Hi tkc,
Be careful of using stock markets as a mirror of economic performance.
Coolidge looks like the best of all. But it was surely his bubble that created the Hoover bust.
Clinton's performance also rests on top of the internet bubble which really had nothing to do with his policies.
Wilson had a strong first term in terms of stock market performance, but his second term looks poor, until you remember it contains WW1 and the post WW1 economic issues associated with it.
Obama reversed the stock market almost immediately but his policies took longer to have a positive effect (or rather the rate of decline slowed quickly but it took some time for the economy to turn positive). As any sentient being knows, his unemployment and GDP stats are weaker than average because he inherited such an awful mess. But compare his first term with Hoover's (which is the best comparison) and you see that Obama scored a relatively stellar performance.
Economic performance and stock market performance are different beasts.
But I think one thing is clear. The two catastrophic bubbles and crashes (1929 and 2008 ) followed from small government/ deregulation/ supply side economics/ excessive private borrowing against poor quality collateral. And the two recoveries show that government intervention/ regulation/ qe works reasonably well - at least from a stock market viewpoint - when markets (and financial institutions) fail catastrophically.
Amazing that folks don't learn the lesson.
| 