I will hereby admit two things:
I am bad at math;
I don't know (or care to know) much about the science of economics, largely because I think it's still in the state that astronomy was when we thought the world was flat.
That admitted, in the interest of broadening my knowledge or thought on the topic, I'd like to open a discussion that I had with my good buddy Adam about the role of the President in economic matters.
One thing that seems self-evident is that Presidents and their parties like to take credit when the economy is good, and shun blame when it is bad. For example: by most measuring sticks, the economy was good under Clinton. In the 2000 campaign, W attributed the economic good times to the "ingenuity and hard work and entrepreneurship" of the American people. This was a pretty smart move: what was Gore to do? Take credit for his administration's economic stimulus, and snub the American people by saying all their ingenuity and hard work didn't matter? (Typically, Gore tried to do both, which made him sound weak on the administration's role, and condescending to the role of the people, but that's a side note.)
Does the Office of the President have enough control over the economy to justify campaigning on the issue? George W. Bush made his economic platform a heavy component of his campaign (and boldly, given Clinton's record): some good stuff on Issues 2000. One of my favorite quotes:
Q: Let's suppose that the projected surpluses in your tax plan fail to materialize in full or in part. What part of your tax package gets dropped first?A: I refuse to accept the premise that surpluses are going to decline if I'm the president. I think they're going to increase, because my plan will increase productivity by cutting marginal rates.
(In case you didn't know, the United States government is currently engaged in heavy deficit spending. Somehow, that surplus failed to materialize, despite increasing government spending while simultaneously cutting government income. Isn't that weird? This guy has a business degree. A Masters. From Harvard.)
Don't let my cynicism about Bush skew the question, though: Gore made his economic proposals a heavy component of his campaign platform as well. The question is this: does the President have enough control over the economy--via appointments, tax plans, budgetary decisions, other legislation, psychology, whatever you can come up with--that he should be held accountable and responsible for economic developments, be they good or bad? Can we reasonably credit the President when the economy is up? Can we reasonably blame him when it's down? And most important (remember, I'm largely ignorant on the topic): why?
Posted by Chris at November 7, 2003 11:10 PM | TrackBackI would say (and to some degree I'm guessing) that a president does have influence particularly when there is war. Overall though (particularly excepting the war aspects) I'd have to say that I don't believe that the president alone has enough influence to take complete (although surely some)credit or blame. Firstly you've got to consider the nature of our monetary and economic system (mixed economy, debt based money, Greenspan). Plus you've then got to consider all of the legislative branches of government- while president certainly has the power of veto- he does not have the power of passing law (don't get me started on 'executive orders') so while he may ask or advise the legislative branch to do this or that- he can not force them to do so and therby much responsibility falls on them for either passing budgets or mandating this or that that will cost money. (I'm still pissed at them for passing the No Stupid Child Left Behind act- more or less without reading it.)
Also- I should add that while I have no real idea (and I intend to research it at my leisure) what kind of effect/power insurance companies have on the economy. I've always sort of viewed/suspected them as fairly quiet powerful silent partners in the economic picture. Partly because of the vast amount of money they are dealing with, partly because I find it suspect that they are able to have it mandated that people use their services. That's just my paranoid theory though.
Posted by: Dana at November 8, 2003 08:54 AMyou said: Bad at math.
Didn't Penn and Teller once do a commercial for Las Vegas and refer to it as a monument to people that were bad at math? it cracked me up.
Posted by: Dana at November 8, 2003 08:56 AMLife insurance alone represents a $3,440,000,000,000 industry. That kind of money has to have some pull. This page has some good stuff.
Yes, Vegas is my monument.
Posted by: Chris at November 8, 2003 09:13 AMI too am very bad a math. And have never taken even a basic economics class. (just as Talking Barbie always said: "Math class is hard!" "Let's go shopping!")
But I'll admit one of my reasons for voting for Gore was an interview I saw with him somewhere (maybe MTV? I'm really not sure at all) where someone asked him the question of what would be the first thing he'd do as president if Alan Greenspan died. Al's response? Something along the lines of "Heck, I'd prop him up like Weekend at Bernie's"
That sums up my own understanding of market forces pretty well. As long as everyone believes things are fine, things will keep on being fine.
Posted by: mickey at November 9, 2003 10:24 PM