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 9 of 9 FirstFirst ... 789
Results 81 to 86 of 86

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

  1. #81
    Phonetic Mnemonic
    radcen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Look to your right... I'm that guy.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:05 AM
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    33,413

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

    Quote Originally Posted by DA60 View Post
    The POTUS can make the economy far worse - he/she can do little to make it better, other then staying out of it's way.
    I tend to agree with this.

    I've always felt that Bill Clinton's almost genius approach to the economy was that, for the most part, he didn't do anything. He was smart enough to recognize that the country was already coming out of a recession when he took his oath, that other factors like the dot-com thing was happening, and he just sat back and rode the wave... and thus got the credit.

    Back to your point, in this sense the President is kind of like a baseball manager... it's sometimes difficult to tell a good one from a mediocre one, but the bad ones stand out like a sore thumb.
    If you claim sexual harassment to be wrong, yet you defend anyone on your side for any reason,
    then you are a hypocrite and everything you say on the matter is just babble.

  2. #82
    User
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    United States
    Last Seen
    10-23-12 @ 08:57 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    110

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

    Quote Originally Posted by MarineTpartier View Post
    Back to the original topic before others tried to distract it. I don't want to turn this into an abortion thread. There are plenty of those. Although your argument is ridiculous to say the least.
    You're right, it's ridiculous to suggest that criminalizing birth control is at all detrimental to womens' health.

  3. #83
    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 Airborne375 View Post
    Reagan had a very good reason for arms build up. Namely he broke the back of the USSR without needing to fire a single shot. That's an impressive accomplishment in anyone's book.
    Come again? We fought numerous proxy wars with the USSR. Oddly enough, we often switched sides once the USSR did as well to support groups we were previously against. Mozambique's civil war for example. The Cold War made the USSR and USA do some pretty dumb stuff.
    "If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him." - Sun Tzu

  4. #84
    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 American View Post
    It would have been interesting to see this poll when Bush was president. It would indeed.
    Probably skewed the opposite way. Doesn't change the fact that the President doesn't have much control.

    Want to seriously reduce gas prices? Bomb China and India back to the stone age and then nationalize US oil.
    "If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him." - Sun Tzu

  5. #85
    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 cpwill View Post
    Nah. You're just emotionally needy yet educated. .....of the scientific method.
    Come again? Are you actually trying to pull that here? You can't apply that to a forum like this. We can however, look at your history of dumb *** posts, posting idiotic studies and general cowardice when such asinine logic is pointed out.

    which branch of service did you serve in the infantry with, again? man, it takes precisely zero courage whatsoever to take part in an online debate forum - what's going to happen to me if I lose a debate? nothing? Anywho, here your reply is self-defeating, as you go on to respond to the answer I actually gave you.
    Oooh. Internet Thuggery, I'm so scared. Since you said, it takes absolutely no courage, why are you so chicken **** on answer questions?

    You lose all the time. You of course don't think so, but it's hard to think someone who posts that economic data doesn't exist in a vacuum and then goes to post a study saying that economic data exists in a vacuum has a real grasp of reality. Go figure.

    You do realize that "I have stated X" is not the same as "I have proven X"?
    That's largely because you have no concept of what evidence is. Anything that disagrees with you is not proof. Even when it shows exactly what was stated.

    Not at all. I simply think that they are more likely to respond with attempts to lower marginal (particularly business) tax rates and reduce the regulatory burden (supply side) than they are to provide some kind of demand-side stimulus.
    And when that doesn't work as proven by Bush's 2008 tax cuts that did absolutely nothing they'd just do nothing? Tell me, how does reducing tax rates on companies not generating a taxable profit in the first place cause demand to increase? I'd never seen anyone answer that. Furthermore, how does reducing regulatory burden increase demand? Reducing regulatory burden merely reduce the cost of doing business. If there is an overall demand drop, reducing your cost of business doesn't do squat to increase demand and firms will not spend money or invest when there is low demand. As evident by basically every poll out there regarding the current recession, the #1 problem is not regulation, it's the lack of consumer demand. And reducing regulatory burden can actually result in industries that cater to that seeing layoffs resulting in even less demand. Your #1 problem is that you never bother to look at things outside of your exceedingly narrow view or even bother to look at unintended consequences. Basically you march down a narrow ideology ignoring everything that doesn't fit in a nice neat box. It's why your arguments are so predictable and so predictably bad.

