No joke. Read his op-ed calling the bluff of Republicans and Democrats alike who ascribe the President - or the federal government for that matter - with decisive powers over our national economy.
Well said, Alex. The federal government, and thus the President, can certainly set policies that boost or harm the economy. But that ability to tinker on the edges cannot in and of itself create the cycles that ultimately control our economy.
Posted by Eric Earling at April 09, 2008 09:24 PM | Email ThisHah, hah, hah!!!!
You regressives are too damn funny!
So who is it that doesn't take responsibility for when they screw up?
Posted by: progressive on April 9, 2008 09:56 PMKey Labor Market Statistics in 1996 and 2008
March 1996 March 2008
1. U.S. Unemployment Rate
5.5% 5.1%
2. Number of Long-Term Unemployed 1.33 million 1.28 million
3. Average Weeks Unemployed 17.3 weeks 16.2 weeks
4. Median Weeks Unemployed 8.3 weeks 8.1 weeks
5. Not in Labor Force because discouraged over job prospects
451,000 401,000
6. Democrats calling for Extended Unemployment Benefits?
No Yes
7. President’s Party Affiliation Democrat Republican
So, even if you were right, you'd still be wrong.
Posted by: Cliff on April 10, 2008 05:26 AMAll I know is that my net worth dropped 25% in Clinton's last year in office.
However, Alben is right. In the overall scheme of things, Presidents and Congress don't have the immediate effect on the economy.
However, when gas prices plummeted after Iraq I under Bush, it took a couple of years to turn things around and yet, Clinton got the credit for what Bush I did with the interest rates and gas prices. Then, Clinton was blessed with the computer boom. It seems every year, I had to upgrade computers and programs, etc. at a tune of about 50k per year. Most of that money went to Gateway and Bill Gates.
Also, after the Y2K scare and after foreign investors threw their money in the US market (figuring that if something went wrong, it would be safest in the US banks); immediately after Y2K, they could the money out and the economy suffered. Oh, wait, that was at the end of Clinton and the beginning of Bush II.
Bush' tax cuts actually brought money into the coffers as the "rich" Democrats (more of them than Rs today) began to invest their money since they didn't have to pay as much tax on capital gains, so the economy grew.
Presidents and Congress don't have much say in things, though they all like to take credit. I do think the Democrats are contributing to the beating we are taking today as they refuse to address immigration and trade and continue to proliferate bennies to their electorate which can't be sustained.
Posted by: swatter on April 10, 2008 07:41 AMGOP President appoints the fed chief, GOP Congress merely rubber stamps. GOP Congress proposes massive spending increases, GOP President rubber stamps.
During his first six years in office George W. Bush never met a spending bill he didn't like. He only started vetoing bills once the Dem's claimed the majority in congress.
But, the role of the president is usually exaggerated -- whether by unduly blaming or praising.
If the president and members of Congress go too far in one direction or another with their policies, the effect of government on the economy would be more pronounced; but the business cycle would still be the predominant cause of economic growth or lack of it.
I would like to see less exaggerating, but it seems too many people believe a strong leader can give them the economic security they want. So long as the belief in a leader's power prevails, we have to put up with exaggerations.
Posted by: Micajah on April 10, 2008 11:03 AMThis might be true if the President was a dictator and if "running the government" = "running the country".
Neither is true. Therefore, so is your idiotic statement.
Posted by: Cliff on April 10, 2008 01:08 PMThanks for the selected snapshot comparing two years picked totally at random I'm sure. How about something more complete? As Mark Twain said "there are lies, damn lies and then there's statistics.
Ask most people (except of course those favored by Bush's tax cuts and those that work in the defense industry) and they'll say that the economy has been getting worse not better.
Go ahead and keep those blinders on. When the conservatives lose again in the fall feel free to blame it on someone else.
Above all don't look in the mirror!
Posted by: progressive on April 10, 2008 01:09 PMIf you had a brain in your head, you'd realize the years aren't random at all. They were the last time a Democrat was running for re-election based on good economic numbers, and this year, when Democrats are running to get power based on supposedly bad economic numbers.
But you don't have a brain in your head, so that was too much for you.
How about something more complete? As Mark Twain said "there are lies, damn lies and then there's statistics.
: sigh : as expected, "I don't like your facts, so I say they are invalid even though I have no factual reason to believe they are false."
It is easy to lie with statistics. Which is why Al Gore wanted to use statistics instead of head-counting for the 2000 census. But that doesn't mean that all statistics are a lie. Things like unemployment numbers are pretty reliable and widely accepted.
You're probably right that the economy is getting worse right now. So what? That's the nature of the economy. It goes up and down. Cycles are inevitable and the President has only a small amount of real influence on it. That's exactly the point of Alex Alben (Former Democratic Candidate for Congress, in case you didn't know) was trying to make.
It's especially easy for the economy to "get worse" when it had been at peak performance for several years. Until just recently, many economists considered it impossible for the employment rate to be under 5%. It's been below that for most of Bush's term in office.
If you are going to hold him responsible for the supposed "bad" economy now, you also have to give him credit for the historically great economy during most of his term.
Of course, he didn't create the economy, for good or bad. He probably did less to screw it up then a Democrat would have, but it's hardly his creation. But if it is his creation, you've got to be consistent.
But you and I both know that consistency to a liberal isn't as important as ideology, which basically is just power to themselves.
Posted by: Cliff on April 10, 2008 01:23 PMIt has zero effect.
So lets cut taxes even more.
I propose a maximum 10% income tax on people making under $100,000.
The best way to help our country is to remove government...not enhance it.
During the Clinton era, sometimes I used to ask people why they liked him, and usually they would answer that "the economy is good." Then I would ask what he had done to make it so; invariably they were dumbfounded.
The only thing Alben left out of his piece was the wellspring of this magical thinking: the mainstream media, especially the nightly news, the top of the hour broadcasts, and the front pages of newspapers.
Posted by: russell garrard on April 10, 2008 06:26 PMSo then was Jimmy Carter was a great President since he obviously had no control over the economy. Regan was clearly a man who got lucky during his Presidency since the economy improved.
You misunderstand. It IS possible for The President to f$%k up the economy, he just can't make it better when it goes through its natural cycles.
Anyhow, the bad economic times wouldn't have went away without Carter, but they wouldn't have stayed around as long either. Reagan was not the cause of the good economy, he just removed the artificial breaks Carter and liberals with the capitulation of Nixon and Ford had put on it and let it take it's natural course.
Yet again, Cato, you show yourself to be an intellectual lightweight.
Reagan was lucky to be president during the micro-electronics revolution of the 80's, but he gets credit for getting out of the way. I recall that when PCs first came out, Germans had problems getting modems because of regulations that banned the use of non-approved phone-system equipment. The French self-stagnated their electronics industry by undertaking a nationally designed microcomputer project. No such problems under Reagan--he got out of the way.
Posted by: russell garrard on April 11, 2008 06:21 PMSo why is President Bush letting the broadband revolution pass us by? It seems like there is no economic incentive for companies to connect fiber to American homes.