Need Help on Clinton Economic Numbers !

[stewert]

A friend of mine is a big conservative idiot, last night we talked politics and I stated the average Clinton GDP numbers during his 8 years. I said the average GDP for Clintons 8 years was 5.0 or higher. I also said 22 million news jobs were created during the Clinton years.

He said it was not true, he denied that the average GDP during the Clinton years was 5.0 or higher and he denied 22 million new jobs were created in the Clinton years.

What I need is a place to look up the GDP numbers from 1992 to 2001 by quarter or by year. And I need some info on how many new jobs were created during the Clinton years.

I am going to type it up and print it out and then shove it in the guys face and say I told you so.

[NewJeffCT]

1. I know the 22 million is correct

I would guess you can look at the Dept of Labor website... GDP of 5.0 seems pretty high, though.

Sorry, not a big help.

[Tim4319]

2. Check this out. I hope this helps.

http://www.perkel.com/politics/clinton/accomp.htm

[stewert]

3. GDP..........

I was wrong on the GDP average. The average GDP during the Clinton years was 3.5 percent.

GDP growth during his eight years averaged 3.5 percent per year, second only to the combined Kennedy/Johnson years and ahead of Jimmy Carter and Reagan.

But it was the highest GDP average of any president all the way back to the Kennedy/Johnson administration.

Clinton's two terms in office (1993-2001) were marked by strong numbers for gross domestic product (GDP) and employment growth and especially for deficit reduction. His overall ranking puts him first among the ten postwar presidents — ahead of Lyndon B. Johnson, Kennedy and Reagan, who were tightly grouped behind the 42nd president and recent autobiographer.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5474580/

[papau]

4. As usual the media lies so as to minimize Clinton - it is over 3.6% per yr

Please note that q4 1992 to q4 2000 has a ratio of 9887.7 divided by 7450.7, or 1.3271 and the average GDP growth is the 8th root of this, or over 3.6% per year

http://www.bea.doc.gov/bea/dn/gdplev.xls
Current Dollar Real GDP (in constant year 2000 dollars)
Annual

........"Real"..."chained 2000 dollars so as to remove inflation)

1992 6,337.7 7,336.6
1993 6,657.4 7,532.7
1994 7,072.2 7,835.5
1995 7,397.7 8,031.7
1996 7,816.9 8,328.9
1997 8,304.3 8,703.5
1998 8,747.0 9,066.9
1999 9,268.4 9,470.3
2000 9,817.0 9,817.0
2001 10,128.0 9,890.7
2002 10,487.0 10,074.8
2003 11,004.0 10,381.3

Quarterly

1992q4 6,484.3 7,450.7
1993q1 6,542.7 7,459.7
1993q2 6,612.1 7,497.5
1993q3 6,674.6 7,536.0
1993q4 6,800.2 7,637.4
1994q1 6,911.0 7,715.1
1994q2 7,030.6 7,815.7
1994q3 7,115.1 7,859.5
1994q4 7,232.2 7,951.6
1995q1 7,298.3 7,973.7
1995q2 7,337.7 7,988.0
1995q3 7,432.1 8,053.1
1995q4 7,522.5 8,112.0
1996q1 7,624.1 8,169.2
1996q2 7,776.6 8,303.1
1996q3 7,866.2 8,372.7
1996q4 8,000.4 8,470.6
1997q1 8,113.8 8,536.1
1997q2 8,250.4 8,665.8
1997q3 8,381.9 8,773.7
1997q4 8,471.2 8,838.4
1998q1 8,586.7 8,936.2
1998q2 8,657.9 8,995.3
1998q3 8,789.5 9,098.9
1998q4 8,953.8 9,237.1
1999q1 9,066.6 9,315.5
1999q2 9,174.1 9,392.6
1999q3 9,313.5 9,502.2
1999q4 9,519.5 9,671.1
2000q1 9,629.4 9,695.6
2000q2 9,822.8 9,847.9
2000q3 9,862.1 9,836.6
2000q4 9,953.6 9,887.7
2001q1 10,021.5 9,875.6
2001q2 10,128.9 9,905.9
2001q3 10,135.1 9,871.1
2001q4 10,226.3 9,910.0
2002q1 10,338.2 9,993.5
2002q2 10,445.7 10,052.6
2002q3 10,546.5 10,117.3
2002q4 10,617.5 10,135.9
2003q1 10,744.6 10,184.4
2003q2 10,884.0 10,287.4
2003q3 11,116.7 10,472.8
2003q4 11,270.9 10,580.7
2004q1 11,472.6 10,697.5
2004q2 11,649.3 10,778.0

[papau]

5. Per the above only Q1 2001 was in "recession" - so there was no

recession since you needed two qtrs in a row to call the period a recession.

And Only q1 - 2001 was actually lower GDP that the prior quarter.

[ArkDem]

6. I can tell you this;

22 million news jobs were not created. He was good for the media but not that good.

[TahitiNut]

7. Well ...

... you must carefully define the data you use for GDP, whether current dollars or chained dollars and whether quarterly or annual figures are used.

The mean quarterly growth in the GDP, in current dollars, during the Clinton/Gore administration was 5.6%, seasonally adjusted at annual rates.

The mean quarterly growth in the GDP, in current dollars, since the beginning of the Bush/Cheney madministration is 4.3%, seasonally adjusted at annual rates.

These economic data are most directly obtained from the Bureau of Economic Analysis at
http://www.bea.gov/bea/dn/nipaweb/SelectTable.asp?Popular=Y
referencing "Table 1.1.5. Gross Domestic Product."

---

Likewise, one must carefully define what employment figures are used, whether seasonally adjusted or not, and what employment sector. We typically hear about total "non-farm" employment, seasonally adjusted.

In January 1993, there were 109,725,000 people employed, using seasonally adjusted "non-farm" numbers.
In January 2001, there were 132,388,000 people employed, using seasonally adjusted "non-farm" numbers.
That's an increase of 22,663,000 in the number of people employed during the Clinton/Gore administration.

In June 2004, there were 131,301,000 people employed. That's a decrease of 1,087,000 in the number of people employed during the Bush/Cheney madministration.

That's abysmal!

Employment data can be obtained from the Bureau of Labor Statistics at http://www.bls.gov/webapps/legacy/cesbtab1.htm ("Table B-1. Employees on nonfarm payrolls by industry sector and selected industry detail" is the source of most such comprehensive data.)

[papau]

8. True - but when they give GDP 4th qtr 2001, that is the GDP based on

end of qtr stats for the qtr.

Why would one average the qtr to qtr growth numbers (get a mean) rather than get a compound annual rate of growth for a period?

[TahitiNut]

10. There'd be no meaningful reason ...

... to use some 'compound rate of growth' in lieu of an average quarterly GDP growth rate over some period for comparitive purposes. It's not interest and it's not an investment. It's productivity.

The most substantive (meaningful) difference would be between 'current dollars' and 'chained dollars' where the latter eliminated inflationary factors. Since inflation isn't really substantively different between the Clinton/Gore years and right now, I didn't bother to use those numbers (which I don't usually use for other reasons).

[TahitiNut]

11. Clarification (since a current DU bug stops me from editing) ...

When I say 'substantive difference,' I'm not saying there's not a big difference in the magnitude of the growth percentages ('current' v. 'chained'). There is. But when one is making comparisons between two periods, it's a question of whether the relative magnitudes are substantively different. They're not.

Using chained dollars, the average quarterly GDP growth during the Clinton/Gore years was 0.88%, while it's been 0.68% during the Bush/Cheney years. That reflects a 30% greater GDP growth rate during Clinton/Gore.

Using current dollars (5.6% and 4.3% respectively), we see a 29% greater GDP growth rate during Clinton/Gore.

There's no 'substantive difference' between 29% and 30%.

Furthermore, since the media typically announce the GDP (and growth) in current dollars, it's preferable in this case where there hasn't been a material effect due to any differing inflation rates.

(These are the kinds of considerations one makes, almost unconsciously, when performing conscientious analyses. It's also where opportunists realize the 'liars figure' part of the old aphorism when they can.)

[SiouxJ]

9. I like to send this to my repuke friends when they start

saying stupid things:

http://www.academycomputerservice.com/economics/charts.htm