----- Original Message ----- From: "Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, January 18, 2004 4:50 AM Subject: Re: One bit of ecconomic data
> On Sat, Jan 17, 2004 at 11:35:26PM -0600, Dan Minette wrote: > > > One final proposition. I'll be willing to look at the best 8 years > > of the 14 of Reagan-Bush I & II (we don't have data for '03) and > > compare then to Clinton's 8 years. I bet that I will see significant > > differences in the distribution of economic growth. I'll pick the > > best 8 years as the 8 years with the greatest growth. I'd call that > > bending over backwards to give Reagan and Bush a fair shake. > > Sounds interesting. I'd like to see that analysis! As a first step, let me give the years I picked for Reagan, Bush^2 as well as the total growth during that time compared to Clinton The years I picked as the best are 83-89 and 92. I simply ordered the years in terms of GDP and picked the top 8. Total growth during those 8 years was 38.1%. Total growth during Clinton's 8 years was 34.1%. So, by cherry picking the best years of growth under Reagan Bush^2, I have gotten a span that is slightly better, overall, than Clinton's years. I think this will be a more than fair basis for my analysis. Comments are welcome, of course. Indeed, I'd like suggestions for doing things before I go through the work so I can incorporate good suggestions into my technique. But, if people want to wait and then do it their own way, that's cool too. Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
