a secret vault where it waits for Fred? Surely, even you must know that this isn't the case. The bank will lend it or invest it. And, again, eventually the money is likely used to consume for. This is a bit over-simplifying of course and I'm not claiming the effects are exactly the same. Right now people are not willing to borrow nor lend money and thus the patterns are different. But back in the Bush years this is pretty much what happened. That's why stocks and house prices were soaring.

Of course, I so far haven't even touched your ridiculous assertion that the Bush tax-cuts were merely for the rich. They may have benefited the rich in an unfair way, or whatever, but as I recall lots of people recieved tax-cuts, not just rich people. That certainly increased demand.

I feel that because you are not a particularly intellectual person you fail to grasp that I consider the Bush tax-cuts bad, even though I explicitly stated that, so I will do it again for your benefit:

I think the Bush tax-cuts were B-A-D for the economy.

What's sad, you silly American, is that you don't even know enough to properly disagree with me.

[opebo]

Do you think the economy was shrinking during the early Bush years? That demand was collapsing? That is nonsensical.

No, demand was collapsing over these last 18 months.  I was not referring to the early Bush years at all.

I thought everyone knew that the economy over-heated. That is the reason for the current problems. The economy was over-stimulated. That's what created the bubbles in the stock market and in the housing market. People had too much money.

No, obviously not.  The economy was not 'overheated' at all, as evidenced by the low rate of inflation.  People did not have too much money, but rather, credit was being used as the only lever of economic policy.  It was this expansion of credit (a feeble attempt to support demand), which created bubbles, and wish ultimately fell on its face due to a lack of support, in turn, from fiscal policy - redistribution.

Also, you seem to think that money which isn't immediately consumed by its owners disappear. This is not true. Money which is saved is borrowed by other people who use it to consume (or directly invested).

No, in a depression most of this money is idle.  People don't borrow.  The only way that this money can be put to use during a depression is through government borrowing or confiscation (taxation or printing money).

Let's say Fred is an owner and gets a lot of money through a tax-cut. Fred can consume for this money, but let's assume that he doesn't. He may then invest it. Maybe he builds a factory or a house.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes obviously, but the weak link was the borrowing phase - the people who borrowed the money could not pay it because of inadequate incomes, caused by lack of redistribution and excessive inequality.  Eventually they could borrow no more and the system collapsed, followed by this current depression phase where no borrowing occurs 'privately' because 1) lenders are afraid to lend, and 2) borrowers are afraid to borrow.  It makes no sense to borrow now, when State policy is for deflation.

Of course, I so far haven't even touched your ridiculous assertion that the Bush tax-cuts were merely for the rich. They may have benefited the rich in an unfair way, or whatever, but as I recall lots of people recieved tax-cuts, not just rich people. That certainly increased demand.

Extremely insignificant portion of the tax cuts, quite inconsequential.  Think of it this way - if Bush had imbalanced the budget by the same amount, but utilized the money as welfare payments for the lower half of the population instead of tax cuts, there would have obviously been no bubble(s) and no depression.

I think the Bush tax-cuts were B-A-D for the economy.

Yes, I suppose they were somewhat bad, but the real problems were and are far greater, deeper, more pervasive than that scapegoat.

[Torie]

LBJ of course.