Is it possible that the economy is simply in the upward portion of

[livinontheedge]

the normal, recurring business cycle? Doubtless, presidents can effect the economy at the margins, say 10-15%. The rest of the economy's main force is usually supplied by factors well outside a president's control. Business cycles come and go. But a recession is ALWAYS followed by an expansion. Always. So, why should we give Bush credit for an expansion that he had at most 10% to 15% to do with?

[mmonk]

1. Yes

and they will work around the edges to make sure the numbers are heading up enough to soothe any worried voters. That is what we will be up against unless something unforeseen occurs.

[Yupster]

2. Of course you are right

Presidents have much less to do with the economy than people give them credit for, but that's always been the rules. You get credit when the economy is good and blamed when it's bad.

[3CardMonte]

3. No doubt

Presidents have little influence on the economy compared to what people perceive their ability to influence to be.

They have far greater ability to do harm though than they do to do good.

[Nederland]

4. I've always said this

The only problem is that it also implies that you can't give Clinton credit for the boom years. Say this on DU and you get flamed. In any case, I've always thought that Presidents get way too much credit when things go good, and way too much blame when things go bad.

[papau]

5. Clinton with the tax increase increased growth 1/2 to 1 percent per year

in contrast to Bushes tax cuts decreasing growth by the same - so yes- the normal demand/build/adsorb cycle continues no matter what the Pres does - but the "at the margins" is exactly what "growth" is all about.

[Nederland]

6. Are you saying...

...that the Clinton tax increase was responsible for the growth and the Bush tax cut is responsible for the recession?

[gasperc]

7. his overall economic policies that his team has pushed for 3 years have

His impact is substantial and accumulates year by year, the first year, no, he hardly had much impact but now after three years. The effects are there, huge deficits, erraitic job creation, revenue pressures in cities throughout the country. All forced by a philosophy and policy that Bush's team has pushed for over three years now!!!!!!!

[Nederland]

8. Question

I would agree with this, but then you have to explain what caused the recession. The recession started in March of 2001--two months after Bush took office and before absolutely anything he did took effect. I would say that the recession was merely a natural business cycle reaction to the previous years of a wildly over optimistic growth bubble. What do you think?

[Capn Sunshine]

11. It was a direct result of credit tightening in Nov. 00

which was brought about by a crash in confidence when * was appointed.

In that sense, yes, he had an effect on the markets, even before he was put in there. It didn't take long to realize our worst fears about him were right, and sentiment indexes plunged.

Whether or not we were due for a cyclic recession is not the issue; its all about the response; and here Bush failed everyone but the upper 1% ,who were investing in any war manufacturing.

Gore was far superior in his economic knowlege and never would have allowed California, the main engine of the national economy, to be pillaged by energy companies like Bush did.He probably would also have ordered massive hardware for the Govt. which would have staved off a crash in Silicon Valley. The one action of spitefully ignoring California pretty much guaranteed a long deep recession, unlike the soft landings we saw engineered in the cycle under Clinton.

[Nederland]

15. Wrong

I think you have that backwards. There was no credit tightening in Nov 2000, there was a dramatic loosening of credit. In November of 2000 the prime interest rate was 9.5%. Since then its gone nowhere but down, and today it is a historic low of 4%.

Source: http://www.economagic.com/em-cgi/data.exe/fedstl/mprime+2

[progressivejazz]

9. To answer your question, I suppose it's possible.

But it has never been demonstrated that presidents can effect the economy only at the margins.

But it has been assumed by many, including you in this post, and others on this thread.

My question to people who believe this is "Then why not go back to the tax structure we had before Reagan? His tax cuts for the rich and the corporations didn't do anything much for the economy, according to you. So why not repeal them?"

[livinontheedge]

10. I can't answer that. It just seems that we give presidents too much

credit when things go good, and too much blame when things go bad. One thing I'm sure about though is that long term deficits will ultimately slow growth. I'm also sure that you can stimulate the economy short-term with tax reductions and massive deficit spending, which is what Bush is doing. But at the end of the day, I believe the economy is in fact in the upward portion of the business cycle and Bush will get credit, even though it was going to happen with him or without him.

[denverbill]

12. Don't buy the hype.

Generally speaking, President's don't have much influence.

However, driving the country into bankruptcy I will guarantee will have much greater than 10-15% impact on the economy. $100 billion tax cut here or tax increase there may only have a 10-15% impact, but eroding the value of the dollar and driving up interest rates could have an ENORMOUS impact, not just on the US, but on the world economy.

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[leftofthedial]

14. using their logic, this would be the Clinton Expansion

I bleieve Presidents can have a marginal upside impact on the economy, but they can have a much more profound negative effect. Their role is to set a tone for the country, and to drive the policies that create a place where the economy can prosper.

These economic cycles are not "natural" either. They are an artifact of our schizophrenic political system, where every 4 years half the country is motivated to attack the current state of the economy, and every 4 to 12 years, we radically shift the political climate. It's like we change the rules every few years. and in the last 25 years, the pendulum is swinging farther and farther to the extremes because of the neocons extremis RW positions on all issues.

[Stupdworld]

16. armchair economy

by the same logic, why give clinton the same credit? or why blame bush for the recession?

i dont credit a president with too much impact on the economy, absent war. i think the role of the fed plays a larger part, coupled with the trends of the market (moving from specialization to specialization)

/armchair economist

[HotAndSpicy]

17. Would make a great name

Armchair Economist would have made a great screen name. To bad I didn't see your post until after signing up.