Even post-WW1 1919-1966, it went up by roughly the same as post-civil war, 2.2x - and that period includes a depression and heavy income taxes.

Given how much easier it is to double a small economy than a large one, the fact post-WW2 period beat it is doubly impressive.

Also one should note there was actually an income tax from 1861-1872.

* Using Maddison Project estimates of real GDP

Down into the noise on a winner, I think I'll take the one with much lower taxes and far lower incarceration rate as my preferred template to break the tie.

As I stated, it is much easier to double growth when you're small and ultimately, growth rate doesn't matter as you can't spend growth rates. Nominal growth matters. The economy increasing by $5.5k per capita (2011 $) in the period after the civil war is a lot less impressive than increasing by $23k after WW2.

That is also the time period of the Labor wars. Those with money and power were miss-treating the average worker. Again goes against the health, well-being, and wealth of the US citizens. [1]

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thalidomide_scandal [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_violence_in_the_United_S...

Part of the hilarious hypocrisy of the modern Republican Party is that they long for the glory days of the 1950s...but are completely opposed to the tax policy required to pay for it or the economic and social policies to implement it.

I think these particular people would be happy to forego all economic progress made in the last 70 years if it meant they could return to a time when being male, white, straight, and Christian was all it took to be at the top of the social order.