View Poll Results: What level of influence does a Chief Executive have over the economy?

Voters
31. You may not vote on this poll
  • The CE is "the man". He steers it all.

    1 3.23%
  • The CE may not be a dictator, but still desreves the bulk of the blame/credit.

    4 12.90%
  • The CE sets "the tone", but has little actual influence.

    17 54.84%
  • The CE has virtually no influence whatsoever.

    3 9.68%
  • Other?

    6 19.35%
Page 4 of 9 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 86

Thread: What level of influence does a Chief Executive have over the economy?

  1. #31
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:50 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,104

    Re: What level of influence does a Chief Executive have over the economy?

    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    Oh Look. Cpwill wrong again (this should surprise absolutely no one ever).
    Oh, look at that. Obvious Child is attempting to make up for the fact that he was picked on in High School (again).

    Look man, nobody in this forum is responsible for your head spending time dunked in a toilet, and you attempting to play penis games is like the 115 pound guy who's always trying to challenge people to "make something of it" It just makes you look silly and small.

    Unless you want to argue that Reagan was a tried and true liberal when he stimulated the economy with a massive arms build up.
    Reagan's program for economic growth was reducing marginal tax rates and breaking inflation. The military build up was designed specifically to exacerbate Soviet economic troubles and hasten the end of that regime (though to be fair, our government picked up on this possibility first under Carter, and apparently dropped this approach under Bush H.W.). If you can find for me where Reagan argued in favor of stimulating the economy through military spending, I'd love to see it; but since Reagan was a Bastiat fan (he of Broken Window fame), I don't think you're gonna.

    Or that the All GOP Bush Years was a bunch of liberals in Republican clothing when they engaged in some of the largest government spending binges in US history.
    No - that is called sloven stupidity, arrogance, and hypocrisy. But it is also a mistake to conflate "conservatives" with "Republicans".

  2. #32
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:50 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,104

    Re: What level of influence does a Chief Executive have over the economy?

    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    No, you believe that on the surface but when your own economic interests are threaten, you will spend the bank to prevent your own personal loss.
    ah yes. everyone secretly agrees with obvious child

    Okay, answer me this. The GOP are willing to produce a recession that will lead to further disapproval and likely end their political careers on the basis of ideological purity even all throughout history they have done the opposite? You are arguing that the GOP will actually do what they believe when it will cost them their jobs.
    no. I am arguing that the GOP caucus A) probably contains members who believe in Keynesian stimulus spending B) contains alot of people who don't believe in Keynesian stimulus spending and C) is 100% made up of people who know that if they come out in favor of more Keynesian stimulus spending, will face a primary followed by (if they win) a base that refuses to come out and vote for them.

    A Republican who comes out in favor of another stimulus package now is going to do about as well as a Republican who comes out in favor of Obamacare.

    You think Austerity works?
    I think that bubbles popping hurts, and that when the bubble is government, it hurts alot.

    Go live in Europe. And don't even think about citing Germany. They managed to inflict their pain on others without having to take serious banking losses that would have caused serious economic harm within Germany. And Austerity is killing two responsible governments: Spain and Ireland who had solid financials before the debt crisis.
    and yet isn't it odd that the one nation who amended their Constitution to reign in deficit spending is the one doing well enough...

    And if they actually enact the ****-for-brains Ryan budget, they will be thrown from office.
    Some of them might be due to backlash over entitlement reform. we'll have to see.

    Only a hackjawed partisan idiot would come up with that plan that not only fails to reduce the deficit in any meaningful way (or the debt) but causes a recession at the same time.
    watch magical OC predict the future! yes, step right up sir and for the mere price of $800 bn you, too, can keep unemployment below 8%!

    And on top of that, it doesn't even reign in the fake massive inflation the GOP keeps whining about.
    the question is what is politically possible. You have to move the ball to the 20 yardline before you can score a touchdown. However you are correct that we will likely have to keep having the Fed purchase treasuries for some time under a strict application of the Ryan Budget.

    Better than citing ****-for-brain studies like you do. Like the kind that argue that the internet, monetary policy, resource finds and other non-fiscal impacts have zero impact on the economy. You remember that completely idiotic study you posted? Right after you claimed that economic data does not exist in a vacuum showing just how hypocritical you really are?
    yes, I remember your magical non-falsifiable thesis. Specifically I recall that you made the idiotic claim that Keynesian stimulus spending had been proven by history to work, and then when I pointed out to you that in fact attempts to stimulate the economy through increases in government spending always fail, you switched to arguing that "something else" must have done it.

