Paul Krugman today:
For people who say that Americans care about the level of prices, not the inflation rate, note that cumulative inflation under Biden so far is close to the number under Reagan. Which is why Reagan lost the 84 election in a landslide. Oh, wait pic.twitter.com/KhThKZOZ3A
— Paul Krugman (@paulkrugman) January 20, 2024
I get that Krugman is being careful here, talking about the cumulative price level rather than the inflation rate, but it's still misleading. It also happens to be a pet peeve of mine, so here's a chart showing the inflation rate under Reagan and Biden:
The difference is obvious. Under Reagan, the inflation rate peaked before he entered office and then declined steadily. Nobody blamed him for inflation, but they did give him credit for three years of consecutive decline amounting to a whopping 10 percentage points.
Biden's term has been completely different: inflation peaked a year into his presidency and has been under 4% for only a few months. People do blame him for sparking inflation, and the slowdown is still too recent for him to get much credit for the recent 5-point decline.
The only reason I bring this up is because of an annoyingly common media criticism: Why does [my guy] not get the same credit as [their guy] even though [economic indicator] is the same for both?
The answer is tediously obvious: even if some economic indicator is identical between two presidents, it makes a big difference whether it's going up or down. A year into their presidencies, Reagan and Biden were both presiding over 8% inflation. But for Reagan that was a big drop while for Biden it was a big increase.
POSTSCRIPT: A different question is whether Reagan should have gotten credit for declining inflation and whether Biden should have gotten blame for rising inflation. The answer is pretty simple: Reagan had nothing to do with slowing inflation (it was all Paul Volcker and tight monetary policy) and Biden had only a little to do with rising inflation (it was the pandemic and government stimulus—almost all of which predated Biden). Neither man should have gotten much credit or blame.
POSTSCRIPT 2: It's instructive to take a look at another metric: the unemployment rate. Here it is:
In this case, unemployment rose sharply under Reagan and dropped only late in his first term. By contrast, it came down steadily under Biden and has been at a very low level for two years already.
And yet, the same dynamic seems to have played out: Reagan got credit for bringing down unemployment (which was still above 7% when he ran for reelection) while Biden seems to have gotten almost no credit for historically low unemployment.
What's going on here? My longstanding guess has been simple: Reagan ran for office on a very loud and persistent platform that promoted supply-side economics and tax cuts as a cure for the economy. When the economy did finally improve, the conservative press crowed and everyone was primed to believe that Reagan's policies were responsible.
Democrats in general—and Biden specifically—don't do this. Nor does the liberal press play along with partisan pretenses nearly as much. As a result, the public isn't primed to believe that there was any plan in the first place, so if and when the economy improves Democrats get little credit.
Postscript 2 contradicts the original post and appears much closer to explaining the reality we exist in. The metrics dont really matter, its the messaging and the way the media chooses to present things to the public.
Regarding the messaging, I'd suggest this:
Reagan was a highly talented political salesman. At this point, Biden seems to be barely capable of representing himself in public.
In my view, Trump is almost surely clinically crazy, but journalists have a rule according to which such things can't be discussed. In my view, he's almost totally disordered, but millions of people don't read him that way, and he's spectacularly energetic at singing his songs of self.
For people who don't read him as nuts, he's a very good salesman too. Reagan and Trump were both strong salesmen. Biden rarely appears in public and creates no energetic pushback.
Presidents Obama and Clinton were highly skilled too That's how they got re-elected.
Bob, I just don't know what world you live in. I have long respected you, but sometimes ... SMH.
Obama was elected because the economy was in free-fall. He was re-elected because incumbents usually win and Romney wasn't a good candidate. I love Obama, but his political legacy is Trump.
"Liberals" have adopted a worldview / religion of Doom. (climate change, AI, student debt, housing prices, etc.) If Democrats "approved" of Biden at the same rate as Rs and TFG, Biden would be popular.
And, of course, the constant messaging that Rs are better at "the economy." Pushed, of course, by people who want tax cuts.
I rarely agree with Mr. Somerby but I do agree with him here and so I feel compelled to say so. In Obama’s case I think that’s mostly how he got elected but he seemed to lose it on his second election and won, basically, because he was the incumbent as you say.
I think it's all media, media, and media. In the 80s, there was no right-wing talk radio or Fox News. We had basically the same mainstream media we have now, but today they are cowed by their right-wing competitors into proving -- day in and day out -- that they have no "liberal bias."
Of course, to no avail.
Until these last 2 years, the watchword in Washington has always been "jobs, jobs, jobs." But for some reason, "jobs" became irrelevant for Biden. Perhaps because if the media were to emphasize the spectacular employment numbers under Biden, they would "be accused" of bias.
Which, of course, they will be regardless.
I'm still suspicious of any numbers like YoY consumer price index or other measures of "inflation" anywhere around the pandemic. There was a collapse of activity for a while, for good reason, and then there were the very real supply-chain problems, and they both took a good long while to work through the system -- and longer still if you're considering YoY measures.
Somebody starts yammering about YoY "inflation" in 2021 or 2022, and I just roll my eyes.
Republicans have a better PR machine it seems time and again. They keep on peddling ‘everything they do’ whereas the Dems in recent history actually achieving something give themselves zero credit. Clinton, Obama, Biden cleaning up after HW Bush, Dubya, and Trump messes
Dems have crappy messaging 🤷♂️
I would disagree that Reagan doesn't deserve credit for taming inflation. We'd been following an inflationary path for two decades. Everyone knew what needed to be done but no one wanted to do it because it would spark a severe, if short-lived recession. This is exactly what happened and Reagan's approval numbers dipped into the teens (this was back when approval numbers tracked performance, not partisanship). It was Volker's actions, but having support from the President was a big help.
Same with Biden. The Fed has gotten inflation under control (plus some of it is just putting the pandemic in the rearview mirror). But having political support from the President is key. Trump pressured the Fed to keep interest rates low even when the economy was good which was ... suboptimal.
Yes, Reagan definitely deserves credit for letting Volcker finish the task. Reagan could have asked for his resignation, though also theoretically Volckert could have declined. So kudos to RR for staying the course. He and Greenspan also improved the finances of Social Security and Medicare, to their credit.
But the biggest propellant for Reagan's 1984 victory was that Viet Nam just got quiet and faded into memory. We really did not have any big "hot wars" during his first term, and voters were grateful for it.
carter installed volcker in 1979 and reagan didn't take office until 1981
carter stood by volcker even though his policies pushed unemployment to 7.5% by late 1980, most likely costing him the election
Agreed. Carter is the most under-rated President of my lifetime. And I say that as a conservative ... ish. Kinda.
Why didn't you do the chart with your customary annualized rate of inflation?
> Reagan had nothing to do with slowing inflation (it was all Paul Volcker and tight monetary policy)
This ignores rising worldwide oil production capacity. High interest rates had a slowing effect on investment in oil production and technologies to use oil more efficiently, but ultimately, those investments were what forced Saudi Arabia to open its pipes.
Of course the GOP will lie about anything and the Media rarely calls them on it. In general, the Dems tell the truth or certainly much closer.
Here is a big difference in Reagan and Biden. Unemployment late in Reagan's first term was terrible. There were no jobs, especially for new graduates. I know because I was one of them in Dec 1983. You couldn't even get an interview. I had a new degree in computer science and there was nothing out there.
I've noticed on Nextdoor that everytime someone mentions the good unemployment numbers, there is someone else promptly pointing out that the workforce participation rate is high, and a third person claiming that any unemployment is too much unemployment. Not always the same people.
Uhh....that should read "workforce participation rate is low."