Bulls Bears and the Ballot Box: How the Performance of OUR Presidents Has Impacted YOUR Wallet

A couple of years ago, Michael Kanell of the Atlanta Journal Constitution and I wrote a book called  Presimetrics: What the Facts Tell Us About How the Presidents Measure Up On the Issues We Care About . In it, we looked at how Presidents did on a wide range of issues - everything from abortions to the national debt. We measured performance the same way for every issue - looking at how things changed from right before an administration took office to right before it left office, and in each case, we got the data from the most objective source available. Our approach was imperfect, but by maintaining consistency in how we approached each issue, we tried to be as unbiased as possible. And on many issues, we found that Presidents did well tended to follow similar policies to other Presidents that did well on the same issues, and likewise, the Presidents who did poorly on the issues also tended to have similar policies to other Presidents who did poorly on the issues.The book got virtually no press so almost nobody ever heard of it, and it didn't sell all that well, which is obviously too bad for both me and Michael Kanell. But what I think is too bad for most Americans is that the notion of trying to put an objective measure on the performance of our politicians hasn't caught on. Sure, there are the various "think tanks" purporting to do just that, but they seem to start with a conclusion and work their way backward to justify that conclusion. I find that sort of thing less than useful.As a result, I was extremely pleased with Bulls Bears and the Ballot Box: How the Performance of OUR Presidents Has Impacted YOUR Wallet by BobDeitrick and Lew Goldfarb. Its an easy, interesting and informative read. It ranks Presidents on their economic performance (from the perspective of the national economy, individuals' wealth, and business prosperity), and then comes up with an overall ranking.The rankings produced by Deitrick and Goldfarb in Bulls Bears and the Ballot Box come out a bit different from those Michael Kanell and I produced in Presimetrics as they don't use all of the same measures we employ (and vice versa), but the conclusions they reach aren't that different. Provided you aren't deliberately torturing it, on average the data says what the data says. It may seem biased if you don't like what it says, but it is fairly easy for someone with an open mind to whether someone is simply pushing an agenda or simply reporting information. Whether or not you read Presimetrics, I heartily recommend Bulls Bears and the Ballot Box. The world will be very different if we start following the spirit of books like this and making an effort to measure the performance of our leaders as objectively as possible... and then holding our leaders accountable for their performance or lack thereof.

The very first thing that the authors state is that this is an impartial book: this is not entirely true, as they certainly seem to favor those they felt were most responsible for the United State's economic success. However, this favor was not divided by party-lines: they speak glowingly of both Democrats and Republicans at one point or another, and they wisely avoid any sort of partisan issues.This book is dedicated to one simple review: the economic record of the Presidents since Hoover took office. While acknowledging that the President alone is not responsible for economic policy (or failure/success), the authors argue that, like a CEO, the President's job is to direct economic policy, working with Congress and business leaders to make this possible. Therefore, while it's true a President is not an economic dictator, one of their qualifications is if they were able to work with Congress to make things happen (ie, they were a Statesman), or they refused to buckle on ideological issues (they were partisan), the latter of which almost always has an abysmal record.The authors created their own meta-metrics for measuring a president's economic success and ability. They simplify these in various ways, my personal favorite being the value-after-the term: they do the math to determine, if a person invested $100,000 in various savings/retirement accounts, what they would be worth after the term ended; while almost all these increase, the degree to which they increase (and under which presidents) would likely surprise most people.Overall, the authors do a good job of simplifying economics (from my point of view) into a form that is easily readable and understandable so that someone who, having only general knowledge, is get their head around the metrics and systems used to measure economic success.Overall, I'd recommend the book to any fringe/moderate voters who are looking to get a quick, condensed economic history. I agree with the authors on one major point: nothing else affects the entire population as strongly as the economic health of the country.Also, please note: this book was finalized and sent for publishing around 2011, before President Obama was reelected or finished his first term. As such, while they make some estimates on his ability, they refuse to draw conclusions, just as they do for several other presidents who did not finish a full term.