« previous   elections   next »

Economy was no.1 issue for elections.


By chanakya4773   Follow   Thu, 8 Nov 2012, 1:04pm PST   1,125 views   16 comments   Watch (0)   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

Almost all economists agree that economic booms and busts are independent of what presidents do during their tenure.I agree that there is "long term" effect on countries growth due to economic policies/wars but nobody can show even one example of short term economic growth in recent years due to white house.
Why do we then keep banging our head on the economy during presidential elections ?
The only org which can remotely effect economy is the FED and even that is not under govt control. I looked back at all recessions and could not find even one recession which was caused by the "ruling" president at that time.Almost all were the result of excess money, speculation and lax regulations.

should we not focus on long term economic policies during elections rather than whats going on today.

Comments 1-16 of 16     Last »

mell   befriend   ignore   Thu, 8 Nov 2012, 2:01pm PST   Share   Quote   Like (1)   Dislike     Comment 1

What?? How about congress and the prez get the wheels in motion to strip the FED of all their powers AKA printing press and put them behind bars for counterfeiting? That's how govt could "effect" the economy for the better and put the country back on track by starting to reduce the deficit (the principal that is, not just its growth).

thomaswong.1986   befriend   ignore   Thu, 8 Nov 2012, 2:49pm PST   Share   Quote   Like (1)   Dislike     Comment 2

chanakya4773 says

Economy was no.1 issue for elections.

well.. yes.. "was" is the operative word here...

but it turned out more about contraceptives, you tube videos, someones tax return, and big bird.. things that sell well over TV.

mell   befriend   ignore   Thu, 8 Nov 2012, 3:07pm PST   Share   Quote   Like   Dislike     Comment 3

chanakya4773 says

mell says

What?? How about congress and the prez get the wheels in motion to strip the FED of all their powers AKA printing press and put them behind bars for counterfeiting? That's how govt could "effect" the economy for the better and put the country back on track by starting to reduce the deficit (the principal that is, not just its growth).

The power to FED was given many decades back ( in 50's). no change there after

True, so we should start taking that power back and abolish any forms of counterfeiting, such as printing money/injecting credit and fractional reserve lending.

mell   befriend   ignore   Thu, 8 Nov 2012, 3:32pm PST   Share   Quote   Like   Dislike     Comment 4

chanakya4773 says

I agree that fractional reserve system comes with its evil but it also has its own merits. if gold is the only reserve currency , who ever holds gold will hold the capital (which is even worst). today, atleast the super wealthy cannot hold capital as hostage since i can always get money from the bank for cheap.imagine if all the gold is hoarded during a crisis, what will happen to common man. Also if somebody wants to start a bussiness , they are at the mercy of the gold holder.

Yeah, doesn't have to be the gold standard for the reasons you mentioned although I am not sure how real that threat is if anybody is free to amass gold. But how about every dollar lent must be backed by 1 dollar of asset capital, no (further) leverage allowed?

Bellingham Bill   befriend   ignore   Fri, 9 Nov 2012, 12:08am PST   Share   Quote   Like   Dislike     Comment 5

why should asset values "collapse" in a well-regulated system.

Part of that regulation has to be eliminating speculation on borrowed money, especially in land.

I don't particularly care how this would be accomplished, but I think the land value tax would be pretty good at that, since theoretically it pushes (tax-burdened) land values to zero, LOL.

iwog   befriend   ignore   Fri, 9 Nov 2012, 12:13am PST   Share   Quote   Like   Dislike     Comment 6

chanakya4773 says

The only org which can remotely effect economy is the FED and even that is not under govt control.

I don't agree with this. FDR turned the economy around on a dime and created a V shaped recovery with an inflection point at the exact moment of his inauguration. (unemployment recovery always lags) It's fed policy that is almost always overrated.

Obama can have a positive effect on the economy by insisting on a return to progressive taxes.

Bellingham Bill   befriend   ignore   Fri, 9 Nov 2012, 1:03am PST   Share   Quote   Like   Dislike     Comment 7

iwog says

by insisting on a return to progressive taxes.

by holding his breath until Boehner caves?

Pelosi needs ~20 defectors from the Republican caucus to break the majority, plus all of her minority too.

ARTICLE I SECTION 7.

All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives

iwog   befriend   ignore   Fri, 9 Nov 2012, 1:07am PST   Share   Quote   Like   Dislike     Comment 8

Bellingham Bill says

by holding his breath until Boehner caves?

