![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2008/10/14/opinion/20081014_OPCHART.html
[link stolen elsejournal from a f-locked entry, so I won't out the source]
As much as I'd like to make a snarky, partisan observation to this, instead, I'll simply lay out some math.
Two things jump out immediately, which have a relatively disproportionate effect on the outcome.
First, the best-performing Democrat and, other than Hoover, the worst-performing Republican represent the final eight-year chunk of each party's overall performance, so they have the largest amount of capital upon which to operate, and that, while not skewing the results per se, does make for a more dramatic reading of them. I'd like to see how these charts would look if the timeline was sixteen years shorter, leaving both Clinton and Dubya out of the computations (because their predecessors had done the lever-arm lifting of previous investments).
Second, other than Clinton, nobody but Republicans have an annualized return above 10%. There's a reason the GOP is considered to be the more pro-business of the two, and this illustrates it.
Now, is the SPMI a viable tool for measuring prosperity? Yeah, if you're an investor, but not necessarily for your average asshole on the street like me, even though I do invest.
All that being said.... Dubya is still the worst President (either including or since Hoover, your call).
[link stolen elsejournal from a f-locked entry, so I won't out the source]
As much as I'd like to make a snarky, partisan observation to this, instead, I'll simply lay out some math.
Two things jump out immediately, which have a relatively disproportionate effect on the outcome.
First, the best-performing Democrat and, other than Hoover, the worst-performing Republican represent the final eight-year chunk of each party's overall performance, so they have the largest amount of capital upon which to operate, and that, while not skewing the results per se, does make for a more dramatic reading of them. I'd like to see how these charts would look if the timeline was sixteen years shorter, leaving both Clinton and Dubya out of the computations (because their predecessors had done the lever-arm lifting of previous investments).
Second, other than Clinton, nobody but Republicans have an annualized return above 10%. There's a reason the GOP is considered to be the more pro-business of the two, and this illustrates it.
Now, is the SPMI a viable tool for measuring prosperity? Yeah, if you're an investor, but not necessarily for your average asshole on the street like me, even though I do invest.
All that being said.... Dubya is still the worst President (either including or since Hoover, your call).
◾ Tags:
