Quote:
Originally posted by devoid_of_reason
Really just a combination of bad luck and bad timing.
Plus I was probably blindsided by my inexperience (I was 20
at the time).
Interest rates had started a slow rise near the end of the
Carter era. They were high, but manageable. During the
Reagan transition, they spiked at near 21%.
Bob
|
20 will get you. ;-)
Interest rates were about half that when Reagan left office though. Should one judge a "presidential economic figure" by it's average, it's sum, or it's end?
For example, should Clinton get credit for balancing the budget in 1999 or should he get blamed for adding $1.6 trillion to the debt during his administration? Should Reagan be judged by the 81/82 recession or the 82% rise in GDP during his tenure (higher than Clinton's 8 years incidentally which were quite good in their own right).
Seems to me that during most four years stretches and in any eight year period one can find whatever data they wish to justify their particular political position.