President Control of Economy

[stryfe516]

We were talking about this in my U.S. History class today and I was just wondering, How much control Does the Presidency have in controlling the U.S. Economy? Is the presidency unfairly judged based on the economic spectrum that he has little or no control over? Does anyone know anything in past history where a U.S. presidents economic policy had a positive/negative or no effect at all on the economy? I would like to learn more about this subject so if a discussion could occur on this subject i would appreciate it. Any links to good websites on this? Its because according to my teacher the president is unfairly judge on the state of the economy when he has little control over it. Too me because our economy runs on a confidence factor, the peoples confidence on the president is a primary factor on how they handle there economic decisions. thanks for listening to my rant!!!

 

[Red Dawn]

A lot if the Economy is doing good, nothing at all if it is doing bad because it's his Predessors fault..at least according to the Party who happens to be in the White House at the time

 

[rjain]

As managed by the Secretary of Treasury (Snow, IIRC), he can increase or decrease supply of bonds, affecting the rates at which private entities can borrow and lend money, and authorize printing of new money (and I suppose "buying back" of existing money), affecting the value of the dollar.

The Chairman of the Federal Bank (Greenspan) can give banks overnight loans so that they can keep their reserves at a percentage (also set by Greenspan) of total deposits. The Chairman of the Fed is supposed to be apolitical (but that seems to not be the case when the Bush family is in office).

I think I have all that right...

 

[Ferocious]

He can also wage a war against a country to help promote or/and maintain a strong dollar policy.

 

[Zebo]

Check out these numbers:

This is the unemployment rate on the last day of the Truman, Johnson and Clinton administrations, respectively. 2.5%, 3.5% 4.5%. Under Clinton's presidency, unemployment dropped below 5 percent for the first time in 27 years. Yes, I kow about Jimmy Carter, he left with 7.5%, the same percentage he came in with. Now look at unemployment on the last day of the Hoover, Eisenhower, Ford, Reagan, and BushI adminstrations. 25%, 6.5%, 7.5%, 5.5%, 7.5%. For Hoover thats twenty five not two point five. Only Reagan left office with lower unemployment than he inherited, and his finishing unemployment rate pales beside that of Democratic administrations.
............
If the economic history of the United States proves one thing it is that money in the pockets of little man stimulates the economy. Why do you think there was so much prosperity under Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy, Johnson and Clinton? Their policies put money in the pockets of the people on the bottom, creating demand and stimulating investment. Wealth doesn't "trickle down", it flows up from the bottom.

Text

So hell yes the president makes a difference by:
1) loosening capital restrictions on small business
2) raising minimum wages
3) advocating unions
4) Fair trade not free trade to force more money in the little guys pocket
5) Cutting taxes on lower income cause they'll spend it all
6) More governemnt programs and projects to stimulate labor and damand for goods

 

[MonstaThrilla]

Originally posted by: Zebo
Check out these numbers: This is the unemployment rate on the last day of the Truman, Johnson and Clinton administrations, respectively. 2.5%, 3.5% 4.5%. Under Clinton's presidency, unemployment dropped below 5 percent for the first time in 27 years. Yes, I kow about Jimmy Carter, he left with 7.5%, the same percentage he came in with. Now look at unemployment on the last day of the Hoover, Eisenhower, Ford, Reagan, and BushI adminstrations. 25%, 6.5%, 7.5%, 5.5%, 7.5%. For Hoover thats twenty five not two point five. Only Reagan left office with lower unemployment than he inherited, and his finishing unemployment rate pales beside that of Democratic administrations.

Its a bit unfair to add Hoover in that category of Republicans. That was a different era.

 

[SuperTool]

You'd have to be an idiot to believe that a 500B deficit has no impact on the economy.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Ferocious
He can also wage a war against a country to help promote or/and maintain a strong dollar policy.

Or to plunge us into debt and put the U.S. in an adversarial posture vs. the world, thus giving other countries a strong incentive to distance themselves from the U.S. and its dollars. We've yet to see how this one plays out. It isn't over.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
A lot if the Economy is doing good, nothing at all if it is doing bad because it's his Predessors fault..at least according to the Party who happens to be in the White House at the time

So when FDR/trumen left it at 2.5% UemP it was 20 years for hoovers policies to catch up LOL.

Another lie by the right.

 

[Genesys]

the federal reserve chariman and the secretary of the treasury [as meantioned above rjain] have the majority of control over how well the economy does. but if the president wants try to take meddle with the economy, he has to do something add a little fiscal stimulus [in the form of tax cuts, which appear to be working in this case, and in the case of Regan]

 

[Czar]

well ask here when the US economy was down then the answer would most likely have been no the President has no control over the economy, ask now then suuure he can do lots of stuff like cut taxes increase spending and so on.

