An update to a previous post.
Economic growth per President:
Bush's first 6 years 16.35% total, 2.6% annual
Obama's first 6 years 8.46% total, 1.3% annual
Growth per President/Speaker pairs, 2 year intervals
(% change over 2 years)
Bush – Hastert 2001-2002 2.74%
Bush – Hastert 2003-2004 6.69%
Bush – Hastert 2005-2006 6.11%
Bush – Pelosi 2007-2008 1.49%
Obama – Pelosi 2009-2010 -0.37%
Obama – Boehner 2011-2012 4.68%
Obama – Boehner 2013-2014 3.97%
Growth per President/Speaker pairs, overall
total per year:
Bush – Hastert 2001-2006 16.35% 2.60%
Bush – Pelosi 2007-2008 1.48% 0.74%
Obama – Pelosi 2009-2010 -0.31% -0.16%
Obama – Boehner 2011-2014 8.81% 2.10%
Growth per Speaker, 4 year intervals
Hastert's first 4 years: 13.21% total, 3.1% annual
Hastert's second 4 years: 12.13% total, 2.9% annual
Pelosi's 4 years: 1.20% total, 0.3% annual
Boehner's first 4 years: 8.84% total, 2.1% annual
2014-03-10
Airline disaster deaths versus automobile deaths
Three days ago, Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 disappeared with 239 souls on board. Since then, around 9500 people have been killed around the world in automobile accidents.
Since year 2000, there have been about 69 major aviation disasters, commercial and military, excluding terrorist attacks. Around 8100 people died in those 69 disasters. Over the same period, perhaps 15 million people have died in automobile accidents.
At current rates, major aviation accidents will kill 62,000 people this century; automobile accidents will kill 115 million people.
To make aviation as dangerous as your daily commute, there would have to be 27 major air disasters every day. That would be about 10,000 major crashes per year. This century, we have seen roughly 5 per year.
The world you live in, and the world you hear about on the news, are two very different worlds.
Since year 2000, there have been about 69 major aviation disasters, commercial and military, excluding terrorist attacks. Around 8100 people died in those 69 disasters. Over the same period, perhaps 15 million people have died in automobile accidents.
At current rates, major aviation accidents will kill 62,000 people this century; automobile accidents will kill 115 million people.
To make aviation as dangerous as your daily commute, there would have to be 27 major air disasters every day. That would be about 10,000 major crashes per year. This century, we have seen roughly 5 per year.
The world you live in, and the world you hear about on the news, are two very different worlds.
2014-02-05
Nancy Pelosi was bad
The end of Barack Obama's 5th year as President coincided with another economic milestone: For the first time in history, U.S. economic output has exceeded $17 trillion per year. Even adjusted for inflation, the economy is solidly at an all-time record high.
Before we judge this a success, let us get some perspective. The economy has hit all-time record highs under every President since Franklin Roosevelt. Only Truman saw "negative growth" after his 5th year - he had to wait until his 7th year to see a new record high.
So this milestone under the Obama Presidency is not noteworthy on its own, and we will need to look closer at the numbers if we wish to put it into context.
I use table 1.1.6 from the Bureau of Economic Analysis (available here) for this data. Growth is cumulative over the time-period mentioned, rather than annual. Also, Presidential terms do not perfectly correspond with fiscal years, so there is some slight approximation in these measures.
Economic growth after the 1st term, for recent Presidents:
Clinton 13.97%
Carter 13.65%
Reagan 12.94%
Nixon 12.36%
Bush II 9.62%
Bush I 9.35%
Obama 4.29%
Obama has just concluded his 5th year in office, so let us compare his total against other recent two-term Presidents after their 5th year:
Clinton 19.08%
Nixon 18.70%
Reagan 17.73%
Bush II 13.29%
Obama 6.29%
For comparison purposes, here are the totals for recent two-term Presidents after their 8th year:
Clinton 35.74%
Reagan 31.38%
Nixon/Ford 24.20%
Bush II 18.05%
Going further back, Truman's total was 9.6% at the end of his 8th year (that is, 1952 versus 1944). So Obama will need 3.3% growth cumulative over the next 3 years to stay out of last place in the post-war era, and around 12% growth to pull out of last place among recent Presidents.
As you should know, the President has only an indirect influence on the economy. The role of Congress is much more direct. We may have a better understanding of these growth numbers if we consider them by Speaker of the House rather than by President. The Speaker has no term of office, but we may generally consider a Speakership as being divided into one or more 2 year terms.
Here is economic growth for recent Speakers, after their first 2 years:
O'Neil 10.43%
Hastert 9.14%
Wright 7.81%
Gingrich 6.62%
Foley 5.67%
Boehner 4.68%
Pelosi 1.49%
John Boehner has just concluded his 3rd year as Speaker, so for comparison purposes let's look at the totals after 3 years. Jim Wright did not complete a 3rd year, so he drops off the list:
O'Neil 13.93%
Gingrich 11.40%
Hastert 10.17%
Boehner 6.68%
Foley 5.59%
Pelosi -1.35%
What is noticeable here is that the economy under Nancy Pelosi was not just bad, but outlier bad. Pelosi served 4 years as Speaker, so let's compare her final total with the others:
Gingrich 16.36%
O'Neil 13.65%
Hastert 12.13%
Foley 9.35%
Pelosi 1.20%
Economic performance under Pelosi was prominently poor, and it is worth taking a closer look. Pelosi was Speaker for two years of the Bush Administration, and for two years of the Obama Administration. We can compare economic growth under these Presidents with and without Speaker Pelosi. For comparison purposes we divide Presidential terms into blocks of two years:
Bush – Hastert (2001-2002) 2.74%
Bush – Hastert (2003-2004) 6.69%
Bush – Hastert (2005-2006) 6.11%
Bush – Pelosi (2007-2008) 1.49%
Obama – Pelosi (2009-2010) -0.37%
Obama – Boehner (2011-2012) 4.68%
Both Presidents did at least moderately well without Pelosi, but did awful with Pelosi; while Pelosi did awful regardless of who was President.
The take away point would seem to be: With regards to economic growth, it doesn't matter much which party the President belongs to, or which party the Speaker belongs to. And it doesn't matter much if the President and Speaker are from the same party or different parties. What matters most is whether or not the Speaker is Nancy Pelosi.
Before we judge this a success, let us get some perspective. The economy has hit all-time record highs under every President since Franklin Roosevelt. Only Truman saw "negative growth" after his 5th year - he had to wait until his 7th year to see a new record high.
So this milestone under the Obama Presidency is not noteworthy on its own, and we will need to look closer at the numbers if we wish to put it into context.
I use table 1.1.6 from the Bureau of Economic Analysis (available here) for this data. Growth is cumulative over the time-period mentioned, rather than annual. Also, Presidential terms do not perfectly correspond with fiscal years, so there is some slight approximation in these measures.
Economic growth after the 1st term, for recent Presidents:
Clinton 13.97%
Carter 13.65%
Reagan 12.94%
Nixon 12.36%
Bush II 9.62%
Bush I 9.35%
Obama 4.29%
Obama has just concluded his 5th year in office, so let us compare his total against other recent two-term Presidents after their 5th year:
Clinton 19.08%
Nixon 18.70%
Reagan 17.73%
Bush II 13.29%
Obama 6.29%
For comparison purposes, here are the totals for recent two-term Presidents after their 8th year:
Clinton 35.74%
Reagan 31.38%
Nixon/Ford 24.20%
Bush II 18.05%
Going further back, Truman's total was 9.6% at the end of his 8th year (that is, 1952 versus 1944). So Obama will need 3.3% growth cumulative over the next 3 years to stay out of last place in the post-war era, and around 12% growth to pull out of last place among recent Presidents.
As you should know, the President has only an indirect influence on the economy. The role of Congress is much more direct. We may have a better understanding of these growth numbers if we consider them by Speaker of the House rather than by President. The Speaker has no term of office, but we may generally consider a Speakership as being divided into one or more 2 year terms.
Here is economic growth for recent Speakers, after their first 2 years:
O'Neil 10.43%
Hastert 9.14%
Wright 7.81%
Gingrich 6.62%
Foley 5.67%
Boehner 4.68%
Pelosi 1.49%
John Boehner has just concluded his 3rd year as Speaker, so for comparison purposes let's look at the totals after 3 years. Jim Wright did not complete a 3rd year, so he drops off the list:
O'Neil 13.93%
Gingrich 11.40%
Hastert 10.17%
Boehner 6.68%
Foley 5.59%
Pelosi -1.35%
What is noticeable here is that the economy under Nancy Pelosi was not just bad, but outlier bad. Pelosi served 4 years as Speaker, so let's compare her final total with the others:
Gingrich 16.36%
O'Neil 13.65%
Hastert 12.13%
Foley 9.35%
Pelosi 1.20%
Economic performance under Pelosi was prominently poor, and it is worth taking a closer look. Pelosi was Speaker for two years of the Bush Administration, and for two years of the Obama Administration. We can compare economic growth under these Presidents with and without Speaker Pelosi. For comparison purposes we divide Presidential terms into blocks of two years:
Bush – Hastert (2001-2002) 2.74%
Bush – Hastert (2003-2004) 6.69%
Bush – Hastert (2005-2006) 6.11%
Bush – Pelosi (2007-2008) 1.49%
Obama – Pelosi (2009-2010) -0.37%
Obama – Boehner (2011-2012) 4.68%
Both Presidents did at least moderately well without Pelosi, but did awful with Pelosi; while Pelosi did awful regardless of who was President.
The take away point would seem to be: With regards to economic growth, it doesn't matter much which party the President belongs to, or which party the Speaker belongs to. And it doesn't matter much if the President and Speaker are from the same party or different parties. What matters most is whether or not the Speaker is Nancy Pelosi.
2014-02-04
nonsense
I've noticed that, though 'complete nonsense that makes you feel good about yourself' is only a small subset of the broader category 'complete nonsense', almost all the nonsense people believe falls into that subset.
It's almost as if there was some non-random influence at work, determining what people believe.
It's almost as if there was some non-random influence at work, determining what people believe.
2011-10-16
2011-05-01
the process of politics
1. First, start with a delusional and utterly simplistic belief about how the world works.
2. Then, obtain political power so you can force the world to behave according to your theories.
3. Fulfill step 2 by using controls and regulations that force people to behave as if they were living in the world of your delusions, and not the world that actually exists.
4. When the world stubbornly refuses to behave the way your theories say it should, do not take this as proof that your theories are wrong; instead, assume it proves that you just need more power.
5. Eventually, the failure of your model becomes so severe that it is no longer sustainable. At this point, there is nothing left to do but to run around killing people.
2. Then, obtain political power so you can force the world to behave according to your theories.
3. Fulfill step 2 by using controls and regulations that force people to behave as if they were living in the world of your delusions, and not the world that actually exists.
4. When the world stubbornly refuses to behave the way your theories say it should, do not take this as proof that your theories are wrong; instead, assume it proves that you just need more power.
5. Eventually, the failure of your model becomes so severe that it is no longer sustainable. At this point, there is nothing left to do but to run around killing people.
2011-04-20
unconceited II
Any world simple enough to be understood would be incapable of creating an intelligence capable of understanding it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)