    Apparently Every Time someone attempts to stimulate an economy through a large spending program designed to increase demand, something comes in and messes it up, making the theory look bad, whereas when nations try to stimulate an economy through reducing the burden of governance (particularly on businesses) that same unidentified something comes in and magically (poof!) makes the economy take off, thereby leaving the top-down types with even more unjustified egg on their faces.

    You made a claim that turned out to be wrong, you were publicly embarrassed by it, and you've been whining about it now for two years. Get over it. Trust me, everyone else has.

    Between losing their jobs and engaging in stimulus, the GOP will go stimulus.
    going stimulus guarantees job loss. Firstly, it is unlikely to pass: Democrats who believe in the theory have little incentive to bend over for the GOP, and at least half the GOP will refuse to vote for it. Good luck getting the Tea Party Freshmen (they who were willing to take us past the debt ceiling) on board with Stimulus III

  3. #33
    Enemy Combatant
    Kandahar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Last Seen
    10-15-13 @ 08:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    20,688

    Re: What level of influence does a Chief Executive have over the economy?

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    Reagan's program for economic growth was reducing marginal tax rates and breaking inflation.
    But cutting taxes is a very Keynesian solution. There are essentially two ways to stimulate demand through fiscal policy: Increase spending so that the government spends more, or cut taxes so that consumers and businesses spend more. In either case, the goal is to spit more money out into the economy so that more spending occurs. Ronald Reagan was very much a Keynesian, through and through. As for breaking inflation...that was more Paul Volcker than Ronald Reagan. And in the short term it caused a nasty recession, just as Keynes would have predicted.

    The military build up was designed specifically to exacerbate Soviet economic troubles and hasten the end of that regime (though to be fair, our government picked up on this possibility first under Carter, and apparently dropped this approach under Bush H.W.). If you can find for me where Reagan argued in favor of stimulating the economy through military spending, I'd love to see it; but since Reagan was a Bastiat fan (he of Broken Window fame), I don't think you're gonna.
    It doesn't really matter what his reasons for doing it were. The economy is an amoral creature; it doesn't care about intentions, just results. And the result of a big boost of military spending was a Keynesian stimulus program.

    No - that is called sloven stupidity, arrogance, and hypocrisy. But it is also a mistake to conflate "conservatives" with "Republicans".
    Why do you suppose the elected Republicans were so susceptible to these flaws in the first place? And why were they able to get elected in the first place? I don't regard the Bush years as an aberration in Republican values, and the more recent turn toward right-wing economic policies as the "norm." Quite the opposite actually. The best measure of what economic policies a party ACTUALLY wants to pursue, is what they do when they control both houses of Congress and the presidency. Under those circumstances, they are (fairly or not) held accountable for the state of the economy...and so they understandably want to do things that they honestly believe will improve the economy. If Republicans actually believed that economic stimulus was a bad idea, then they never would have done it when Bush was president. Why would a party create a self-inflicted economic wound which they knew to be bad policy, for which they would be blamed?
    Last edited by Kandahar; 07-05-12 at 12:11 PM.
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

  4. #34
    Professor
    00timh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    upstate NY
    Last Seen
    01-24-14 @ 08:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    1,318

    Re: What level of influence does a Chief Executive have over the economy?

    Depends on who you ask and when. When the economy was going well in the mid 2000's, dems gave Bush 0 credit. When the economy went south, the dems gave Bush all the credit. When asked any time there is any bad economic news, the dems will deflect the credit back on to Bush as to why it is still bad under Obama. Any good economic news and Obama is given full credit for it.

  5. #35
    Sage

    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Florida
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:42 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    23,360

    Re: What level of influence does a Chief Executive have over the economy?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    The president only has two decisions to make that can substantially impact the short-term state of the economy: 1) Who he chooses to appoint to the Federal Reserve, and 2) Whether he chooses to sign or veto stimulus measures which Congress has passed.

    Perversely, I think that #2 is one way that Romney might actually be better for the economy than Obama: If Romney is elected president, then congressional Republicans will be less likely to keep trying to drive the economy off a cliff and more likely to cooperate with passing economic stimulus measures.
    Normally that might have been correct but the Tea's in the House have taken over the asylum. The Senate will be a huge impass for anything the Tea's may try to send Romney to sign. The GOP will never have 60 votes to pass anything the Dems don't want.

  6. #36
    Sage

    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Florida
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:42 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    23,360

    Re: What level of influence does a Chief Executive have over the economy?

