I was wondering, if any party can simply blame an economic crisis or recession on the previous party's administration, does that mean that when an economy is booming, it's due to the party beforehand? I want consistency and accountability dammit
Its called Capitalism... There will be dips. There will be highs. No Republican or Democrat as President is going to change that. People Seriously overvalue the influence of the President.
A president can worsen or soften recessions during a business cycle MARGINALLY. The majority of the heavy lifting is from the business cycle itself. That being said creating temporary government jobs and public works projects to stimulate the economy again does work. However, in the grand scheme of things its ridiculous to blame a president or give credit to a president for something as broad as the US economy.
Instead of trying to come with some kind of silly rule, perhaps it would be more effective to actually look at what a given President and how that affected the economy.
The President can only do so much. This is what the the Federal Government can do in very general terms. There are two types of policy that the federal government has control over. Fiscal and monetary. Fiscal is the budget. Congress and the President can try lowering taxes and increase spending to stimulate the economy. They can also increase regulation in order to prevent market failure. Both the President AND Congress have to sign off on fiscal policy legislation. So if you believe your taxes are too high or government is spending too much blaming just the President is silly. Monetary policy is the Federal Reserve deciding what interest rates should be and how much money to print. General line of thinking - Lower interests = increase economic growth... Problem is having interest rates low for a long periods of time which can result in inflation. That is a very GENERAL overview of the influence government has on the economy. Everything else is free market and speculation.
Actually Keynesian economics is about doing just that. The governments role is to smooth out the peaks and valleys that are inherent in the economic cycle. The government is supposed to push spending and cash into the economy when things are bad and "take out" money when things are getting too hot. Unfortunately, the government did the opposite during the mid 2000's. They made interest rates really low, cut taxes, and spent lots of deficit money which caused the bubble that we are still recovering from.
upswing? Don't confuse the stock market with the economy. The stock market the past 3 years has been fueled by unsustainable debt. The unemployment rate is still a national disgrace, and that's not even counting all the people who have dropped out of the labor pool (an even bigger disgrace).
http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showthread.php?t=162333 when are we gonna see the market response to Obama part 2? LOL
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/RTbnWB_lvp4" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe> :grin:
so disingenuous from NS 1) timeframe 2) Obama has cowardly chosen the "quick-fix" of having the Fed load up the balance sheet to fuel the stock market. Rolling up his sleeves and collaborating with congress to address our fiscal issues is too much work for Obama. He's not willing to put in the effort.
Well some presidents do stupid things to the economy such as supply side or economics "voodoo economics" as Bush I called that failed theory in which they give large tax cuts primarily to the wealthy and run up huge deficits, and stall out the economy when the 99% don't have money to spend. These presidents should be blamed for their policies. Others follow more sensible proven economic policies and should be praised. A bit more complicated, but if you think about it, there is "consistency and accountability" to blame poor policies and prasie better policies.
That sage bush looks suspicious! This salvia bush is practically eating the flowers! These bushes have assumed human form and are likely very dangerous....
