Why don't people understand this basic fact:

[DomS]

I've said for some time, as I'm sure others have, that the market is as much psychological as it is fundamental in nature. So usually after a presidential election there's a slight early morning pop in the market. We didn't get that this year, but I digress.

That got me thinking, from a fundamental standpoint we are a free market. I said a while back, when they were forcing through those bailouts, that the gov't needed to decide if we were really a free market or not. Now it looks like the market decided for us, the bailout didn't have the immediate effect they were hoping it had. It doesn't matter what the president does in the end, the market is by and large free. Yes, the president can sign into existence measures that will try and effect it, but they can't magically force it one way or another. Obama will not save the market, Bush won't, nobody will. The market will save itself or fail entirely. That's why when I heard people talking about whether McCain or Obama would be better for the economy my head wanted to explode. It's like this bailout fiasco has taught people NOTHING. All it did was piss people off, have a one day positive effect on the stock market, and then fizzle.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: DomS
Topic Title: Why don't people understand this basic fact:
Topic Summary: THE PRESIDENT DOES NOT CONTROL THE ECONOMY.

<garbage snipped>

Bush has clearly shown that the office is controlled by Corporations (including religious organzations that are disguised like the Christian ones).

You didn't learn and that is sad.

I'm not saying Obama is immune to not being controlled by Corporations, I'm sure there will be puppet pulling still going on.

Can only hope it is not as rampant or bad as it was under Republican domination.

 

[DomS]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: DomS
Topic Title: Why don't people understand this basic fact:
Topic Summary: THE PRESIDENT DOES NOT CONTROL THE ECONOMY.

<garbage snipped>

Bush has clearly shown that the office is controlled by Corporations (including religious organzations that are disguised like the Christian ones).

You didn't learn and that is sad.

I'm not saying Obama is immune to not being controlled by Corporations, I'm sure there will be puppet pulling still going on.

Can only hope it is not as rampant or bad as it was under Republican domination.

The market controls Bush then, not the other way around. The president does NOT control the economy

 

[yowolabi]

Originally posted by: DomS
I've said for some time, as I'm sure others have, that the market is as much psychological as it is fundamental in nature. So usually after a presidential election there's a slight early morning pop in the market. We didn't get that this year, but I digress.

That got me thinking, from a fundamental standpoint we are a free market. I said a while back, when they were forcing through those bailouts, that the gov't needed to decide if we were really a free market or not. Now it looks like the market decided for us, the bailout didn't have the immediate effect they were hoping it had. It doesn't matter what the president does in the end, the market is by and large free. Yes, the president can sign into existence measures that will try and effect it, but they can't magically force it one way or another. Obama will not save the market, Bush won't, nobody will. The market will save itself or fail entirely. That's why when I heard people talking about whether McCain or Obama would be better for the economy my head wanted to explode. It's like this bailout fiasco has taught people NOTHING. All it did was piss people off, have a one day positive effect on the stock market, and then fizzle.

I didn't get the impression that when people were talking about the economy, they were just talking about the stock market.

Doesn't the president and his agenda have some role to play in job growth, for instance?

 

[techs]

Originally posted by: yowolabi

Originally posted by: DomS
I've said for some time, as I'm sure others have, that the market is as much psychological as it is fundamental in nature. So usually after a presidential election there's a slight early morning pop in the market. We didn't get that this year, but I digress.

That got me thinking, from a fundamental standpoint we are a free market. I said a while back, when they were forcing through those bailouts, that the gov't needed to decide if we were really a free market or not. Now it looks like the market decided for us, the bailout didn't have the immediate effect they were hoping it had. It doesn't matter what the president does in the end, the market is by and large free. Yes, the president can sign into existence measures that will try and effect it, but they can't magically force it one way or another. Obama will not save the market, Bush won't, nobody will. The market will save itself or fail entirely. That's why when I heard people talking about whether McCain or Obama would be better for the economy my head wanted to explode. It's like this bailout fiasco has taught people NOTHING. All it did was piss people off, have a one day positive effect on the stock market, and then fizzle.

I didn't get the impression that when people were talking about the economy, they were just talking about the stock market.

Doesn't the president and his agenda have some role to play in job growth, for instance?

Absolutely the President CAN "control" the economy. If a President is a strong force in his party then he can get legislation passed. Gee, the housing boom and the housing crisis certainly affected the economy and they were a result of deregulation.
So there.

 

[Drakkon]

The "pop" was felt yesterday as it was clear at that point who would win. So with that already priced in there was no point in a pop today.
The president may not control economy but has a pretty big influence over it. He sets policy which may or may not be followed, everything he says gets analyzed and as he says it the market shifts. Every time Bush spoke over the last month the market had an immediate reaction.