Clinton won all his budget battles and the government was even 'shut down' to force the issue. People blamed Republicans.

I don't know how likely it is, but having Obama there is better than the alternative.

Bellingham Bill   befriend   ignore   Fri, 9 Nov 2012, 1:31am PST   Share   Quote   Like   Dislike     Comment 9

iwog says

People blamed Republicans.

yes, I was happy to see Obama say he has to take the case to US.

I guess I get overly afraid that the right's domination of mass media -- Fox, talk radio, all the conservative webpoints -- and the dozen or so full-time propaganda mills that feed this messaging infrastructure will dominate the process, unlike the mid-1990s.

I see Fox was launched October 7, 1996. . .

And the battle is very different now compared to then. Clinton was just trying to force the Republicans to stick to the status quo. Now Obama is trying to force the Republicans to return to the status quo ante of the 1990s, at least for the top 5% of earners.

iwog   befriend   ignore   Fri, 9 Nov 2012, 1:35am PST   Share   Quote   Like   Dislike     Comment 10

I'm not saying he'll be successful, and you're right that the country is saturated with right-wing propaganda, however I think the political climate is about as good as it's going to get for a showdown.

Obama has a mandate. He can earn his legacy and do the country a world of good by playing this correctly and showing the Republicans as the anti-government vandals they really are.

Bellingham Bill   befriend   ignore   Fri, 9 Nov 2012, 1:38am PST   Share   Quote   Like   Dislike     Comment 11

Also, there's this:

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=cEN

showing the deficit is 10% of personal income.

Taxes have to be doubled in this country, and the current House majority remembers what happened to the House majority in 1994 after they raised taxes again in 1993 . . .

Bellingham Bill   befriend   ignore   Fri, 9 Nov 2012, 1:39am PST   Share   Quote   Like   Dislike     Comment 12

chanakya4773 says

During FDR , there was no fractional reserve system

?

gold standard and fractional-reserve lending are two different things

iwog   befriend   ignore   Fri, 9 Nov 2012, 1:58am PST   Share   Quote   Like   Dislike     Comment 13

Bellingham Bill says

the current House majority remembers what happened to the House majority in 1994 after they raised taxes again in 1993 . . .

That's the beauty of the current situation.

1. Polls show most Americans agree with raising taxes on top wage earners.
2. Republicans are in firm control of the House and gaining a few more seats in 2014 will have no effect on government.
3. Democrats aren't nearly as vulnerable in the Senate in 2014.
4. If played correctly, Democrats can champion tax cuts for the lower tax brackets while Republicans were the ones trying to keep them high.

2014 campaign ad:

"Mr. Pube voted repeatedly to block tax cuts while Mr. Dem fought tirelessly to keep them low."

By their own doing, Republicans are now in the position of blocking tax cuts. This needs to be amplified.

zzyzzx   befriend   ignore   Fri, 9 Nov 2012, 2:29am PST   Share   Quote   Like   Dislike     Comment 14

Umm, if the election were really all about the economy, then Obama would have gotten a grand total of 3 electoral votes, from DC and nothing else.

Bellingham Bill   befriend   ignore   Fri, 9 Nov 2012, 3:40am PST   Share   Quote   Like   Dislike     Comment 15

chanakya4773 says

Clinton didn't have anything to do with the techonology/internet boom of 90's

plus the import boom . . .

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=cF7

and the oil glut . . .

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=cF8

Bellingham Bill   befriend   ignore   Fri, 9 Nov 2012, 3:49am PST   Share   Quote   Like   Dislike     Comment 16

iwog says

By their own doing, Republicans are now in the position of blocking tax cuts. This needs to be amplified.

Democrats had them over the same barrel in 2010, but the Republicans linked extension of the unemployment tiers to their top-bracket tax cuts.

The conventional wisdom was that the worse things get here, the more the electorate will punish the Dems. Getting back into control of the Executive, as McConnell himself idiotically said, was Priority One for the Republicans, so kicking millions of Americans in the nuts by stopping their EUC checks would have been good politics for the Republicans I guess.

People don't understand yet the central role of the House in our system. Hell, I didn't -- the Reagan/Tip O'Neil comity growing up confused things for me, and I was out of the country for all that Gingrich bullshit. I remember seeing somewhere that customs stuff might be impacted and thinking 'that's nice, good thing I'm not going back this month'

Email (Required, will not be visible)

Username (Just pick a name if you're new)

Watch comments by email

home   top   share   link sharer   users   register   best of   about   questions or suggestions? write p@patrick.net