 

[dmcowen674]

Interesting article. It says this is the "Bush Boom":

12-5-2003 The not-quite-so-jobless recovery

Why is it taking so long for the so-called ?Bush boom? to resonate in the labour market?

This time round (aside from a hiring blip last autumn) it lasted a year and a half. The recovery remains way behind schedule (see chart). If it had followed the course of most post-war cycles, 8m Americans would have been added to the payrolls by now. Instead, payroll employment is still 700,000 lower than it was when the recession ended in November 2001.

This cycle is unique, but it bears a family resemblance to the recovery presided over by George Bush?s father. Even then, however, firms waited only about a year after the recession ended before starting to hire again in earnest. And payrolls, by this stage of the recovery, had grown by more than 1%. A better record on jobs than his son, then, but too little too late to save his own.

some corporations see a recession ?not as an event to be weathered but as an opportunity?or even a mandate?to reorganise production permanently, close less efficient facilities and cull staff.?

A puzzle for economists, jobless recoveries are also a conundrum for psephologists, who study presidential elections. We know it?s the economy, stupid, but is it growth or jobs that have most bearing on the way people vote?

In every election since the second world war, falling unemployment in the spring of election year has foretold victory for the party in charge of the White House. The sole exception was the Democrats? loss to General Dwight Eisenhower in 1952. Mr Bush will take some comfort from this. As long as the unemployment rate keeps falling through the spring, he should be home and dry in next year?s election. Unless, perhaps, he goes up against another decorated general.

 

[Moonbeam]

I think the Supreme Coup should get the credit.

 

[Wolfdog]

The president also has control of probably the most substantial part of the economy. The consumer confidence level chooses which way the economy takes. If the people for the most part feel the country is going in the right direction, we will see good spending habits, which then translate into jobs. I think his biggest problem will be the kinds of jobs that are made, not how many. When you have people with PhD's at job fairs applying for entry level posistions this is pretty bad. They are taking a huge pay cut just to find work. Making it darn near impossible for someone with less education to find a well paying job. So all the crap about creating hundreds of thousands of jobs means nothing if they are minimum wage, no benefits kind of service work. He needs to also watch out for making promises and then backtracking once he catches some heat on said policies. Such as the steel workers. He promised three years of protection, but sold them out. Theres a group that can't be verry happy with him.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Interesting article. It says this is the "Bush Boom":

12-5-2003 The not-quite-so-jobless recovery

Why is it taking so long for the so-called ?Bush boom? to resonate in the labour market?

This time round (aside from a hiring blip last autumn) it lasted a year and a half. The recovery remains way behind schedule (see chart). If it had followed the course of most post-war cycles, 8m Americans would have been added to the payrolls by now. Instead, payroll employment is still 700,000 lower than it was when the recession ended in November 2001.

This cycle is unique, but it bears a family resemblance to the recovery presided over by George Bush?s father. Even then, however, firms waited only about a year after the recession ended before starting to hire again in earnest. And payrolls, by this stage of the recovery, had grown by more than 1%. A better record on jobs than his son, then, but too little too late to save his own.

some corporations see a recession ?not as an event to be weathered but as an opportunity?or even a mandate?to reorganise production permanently, close less efficient facilities and cull staff.?

A puzzle for economists, jobless recoveries are also a conundrum for psephologists, who study presidential elections. We know it?s the economy, stupid, but is it growth or jobs that have most bearing on the way people vote?

In every election since the second world war, falling unemployment in the spring of election year has foretold victory for the party in charge of the White House. The sole exception was the Democrats? loss to General Dwight Eisenhower in 1952. Mr Bush will take some comfort from this. As long as the unemployment rate keeps falling through the spring, he should be home and dry in next year?s election. Unless, perhaps, he goes up against another decorated general.

Several factors are playing into this.
1. Technology - we spent the last decade automating every process available. This was part of that IT boom everyone loved in the 90s.
2. Outsourcing - it is going to happen. The 50,000 CS majors that india is producing every year are going to be doing something(with or without a US company being involved).
3. Overcapacity from the boom of the 90s. Manufacturing is just not starting to recover after 3 years.

 

[Strk]

2. Outsourcing - it is going to happen. The 50,000 CS majors that india is producing every year are going to be doing something(with or without a US company being involved).

Too bad you can only understand about 3 of them when you call for support

 

[rjain]

I can hardly understand those damn midwesterners I get from the countries who DON'T outsource to India! (Being Indian, I have an easier time understanding the ones I get from India )