 

[techs]

Originally posted by: Drakkon
The "pop" was felt yesterday as it was clear at that point who would win. So with that already priced in there was no point in a pop today.
The president may not control economy but has a pretty big influence over it. He sets policy which may or may not be followed, everything he says gets analyzed and as he says it the market shifts. Every time Bush spoke over the last month the market had an immediate reaction.

Yes, clearly everyone expected an Obama win when they saw the last polls Monday. Today is just some profit taking.
In fact, if you look at the gains the last week they seemed to go hand in hand with the surety of an Obama win.
And, oh yeah, I guess you are forgetting Nixon instituting wage and price controls?

 

[DAPUNISHER]

Originally posted by: Drakkon
The "pop" was felt yesterday as it was clear at that point who would win. So with that already priced in there was no point in a pop today.
The president may not control economy but has a pretty big influence over it. He sets policy which may or may not be followed, everything he says gets analyzed and as he says it the market shifts. Every time Bush spoke over the last month the market had an immediate reaction.

The bolded is the operative word here.

 

[DisgruntledVirus]

Originally posted by: techs

Originally posted by: Drakkon
The "pop" was felt yesterday as it was clear at that point who would win. So with that already priced in there was no point in a pop today.
The president may not control economy but has a pretty big influence over it. He sets policy which may or may not be followed, everything he says gets analyzed and as he says it the market shifts. Every time Bush spoke over the last month the market had an immediate reaction.

Yes, clearly everyone expected an Obama win when they saw the last polls Monday. Today is just some profit taking.
In fact, if you look at the gains the last week they seemed to go hand in hand with the surety of an Obama win.

The president doesn't directly control the economy, but he is the leader of the country and sets the direction (s)he wants us to take. If they want to (de)regulate the market, then their party usually follows them which in cases where that party has a majority they can make legislature that will get enacted to law.

The president most certainly sets the direction of the economy, and has an affect on it if you believe it or not.

I actually agree with Techs which is rare.

 

[Ryan]

Originally posted by: DomS
I've said for some time, as I'm sure others have, that the market is as much psychological as it is fundamental in nature. So usually after a presidential election there's a slight early morning pop in the market. We didn't get that this year, but I digress.

That got me thinking, from a fundamental standpoint we are a free market. I said a while back, when they were forcing through those bailouts, that the gov't needed to decide if we were really a free market or not. Now it looks like the market decided for us, the bailout didn't have the immediate effect they were hoping it had. It doesn't matter what the president does in the end, the market is by and large free. Yes, the president can sign into existence measures that will try and effect it, but they can't magically force it one way or another. Obama will not save the market, Bush won't, nobody will. The market will save itself or fail entirely. That's why when I heard people talking about whether McCain or Obama would be better for the economy my head wanted to explode. It's like this bailout fiasco has taught people NOTHING. All it did was piss people off, have a one day positive effect on the stock market, and then fizzle.

Your effort to break down the economy into "fundamentals" skews any point you're trying to come to. We have never had a free market economy, not even fundamentally. It has forever been a mixed economy, and will continue so.

 

[DomS]

Originally posted by: DAPUNISHER

Originally posted by: Drakkon
The "pop" was felt yesterday as it was clear at that point who would win. So with that already priced in there was no point in a pop today.
The president may not control economy but has a pretty big influence over it. He sets policy which may or may not be followed, everything he says gets analyzed and as he says it the market shifts. Every time Bush spoke over the last month the market had an immediate reaction.

The bolded is the operative word here.

exactly. Yes he can sign legislation that will INFLUENCE it....but people are talking like Obama has this magic pill that will 'force' these wallstreet 'fat cats' to pay up, or whatever fantasy these bitter people have.

 

[QuantumPion]

The president can control the economy in many aspects. For example, he can write an executive order to put natural resources off limits, thus causing the price of oil to skyrocket and send the economy into a bear market. As chief executive, he can direct regulatory agencies to change regulations to permit or deny the exploitation of resources or new technologies. For example, Carter/Clinton's executive order disallowing the development of nuclear fuel reprocessing. Or Clinton's changing of EPA regulations of sulfur and arsenic, which had drastic implications for the coal industry and the use of diesel fuel.

 

[retrospooty]

The president DOES enact alot of things that DO directly control the economy (as in Bill CLinton). And can also IGNORE alot of things going on that could help (as in Bush)


http://clinton5.nara.gov/WH/Ac...nts/eightyears-03.html

Clinton-Gore Economic Policy Has Dramatically Improved the Economy

"My colleagues and I have been very appreciative of your [President Clinton?s] support of the Fed over the years, and your commitment to fiscal discipline has been instrumental in achieving what in a few weeks will be the longest economic expansion in the nation?s history."
? Alan Greenspan, Federal Reserve Board Chairman, January 4, 2000, with President Clinton at Chairman Greenspan?s re-nomination announcement

"The deficit has come down, and I give the Clinton Administration and President Clinton himself a lot of credit for that. [He] did something about it, fast. And I think we are seeing some benefits."
? Paul Volcker, Federal Reserve Board Chairman (1979-1987), in Audacity, Fall 1994

