| noname2200 said: I've always thought holding a president responsible for an economy's failure or success is largely akin to older cultures lynching the village leader for a poor harvest or worshiping him for a great one. But maybe that's just me. |
Economies are really big and really complex, but the state, through law, policy and expenditure, exerts more control over it than other single entity. A single bill can create or destroy a monopoly, or shift a trillion dollars worth of supply or demand around.
In the 19th century, economies were as capricious as the weather, but we learned a lot about controlling and stabilizing economies in the first half of the twentieth century. Look at this list of banking crises and note how over the course of the 19th century, every ten years either the US or the UK or both would have a meltdown. Since the second world war, economic crises have become less frequent and less severe. That's thanks to central banks, welfare states, Keynes, and other lessons learned.
Managing an economy is far from easy, but it isn't impossible either, so leaders need to be held responsible for their performance. Not just the head of state, but a lot of other public officials and influential private actors. The argument that "Well, nobody can really be expected to manage the economy" is an argument for the laissez-faire boom and bust economics of the 19th century.
"The worst part about these reviews is they are [subjective]--and their scores often depend on how drunk you got the media at a Street Fighter event." — Mona Hamilton, Capcom Senior VP of Marketing
*Image indefinitely borrowed from BrainBoxLtd without his consent.