    Actually I have argued they made the situation worse - and I was arguing that at the time as well. Similar to argument that you have made, I argued that Bush's stimulus wouldn't stimulate anything, and would instead only add debt.
    My point is that the stimulus wasn't going to do what was intended because how it was structured. Not that stimulus is bad in general. Bush's tax cuts failed partially because they were too small and partially because people saw the writing on the wall and saved them. A tax cut that doesn't get spent is poor stimulus. All debt financed tax cuts are nothing more than taxpayer loans that will be repaid by higher taxes or reduced services. Supply side stimulus doesn't do anything but boost the debt in certain situations. In a particularly severe recession, tax cuts likely won't do much of anything except boost the debt. The people who save the least are the poor who will receive the smallest tax cut. The rich will just pocket the cash and save it. This is why supply side stimulus does not work. Obama made an even worse mistake with his $400 per working individual not to mention his payroll. People generally don't notice small increases per pay period. It won't change their behavior. For supply side to actually work, it has to change their behavior and get them to spend. That requires a massive tax rebate or cut, likely in the thousands per person, at bare minimum $1,500. The debt impact of that would be tremendous.

    Bush's tax credits (which function the same as transfer payments) had no better effect in 2008 than they did in 2001. 1. Because you cannot magically increase demand by having the government take people's money and then give it back to them, and 2. Because even then, windfall income in times of economic instability tend to go towards savings and paying down debt.
    Yes and No. The Bush tax credits ranged from corporate bonus depreciation to individual tax cuts and credits. Bush's individual which passed in 2001 frankly did nothing as the recession was over before the bill was passed. Bonus depreciation however, did create at least some artificial demand as it moved purchases from period 2 to period 1 which then jumpstarts the economy. That I think was a good idea and Obama is literally copying the idea from Bush. As for what individuals do with it, that depends on the person. The poor spend it because they have no choice. It's why Discounters did so well during the recession as unemployment benefits kept their profits high when the rest of the commercial sector was eating it. The rich just save it. And middle class do a mix of the both.

    I have to disagree with your italic portion. You can magically increase demand by having people freely purchase US debt which it then used to increase demand either through spending or tax cuts. The impact of high savings at the same time as banks not lending upon the economy is essentially nil. But people freely making the choice to buy debt which is used to boost demand can essentially create demand from nothing. While it could be argued that it is essentially replacing the demand that would be met by consumers getting loans, that demand is not being met by banks and therefore leaves the equation.

    your argument is premised u....they have no incentive to vote for that measure.
    Yes, it is. I'm assuming that the GOP is not a bunch of bat**** loons who have absolutely no problem with watching the economy die under their watch. While there MAY be some of them who would love to watch the US burn, I'm assuming most of them won't. You may be right in that many of the GOP are frankly ****ing stupid and will do nothing until it is too late to save the economy. That they will only realize just how stupid they are after the fact.

    It amazes me how Castle's voters kicked him out after he saved their pensions and retirements. Wholesale collapse of the banking sector would bring down the stock market resulting in many of his voters losing their retirements. And he was rewarded with losing his seat.

    No, that is not correct. Reagan was indeed a conservative - he wasn't perfectly so, and in his workings with the Democrat Congress he sometimes gave and sometimes got (and, in the case of I'll-raise-taxes-if-you-cut-spending, he got taken).
    So everything that wasn't conservative was the Democrat's fault and everything conservative was his? Talk about cherry picking.

    No worship here - I only worship one Man and Reagan wasn't Him. He was an excellent President, all things considered, and his supply-side driven recovery puts this demand-side driven one to shame; but that doesn't mean that everything he did is for some reason sacrosanct.
    You should tell the RNC that. They seem to be operating under a very different mantra.

    Not really. At least spending on roads enables other wealth-creation. Spending money on tanks involves taking alot of resources and pouring them into utterly non-productive venues. Hell, we might as well credit George Bush with saving us from Depression by invading Iraq, if military spending is stimulative.
    Only if you stop at the first level of production (which is stupid). That tank requires high quality steel. Which requires a large order from a steel manufacturer. Which boosts activity down the chain all the way to the mining /recycling firm. The merely impact on the supply chain boosts economic activity when then likely increases payroll numbers and creates more jobs. The defense industry expanded to epic sizes under Reagan because of all of the demand from the government. The entire supply chain exploded in growth which then drives non-defense spending as workers spend their money on non-military items. Cities with large bases do well because soldiers spend money on civilian activities. And I'm not even discussing the non-military application of military breakthroughs. The whole artificial limb industry is directly related from the defense spending on replacement limbs. Civilian drones are coming right out of the military. There is a huge impact on wealth not only from indirect spending but from non-military applications of military equipment. Hell, there was enough stuff to cover that History channel ran an entire show on it: "Tactical to Practical."

    Which Bush?
    Bush H.W. not so much as much of the equipment that was used was already purchased. Unlike Reagan's time, the demand for new equipment was pretty low. Desert Shield and Storm were operated with equipment and munitions the US and its various allies already had at the time. So it's not a valid argument to argue that HW saved us from depression.

    Furthermore, Jr did cause the defense industry to expand quite considerably once the war got going. The occupation caused a massive spike in new spending. DOD companies got fat and happy off of huge military spending. To argue that such spending wasn't stimulative is to totally fail to understand what a supply chain is and what indirect spending is.

    I suspect you know you're wrong (largely because the point I'm making is painfully obvious), you just won't concede this point.

    there is the conversation that took place:

    There you are, very much indeed impugning that Reagan believed that a massive arms build up would stimulate the economy.
    You may want to consider reading between the lines there rather than just taking at face value what you see. If Reagan actually believed it was a drag on the economy, why would he risk putting, considering the amounts spent, a noose upon America at such a time?

    Not really. You made a foolish argument, I demonstrated that it was false. I do not argue that economic data exists in a vacuum, which is why I prefer to be guided by case studies (such as this one) that include larger data samples, such as the entire OECD, than econometric models that assume magical multipliers and/or static scoring.
    Then you are in fact lying. You posted a study that explicitly stated it did not examine anything other than fiscal policy. You demonstrated nothing other than your own inability to admit you are wrong on anything. Furthermore, when I attacked your idiotic study for arguing that economic data exists in a vacuum, you completely ignored my points. You acted as if monetary policy, resource finds, new inventions such as the internet had no impact whatsoever. Furthermore, I cited a counter study that examined your so called "successes" and the vast majority all paired long term fiscal cuts with short term monetary expansion. The countries that did just fiscal cuts failed to actually fix their economies. Those who cut but did not expand monetary policy had other fixes such as boosts to exports which increased corporate balance sheets and increased import taxes, such as South Korea. Your "success" list does not include countries that only cut fiscal spending and did nothing else.

    That "study" is utter and absolute **** because it explicitly made its argument that only fiscal policy matters. You know that's idiotic. But you won't admit it.

    Nah. You're being an asshole because that's what you always do when you feel your position is weak.
    How is my position weak when you posted an article that you know is wrong?
    "If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him." - Sun Tzu

  6. #86
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,114

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

    man, though I admit it's mean, there are few things more cruelly funny than abusing people with inferiority complexes :p

    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    Come again? Are you actually trying to pull that here? You can't apply that to a forum like this. We can however, look at your history of dumb *** posts, posting idiotic studies and general cowardice when such asinine logic is pointed out.
    your response to the study you continually cite revolves around you retreating to a non-falsifiable position. Cowardice?

    Since you said, it takes absolutely no courage, why are you so chicken **** on answer questions?
    apparently you are too busy bolding / coloring words and then masturbating about how tough you are to notice that I have actually answered you at least twice.

    You lose all the time.
    No, you consistently become rude when you occupy weak positions, and you have the ability to hurl invective confused with victory.

    You of course don't think so, but it's hard to think someone who posts that economic data doesn't exist in a vacuum and then goes to post a study saying that economic data exists in a vacuum has a real grasp of reality.
    Hey look!



    a Strawman!

    That's largely because you have no concept of what evidence is. Anything that disagrees with you is not proof. Even when it shows exactly what was stated.
    dude. "you ranting" =/= "proof"

    And when that doesn't work as proven by Bush's 2008 tax cuts that did absolutely nothing they'd just do nothing?
    Bush didn't lower tax rates in 2008, he gave out tax credits, which function the same way as spending. Your continued willing blindness to this point (when we both know you are smart enough to have picked up on it) indicates that you are indeed unwilling to entertain anything that disrupts your narrative.