One of the reasons Goldman Sachs cites for the "best economy ever" is that "on the policy side, trade, fiscal, and monetary policies have been excellent, working in ways that have facilitated growth without inflation. The Clinton Administration has worked to liberalize trade and has used any revenue windfalls to reduce the federal budget deficit."
? Goldman Sachs, March 1998

"Clinton?s 1993 budget cuts, which reduced projected red ink by more than $400 billion over five years, sparked a major drop in interest rates that helped boost investment in all the equipment and systems that brought forth the New Age economy of technological innovation and rising productivity."
? Business Week, May 19, 1997

 

[DomS]

Originally posted by: Ryan

Originally posted by: DomS
I've said for some time, as I'm sure others have, that the market is as much psychological as it is fundamental in nature. So usually after a presidential election there's a slight early morning pop in the market. We didn't get that this year, but I digress.

That got me thinking, from a fundamental standpoint we are a free market. I said a while back, when they were forcing through those bailouts, that the gov't needed to decide if we were really a free market or not. Now it looks like the market decided for us, the bailout didn't have the immediate effect they were hoping it had. It doesn't matter what the president does in the end, the market is by and large free. Yes, the president can sign into existence measures that will try and effect it, but they can't magically force it one way or another. Obama will not save the market, Bush won't, nobody will. The market will save itself or fail entirely. That's why when I heard people talking about whether McCain or Obama would be better for the economy my head wanted to explode. It's like this bailout fiasco has taught people NOTHING. All it did was piss people off, have a one day positive effect on the stock market, and then fizzle.

Your effort to break down the economy into "fundamentals" skews any point you're trying to come to. We have never had a free market economy, not even fundamentally. It has forever been a mixed economy, and will continue so.

We have boundaries, and within those boundaries it's a free market. So for instance de regulation moves those boundaries out wider, but within them, it's still a free market. The president can choose a direction that those boundaries will move in, but between them, it's still a free market.

 

[Infohawk]

Some people voted for Obama for the right reasons, but most probably didn't. The bottom line is that the American electorate is pretty dumb. They just saw change vs. same and took change. Luckily, they guessed the right choice.

 

[TheoPetro]

Even if you look at it in such a limited scope of the economy equaling the stock market alone, the president has a lot of power. Regardless of whether its psychological based of fundamental based if the president comes out tomorrow and says that he is 100% for that fucking union bill the markets will react strongly. If thats not the ability to influence the stock market then I dont know what is.

Now if you look at the economy as a whole, instead of the limited view you took, you will see how just about every decision he makes will affect it in some way. 10 small decisions can have the same exact effect as 1 large one (Ex: small = some kind of $ for alternative fuel research, large = go to war with Iran).

I guess it comes down to you not understanding the basic fact that the president's actions do play a big role in the US economy.

 

[DAPUNISHER]

Originally posted by: Infohawk
Some people voted for Obama for the right reasons, but most probably didn't. The bottom line is that the American electorate is pretty dumb. They just saw change vs. same and took change. Luckily, they guessed the right choice.

It has been as "give the other guys a chance" mindset since the '06 elections. Things have deteriorated even further the last 2 years, reinforcing that mentality. For all the blame placed on the dems, what with them having a slim majority the last 2 years, it didn't stick, as last night clearly indicated.

 

[Xavier434]

"control"...no

"influence"...yes

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Xavier434
"control"...no

"influence"...yes

That "influence" became overwhelming under Bush rule.

Incredible that the OP doesn't see it or learn at all.

Nice to see many in here actually have learned. Clearly there are ones in here that haven't.

 

[Nemesis 1]

It did . Bush he was evil bastered wasn't he. Tell me about Enron scandle . Or who it was that made law the lenders had to borrow $$ to homes buyers when their wages clearly showed that they couldn't afford said loans. KEEP IT REAL.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: DomS

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: DomS
Topic Title: Why don't people understand this basic fact:
Topic Summary: THE PRESIDENT DOES NOT CONTROL THE ECONOMY.

<garbage snipped>

Bush has clearly shown that the office is controlled by Corporations (including religious organzations that are disguised like the Christian ones).

You didn't learn and that is sad.

I'm not saying Obama is immune to not being controlled by Corporations, I'm sure there will be puppet pulling still going on.

Can only hope it is not as rampant or bad as it was under Republican domination.

The market controls Bush then, not the other way around. The president does NOT control the economy

Youre exactly right. But people need a scapegoat.

 

[ModerateRepZero]

Certainly the President doesn't *control* the economy. But he most certainly can influence it. Witness for example, Reagan's deregulation of various industries, relaxed government oversight.

In fairness, the President can be blamed for the economy (George H.W. Bush) as much as given credit for its prosperity (Bill Clinton).