| BUSINESSWEEK ONLINE : MARCH 15, 1999 ISSUE | ||||||||
| ||||||||
 | ||||||||
| INTERNATIONAL -- READERS REPORT
The Reagan Years: Not All They're Cracked Up to Be? (int'l edition) Regarding ''Reagan vs. Clinton: Who's the economic champ?'' (Economic Viewpoint, Feb. 22): I was intrigued by the figures for Robert Barro's version of the misery index. The article was aimed at the thesis that Clinton might be regarded by history as a better manager of the economy than Reagan. The figures he quoted might in fact show something a little different and possibly more interesting. So I did a little simple processing, involving the use of a rolling three-Presidency average, rather than the straight figures quoted. The rolling three-term average is probably a better measure of actual Presidential performance because of the complexity and relative slowness of the U.S. economy to respond to changes measurable by the index chosen. The main thing the figures show is that the high figures of the 1970s were the result of policy changes made in the John F. Kennedy/Lyndon B. Johnson years and that Richard M. Nixon, Gerald R. Ford, and Jimmy Carter were much better economy managers than they are generally given credit for. The implication is that Ronald Reagan, George Bush, and Bill Clinton were/are the beneficiaries and guardians of the change in economic momentum which Nixon/Ford/Carter initiated and nursed. Even U.S. Presidents may have less power to change the overall performance of the economy than Robert Barro apparently thinks. Bill Bradford Tring, England _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ BACK TO TOP |
|  |
 | |
INTERACT E-Mail to Business Week Online | |||
