By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
spaceguy on 02 October 2012
Edit Thread
noname2200 said:
famousringo said:
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.

I understand that argument, which is why I think it's fine to say (hypothethically) "Obama's stimulus package alleviated/worsened the economic crisis," or "the new regulations Obama pushed through the Congress are a hindrance/help to America's economy." That's dandy.

What causes me to raise an eyebrow is holding a single man responsible for how the entire economy pans out, which is precisely what some folks try to do. We're in a republic, after all, a system that by design prevents any individual from gaining excess political power. "Is the economy better for you today than it was four years ago?", and then holding one political figure responsible for the answer either way, is a fallacious argument at best. This goes double when the opposition has a majority in one of the legislative houses, and when the actions of previous administrations (good and bad) continue to play out during the current one.

Someone wants to break down how the current president's actions affected the economy, be my guest. But few do that, because it's a sisyphean task.

With out stimulas we would be in bread lines bro. The stock market was at 6.5 is now 13.5. We have stopped from losing 800,000 jobs a month to  

Oh yea republican congress has blocked all jobs bills and doesn't want to raise tax's. So there you go.