    The failure of the 2008 Bush Stimulus is evidence against the efficacy of demand-side stimulus.

    Tell me, how does reducing tax rates on companies not generating a taxable profit in the first place cause demand to increase? I'd never seen anyone answer that. Furthermore, how does reducing regulatory burden increase demand?
    and here, please the court, evidence 145A: OC is incapable of believing that other people really truly don't overemphasize short-term demand.

    Reducing regulatory burden merely reduce the cost of doing business
    BINGO. You increase the incentive for business.

    If there is an overall demand drop, reducing your cost of business doesn't do squat to increase demand and firms will not spend money or invest when there is low demand. As evident by basically every poll out there regarding the current recession, the #1 problem is not regulation, it's the lack of consumer demand. And reducing regulatory burden can actually result in industries that cater to that seeing layoffs resulting in even less demand. Your #1 problem is that you never bother to look at things outside of your exceedingly narrow view or even bother to look at unintended consequences. Basically you march down a narrow ideology ignoring everything that doesn't fit in a nice neat box. It's why your arguments are so predictable and so predictably bad.
    I'm going to have to have Captain Courtesy do an intervention over your projection issues.

    Supply side stimulus doesn't do anything but boost the debt in certain situations.
    That's funny. That's kinda what the CBO is now saying about Obama's demand-side stimulus.

    In a particularly severe recession, tax cuts likely won't do much of anything except boost the debt.
    Gosh isn't it funny then (oh how I love doing this to you) how Fiscal Stimuli based around rate cuts - particularly business rate cuts - are more likely to result in increased growth than spending increases.

    The people who save the least are the poor who will receive the smallest tax cut. The rich will just pocket the cash and save it. This is why supply side stimulus does not work.
    I find it really hilarious that you measure supply side stimulus on whether or not it functions like a demand side stimulus.

    Obama made an even worse mistake with his $400 per working individual not to mention his payroll. People generally don't notice small increases per pay period. It won't change their behavior. For supply side to actually work, it has to change their behavior and get them to spend.
    Wrong. The point of supply side is that it will alter people's behavior with regards to production.

    I have to disagree with your italic portion. You can magically increase demand by having people freely purchase US debt which it then used to increase demand either through spending or tax cuts
    Said people having previously kept the dollars they used to purchase debt in giant money silo's, a'la scrooge mcduck. Also, broken windows are good for the economy. I get the theory, yes. I'm just saying it's built upon a deliberate pretension, and thus fails.

    Yes, it is. I'm assuming that the GOP is not a bunch of bat**** loons who have absolutely no problem with watching the economy die under their watch. While there MAY be some of them who would love to watch the US burn, I'm assuming most of them won't. You may be right in that many of the GOP are frankly ****ing stupid and will do nothing until it is too late to save the economy. That they will only realize just how stupid they are after the fact.
    And here we come to the center of it: OC is incapable of understanding that many people do not share his assumptions, or even necessarily his goals. I won't bother with repetition - but this is of a like with his later belief that I must secretly agree that a military build-up is stimulative in nature. Short-term demand boosting A) doesn't work very well and B) is like trying to get stronger by taking supplements and energy pills, but without accepting the pain and time of a regular exercise routine. In the case of military spending in particular - we see no profit from building a humvee, transporting it halfway around the world, and then feeding it gasoline until it is blown up.

    It amazes me how Castle's voters kicked him out after he saved their pensions and retirements. Wholesale collapse of the banking sector would bring down the stock market resulting in many of his voters losing their retirements. And he was rewarded with losing his seat.
    ..... you are the one in this thread arguing that this kind of thing won't happen! Castle is an excellent example of what I am talking about - at this point in time, Republicans who are seen as significantly deviating from conservatism by supporting a major Demand-Side Stimulus will be primaried and lose their jobs regardless of whether or not they think they have done well.

    So everything that wasn't conservative was the Democrat's fault and everything conservative was his?
    nope. But in the case of the tax hikes, he was lied to, and fell for it.

    If Reagan actually believed it was a drag on the economy, why would he risk putting, considering the amounts spent, a noose upon America at such a time?
    1. Because the tax reforms he put into place more than counter-acted the drag and
    2. He thought defeating the Soviet Union was worth it.

Page 9 of 9 FirstFirst ... 789

Posting Permissions

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