Is it true that the economy grew better under Carter than Reagan

[gabeana]

I am searching but can't find anything, any help would be greatly appreciated

I did find this though
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-carterreagan.htm

[Sherman A1]

1. Most likely, yet

it was a different time. Inflation was much higher in the 70's and 80's, less automation (computers) in the workplace, hence the need for more people particularly in office work and the Boomer generation was still heavily into their consuming years with growing families and alike.

[roamer65]

2. Yes, because Paul Volcker had not destroyed the economy yet.

His interest rate policy singlehandedly destroyed our manufacturing base.

[muriel_volestrangler]

3. It's close; average annual GDP growth under Carter 3.3%, Reagan 3.5%

GDP growth figures take inflation into account, so these are valid comparisons, even if inflation was higher in the 70s than 80s (which is true for most developed countries, not just the USA).

http://useconomy.about.com/od/GDP-by-Year/a/US-GDP-History.htm

Taking Carter as the years 1977-80, it's 4.6%, 5.6%, 3.2%, -0.2% = average 3.3%
Reagan 1981-88: 2.6%, -1.9%, 4.6%, 7.3%, 4.2%, 3.5%, 3.5%, 4.2% = average 3.5%

(you get the same average figures for arithmetic means of the simple growth figures, and geometric means for the chained total GDP figures these imply, if anyone's interested)

Not a significant difference, I'd say.

[gabeana]

4. Thanks for the link and the #'s

To be fair then Carter did have a higher growth because through the #'s provided Carters 4 years in office the economy grew 3.3% to Reagans 1st term 3.15%

Maybe its playing with numbers but Carter holds his own with regards to economy to Reagan who sold the Country out in the long term

[JCMach1]

5. Conservatives forget how devastating the recession of 1980-1981 was

[A HERETIC I AM]

6. Carter, like Obama, inherited a steaming bag of crap

The country had just wound down the Viet Nam war, and military spending, like housing booms, are good stimulus for the economy. Since Carter didn't have a giant war to spend money on, government spending contracted.

We also had massive inflation in the early days of the Carter administration so it is amazing that the growth numbers were as high as they were, considering, as I said, the bag of crap he had to deal with.

[tabasco]

7. Actually, most Democratic presidents inherit a steaming bag of crap

from their republican predecessors.

Cleaning up republican disasters, it's what Democrats do.

[A HERETIC I AM]

9. Point well taken. n/t

[Reter]

8. I have to doubt it

Not complimenting Reagan, but the late 70's I get the picture of poor, while the mid 80's everyone is happy and spending. At least that's what it was like for my family and their friends when I was growing up.

[MisterP]

10. much of the difference is how the growth was DISTRIBUTED: Reagan

explicitly kept any economic growth in the upper classes and maybe the upper-middle-class rentiers and yuppies
plus there's an oil boom-and-bust underlying the 1978-83 recession
and to be fair Carter turned to what we call Reaganomics 1978-9 as the Chicagoids promised it as the golden ticket out of stagflation, but that wouldn't have lasted past 1981 (nor slid into full trickle-down)

[Rex]

11. Yes. The economy has never grown under a GOP president.

The debt always grows with a GOP president. They are HORRIBLE at their jobs and they just don't care. Also, the GOP likes to pretend they care about being frugal yet they just spend and spend and spend without a single thought toward repayment. Dems OTOH try for a balanced approach between taxing and spending. WE get villanized for actually expecting people to pay taxes.

It is the main reason the GOP always leaves office with America in worse shape. In many different ways.

[Motown_Johnny]

12. Not the debt or deficits though...

Ronnie grew them much faster than Jimmy.