RJ, compare the GDP figures, perhaps?

http://www.skymachines.com/US-National-Debt-Per-Capita-Percent-of-GDP-and-by-Presidental-Term.htm

Nice averages: (These are quick looks as I have to get going)
Reagan - 42%
Bush I - 60%
Clinton - 63%
Bush II - 66%
Obama - 95%

I was alive too during the 70s and I remember how tough the job situation was. I guess in my opinion this economy was in a more precarious state because of the near breakdown of the financial system, the unwillingness of banks to extend credit, the trillions of dollars in bad loans, and a housing market that had a huge number of foreclosures to get through before it could get back to normal. The late 70s were bad but I don't think our economy came close to collapse. There also the fact that the world economy has been weak since Obama took office.
Yeah, I thought that 80/20 number was too generous given that Republican presidents since Reagan have spent more than democratic presidents and cut taxes as well. The only argument that Republicans have is that Obama did not reduce spending because he came in with a trillion dollar deficit. Blaming Obama for not decreasing spending when the economy has stayed weak is unfair Republicans criticize Obama for not cutting the deficit but the reality is that if he had done so our economy would have gone into a deep recession.
Brad, why don't you measure this: (1) the average yearly deficit for a president vs the deficit (yearly) that was given him by the prior president. I'm quite sure that Obama and Clinton do far better than Republican presidents since Reagan. The baseline for whether a president is bad with the deficit is the one he started with. Both Reagan and Bush II would get an F, Clinton would get an A, and Obama probably a b plus

Brad, those are not the GDP figures I was looking for. RJ was questioning whether thelate 70s recession was worse than the latest one.

The 73-5 recession lost the USA 2.8% of GDP. The 1980 recession lost 2.7%, and the 1981-2 recession lost 2.7%.

The 2007-9 recession lost 4.1%.

If we look at unemployment, the change from pre-recession to the peak post-recession was:

1973-5: 4.8% to 9.0%, increase of 4.2 points
1980: 6.3% to 7.8%, increase of 1.5 points
1981-2: 7.2% to 10.8%, increase of 3.6 points

2007-9: 5.0% to 10.1%, increase of 5.1 point

The slow recovery from the mid-70s recession, combined with the double-dip of 1980 and 1981-2 made them cumulatively worse (whether Reagan 'inherited' a recession that started in the summer after he took office is a different question). Howeve, the 2007-9 recession is worse than each of them. What is perhaps more worrying is that current global conditions may mean that there is another to come.

Source for data: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R40198.pdf

Thanks ... I also think you have to factor in inflation and interest rates.

Inflation when Reagan took office 11.4% (it went as high as 15% shortly thereafter)
inflation when Obama took office .2% (i.e. less than 1%)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_Hi ... lation.svg

Fed funds rate when Obama took office .25% (i.e. less than 1%)
Fed funds rate when Reagan took office 20%

http://www.newyorkfed.org/markets/stati ... drate.html

I think that for many people the most recent financial collapse is bigger because it is more recent. A lot of people think that 9/11 is the largest atttack ever on the U.S. because they don't recall Pearl Harbor.

However, I recall in the late 70's the general view that capitalism was doomed to high inflation and/or high unemployment. The Phillips Curve was central to our thinking and capitalism's inherent contradictions resulting in dislocation for the rest of time was the establshed position. Inflation was not considered to be solveable without causing a depression. In my mind, Reagan solved that.

I don't recall a similar sort of crisis in 2008/2009, although it was pretty bad and could have been a lot worse, I agree.

RJ - while inflation and interest rates are a factor, it's more what their effect is on the economy that determines the outcome of a recession than whether the recession itself was 'worse'. The point of GDP is that it shows the outcomes.

I agree that high inflation and high inflation rates do make bad times seem worse. And for some it will be far worse than for others. Still,

Clearly, the high interest rates approach to try and deal with the problems of the US economy in the 70s/80s were not helping (but at the same time, monetarist policy that advocated raising interest rates to target inflation was part of the post-Keynesian trend that Reagan was part of).

I think that for many people the most recent financial collapse is bigger because it is more recent. A lot of people think that 9/11 is the largest atttack ever on the U.S. because they don't recall Pearl Harbor.

In terms of deaths, 9/11 was worse than Pearl Harbor. That it was an attack on a civilian target as opposed to a military one is possibly the most shocking aspect of 9/11.

Yes, perspective is difficult. Of course, individual recollections may not be reliable, 30+ years on. My family was in a far worse place in the early 80s than they are now, but that doesn't mean that they were a worse time for everyone, or that the overall economic trend was worse. It may just be that memory is clouded, or that you are more insulated from this one than the previous one, or that it reflects more the overall economic trend of growth and progress (and a more comfortable life for most), rather than how bad the actual recession is.

So far as I've seen, commentators and economists refer to this last recession as the worst since the 1930s. While they may be employing a hackneyed turn of phrase, I tend to think they've got a point.

However, I recall in the late 70's the general view that capitalism was doomed to high inflation and/or high unemployment. The Phillips Curve was central to our thinking and capitalism's inherent contradictions resulting in dislocation for the rest of time was the establshed position. Inflation was not considered to be solveable without causing a depression. In my mind, Reagan solved that.

But the 1981-2 recession was not part of that correction? It certainly hit inflation for 6. And unemployment remained high for the rest of the 80s, only really coming down in time for the early 90s recession.

I don't recall a similar sort of crisis in 2008/2009, although it was pretty bad and could have been a lot worse, I agree.

Well, the crisis was pretty acute, and it was also verging on the fundamental. If banks themselves could not operate, the whole global capitalist market would freeze up (that's what the preceding credit-crunch was about), and suddenly when Lehmans went we saw over the precipice and started to realise that fictitious and unregulated 'instruments' worth more money than was present in the entire world many times over was not an asset but a debt.

An interesting take on what ails the economy--from the Fed's vice- chair!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mobileweb ... rt_related