What Makes a President Good for the Economy?

While it's no surprise, the two most important issues for the country are the economy and unemployment, according to Gallup. In fact, the number of economic issues mentioned as concerns today are higher than in 2008 -- that year of bank failures, subprime mortgage crises, and when we were actually in a technical recession. Whoever the next president is, he'll have to quell the rising concern about growth, jobs, the deficit, and health care.

But what makes a president well-equipped to deal with these issues?

Fool colleague Morgan Housel offered up a bevy of data, beginning in 1900, which can help you make your own conclusions; but I'll draw upon the data and conclusions from a Georgia Institute of Technology study that looks all the way back to 1789.

A historical ranking

Rank President Grade
1 Franklin D. Roosevelt A
2 Warren Harding A
2 Rutherford Hayes A
2 William McKinley A
5 Millard Fillmore A-
5 George Washington A-
7 John Adams A-/B+
7 Harry Truman A-/B+
9 John F. Kennedy B+
10 Bill Clinton B
10 Ronald Reagan B

Source: "An Economic Ranking of U.S. Presidents, 1789-2009: A Data-Based Approach," Mark Zachary Taylor.

As you can see, not many present-day presidents cracked the top 10. Just how were these ranked, though? The study looked at measures that increased national wealth, reduced unemployment, minimized inflation, and reduced the trade deficit. (A more detailed overview is available in the report.) The study compiled eight different metrics, including changes in the Dow Jones Industrial Average  (INDEX: ^DJI  ) , that ranged from drops of 60% to gains of 110% over different administrations. The study then graded each metric on a 4.0 scale, with a combination of curves applied, resulting in a single grade point average (GPA).

The combination of factors helps downplay the importance of stock returns, as even the spectacular 29% annual return of the S&P 500 (INDEX: ^GSPC  ) during Calvin Coolidge's term only earned him a B-. 

Inherent issues
As Housel states in his article, "In general, presidents get too much credit for the economy when things are good, and too much blame when things are poor." I also believe the repercussions of some administrations' policies to boost the economy in the short term, at the expense of future generations, can easily distort the finite bounds used to judge how presidents affect the economy. For example, part of the fiscal cliff had its origins in the tax cuts that were approved in the early 2000s, and the extension of the cuts in 2010 could be passed on to a new administration.

However, the study notes that it's "a useful step toward a more objective consensus." While it's difficult to measure and assign responsibility for prosperity or hardship, it's important to try in order to improve our decisions as voters.

Important characteristics
Of the study's findings, the most interesting points were:

  • Parties like the Federalists, Whigs, and Republicans that favored business interests scored 2.24 GPA versus their opponents' 1.82.
  • A unified government with the same party in charge of both legislative houses and the executive branch did not result in a better grade. In fact, the highest GPA was earned by presidents whose party only ruled one house of the legislature.
  • Presidents with a middle class background performed the best, followed by those from an upper class upbringing, and then those from lower class origins.
  • Previous jobs and birth order have no discernible effect on performance.
  • As the military-industrial complex might suggest, wartime presidents earned a GPA of 2.36, compared to peacetime presidents' GPA of 1.88. Its no surprise that a company like Lockheed Martin (NYSE: LMT  ) , which earns more than 80% of its revenue from the government, will grow if demand for its defense products increases.

The takeaway
In an era of divisive party lines, where even super committees can't agree when threatened with a deadline and huge program cuts, calmly looking at data and arriving at objective conclusions should be championed. The findings of this study may not have uncovered great truths about what to look for in the next president, but it does help move the conversation to a more sane place.

Additionally, this study only looks at economic performance as measured by its chosen metrics. As a result, an icon like Abraham Lincoln was ranked 26th, with a C-/D+, but the argument could easily be made that, through preserving the country, he set it up for an enormously prosperous future. Sometimes, economic prosperity looses priority to more pressing issues.

As you contemplate who's better for the economy, check out our free report: These Could Skyrocket After the 2012 Presidential Election. Barack Obama and Mitt Romney have competing visions for getting America back on track, but the Motley Fool will have you prepared to profit -- no matter who wins! Download your copy now, for free, and discover hidden ways to profit from the election.

Fool contributor Dan Newman has no positions in the stocks mentioned above. The Motley Fool owns shares of Lockheed Martin. Try any of our Foolish newsletter services free for 30 days. We Fools may not all hold the same opinions, but we all believe that considering a diverse range of insights makes us better investors. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy.


Read/Post Comments (5) | Recommend This Article (6)

Comments from our Foolish Readers

Help us keep this a respectfully Foolish area! This is a place for our readers to discuss, debate, and learn more about the Foolish investing topic you read about above. Help us keep it clean and safe. If you believe a comment is abusive or otherwise violates our Fool's Rules, please report it via the Report this Comment Report this Comment icon found on every comment.

  • Report this Comment On November 06, 2012, at 5:54 PM, Headhunters1 wrote:

    What President inherited a pile of POOP as big as Obama's. FDR maybe but then we had the war. Hopefully Romney can provide us with a BIG ONE!

    Maybe with Iran! Maybe WW III

  • Report this Comment On November 06, 2012, at 6:36 PM, xetn wrote:

    How do you separate the "economy" from "unemployment"? Isn't unemployment an economic event? In fact, everything government does affects the economy (is an economic event).

  • Report this Comment On November 09, 2012, at 4:45 PM, mikepriz wrote:

    This study is totally crap. The problem with economics is that nothing happens overnight. Look at Japan. People were writing books on Japan's business genius - and then came the lost decade. This was followed by the second lost decade, and finally there with be a third lost decade. If one made the same kind of study as the one in this article, one would rate the leader of Japan during the great years as A++. But their policies of curbing imports and dumping goods to keep Japanese workers working caused the last two lost decades. Franklin D. Roosevelt can be credited with turning the U.S. towards a welfare state. I do not have time to list all the problems this has caused. The one thing I learned while getting my degree in economics, which, by the way, is not taught in any economics class, is that YOU CANNOT LEGISLATE WEALTH. So, do not tell me that Clinton was good for the economy. Tell me exactly what he did that made the economy better. Do not tell me that Bush caused the housing market to crash thereby causing the current recession. Tell me exactly what Bush did to cause the housing market to crash.

  • Report this Comment On November 10, 2012, at 8:57 PM, Poppypbr wrote:

    Bush did not cause the housing market to crash. But Republicans have been acting to eliminate government regulation and that allowed banks to get out of hand and cause the housing market to crash. Bush's Administration stood by and waited while the evidence was already clearly indicating where things were headed six months earlier. The Banks knew it and they intended it. Lots of real estate bargains scooped up by people who didn't deserve them at the expense of people who got screwed by their government under a Republican Watch, just like Herbert Hoover. You think anyone who lost their house or their job would vote for Romney? Maybe if they were a total idiot. In 1790 we would have tarred and feathered a few leaders, but not Obama.

  • Report this Comment On November 27, 2012, at 2:58 AM, thidmark wrote:

    This country is not headed anywhere until our citizens are educated well enough to know the difference between 'looses' and 'loses.'

Add your comment.

Sponsored Links

Leaked: Apple's Next Smart Device
(Warning, it may shock you)
The secret is out... experts are predicting 458 million of these types of devices will be sold per year. 1 hyper-growth company stands to rake in maximum profit - and it's NOT Apple. Show me Apple's new smart gizmo!

DocumentId: 2090663, ~/Articles/ArticleHandler.aspx, 12/18/2014 6:08:33 PM

Report This Comment

Use this area to report a comment that you believe is in violation of the community guidelines. Our team will review the entry and take any appropriate action.

Sending report...


Advertisement