The Washington Post asked a group of economist/pundit types, including Harvard’s Greg Mankiw, to assess the performance of Obama’s (now separating) economic team.

Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody’s Economy.com, has probably the best-case scenario:

Think back to January 2009, when Obama took office: The financial system was frozen, gross domestic product was in free fall, stock prices had been cut in half, house prices were cratering, and some 750,000 jobs were vanishing each month. Consider what has happened since: The financial system is stable, GDP is expanding, the stock market has recovered half its losses, house prices have risen and private-sector job creation has resumed.

And here’s the worst take, from Douglas Holtz-Eakin, former CBO director and economics adviser to John McCain’s presidential campaign:

President Obama’s brief tenure has featured massive government expansion. Under his vision, the federal government has undertaken unprincipled ownership grabs (Chrysler, GM), supported devastatingly invasive regulation (Waxman-Markey, EPA regulation of carbon) and taken steps to micromanage broadband, health information technology and energy. Unemployment is nearly 10 percent, and growth is under 2 percent. It is a dismal record.

Unprincipled ownership grabs? Devastatingly invasive regulation? Taken steps to micromanage broadband?

I think I’m leaning towards the best-case scenario.