    Quote Originally Posted by 00timh View Post
    Depends on who you ask and when. When the economy was going well in the mid 2000's, dems gave Bush 0 credit. When the economy went south, the dems gave Bush all the credit. When asked any time there is any bad economic news, the dems will deflect the credit back on to Bush as to why it is still bad under Obama. Any good economic news and Obama is given full credit for it.
    When was the economy REALLY doing well under Bush? When the housing bubble was in full swing? Many rightly thought that was a recipe for disaster from the start. The mounting deficits didn't sit too well either. The entire Bush presidency was a bad dream that turned into a nightmare by the end.

  7. #37
    Professor
    00timh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    upstate NY
    Last Seen
    01-24-14 @ 08:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    1,318

    Re: What level of influence does a Chief Executive have over the economy?

    Quote Originally Posted by iguanaman View Post
    When was the economy REALLY doing well under Bush? When the housing bubble was in full swing? Many rightly thought that was a recipe for disaster from the start. The mounting deficits didn't sit too well either. The entire Bush presidency was a bad dream that turned into a nightmare by the end.
    There is nothing wrong with a booming industry. The problem is that when it was showing signs of running its course, the government kept pumping it up even higher.... and democrats are more responsible for that then Bush was. (Barney Frank with fannie mae and freddie mac)

  8. #38
    Student Airborne375's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Charleston, SC
    Last Seen
    10-21-12 @ 11:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    276

    Re: What level of influence does a Chief Executive have over the economy?

    The President can inspire investors, businesses and the economy as a whole by displaying leadership and convincing the nation things will stay stable. Who in their rightful mind if going to open a business that could employ 500 workers. When the future of energy taxes, providing medical care for those workers, tax rates in general, yadda, yadda. Only someone who has a gambling addiction would invest under these conditions, much less build a business themselves. The President may not actually have a magic 'Better Economy' button in the oval office but what matters is most people think he does.

  9. #39
    Equal Opportunity Hater
    obvious Child's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
    Last Seen
    12-09-14 @ 11:36 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    19,883

    Re: What level of influence does a Chief Executive have over the economy?

    Quote Originally Posted by radcen View Post
    Rude and unnecessary, but I did get a chuckle out of it.
    I really have stopped pretending I care to treat Cpwill with respect. I don't and I won't. Especially after him posting incredibly stupid studies and then running away from defending them.

    I don't believe that Reagan spending and Bush II spending are necessarily apples-to-apples.

    Reagan's spending at least had some purpose behind it, and that purpose was not liberal in nature. Some have argued here that the Soviet Union and Eastern Bloc would have fallen anyway, and may be true, but is really only conjecture on their part. I tend to believe, yes, it would have eventually fallen, but not nearly as fast. Reagan's spending was not without our own pain, but it was also not without purpose or our own gain.

    On the other hand, as hard as I used to try, I cannot come to the same conclusion regarding Bush II. Just my opinion, but they grossly misinterpreted the successful portions of Reagan's debt spending, ignored the downsides, and acted like a bunch of irresponsible teenagers with a new credit card.

    Another, albeit minor, point is that it is unfair to strictly compare different eras. Some aspects of a wisely run economy will remain true regardless, but each era also has it's own set of nuances that must be included in any hindsight evaluation. Reagan and Bush II were different eras to a great degree, even if the numbers of years separating them weren't that many. In this vein, it would be a mistake to think that today's economic recovery could be strictly modeled after our recovery from the Great Depression.
    I don't really have much to contest there or to add. My point is simply that the debt binge of spending that happened under both did lead to stimulated economies and that to argue that Conservatives don't believe it works is effectively to say there no Conservatives in the Republican party during Bush or Reagan's era. But Cpwill is not that foolish to argue that. I think. Maybe. Not sure now that I think about it.
    "If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him." - Sun Tzu

  10. #40
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: What level of influence does a Chief Executive have over the economy?

    Quote Originally Posted by Airborne375 View Post
    The President can inspire investors, businesses and the economy as a whole by displaying leadership and convincing the nation things will stay stable. Who in their rightful mind if going to open a business that could employ 500 workers. When the future of energy taxes, providing medical care for those workers, tax rates in general, yadda, yadda. Only someone who has a gambling addiction would invest under these conditions, much less build a business themselves. The President may not actually have a magic 'Better Economy' button in the oval office but what matters is most people think he does.
    Anyone who knows they ahve buyers waiting to spend. And none of them, no matter what the president says or does will hire without knowing there are buyers at the ready.

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

Page 4 of 9 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •