Trump Card

[Whirlaway]

It's not the economy that is tanking under Obama (yet); it is the debt he (and his Dems) are piling up !!!!!!

[Doove]

Originally Posted by pjorourke

And the rest of that quote was:

The point is, Obama's stupid economic policies are perpetuating the recession and will kick off horrible inflation -- things measured by the Misery Index and which the President actually does influence. As opposed to the stock market -- which has little if any relevance.

Reagan started when the index was at its highest level in the chart, so there was nowhere to go but down. So, since you didn't like it when i quoted you word for word, i'll say it myself; you pick a low enough point and anything looks good.

We can argue all day over when in a President's term he actually takes ownership of the economy, but this much is clear. Under Reagan, the index in his 2nd term dipped to a low of 7.7, close to the 7.73 when Obama took over. After dipping to 7.7, it subsequently rose to 10.53 before again settling back to the 9.72 where it ended up. Again, this was during his 2nd term where there should be no disagreement over whether or not he "owned" the economy. It rose almost as much as it currently has for Obama, in his first 2 years, where it's highly debatable just how much of that 2 year time period belongs to him.

Secondly, given the fluctuations in the index, even under Reagan, i'm not sure the President's policies are any more or less responsible for the Misery Index than they are for the DJIA.

Third, if you want to argue that the Misery Index is indicative of the effectiveness of a President's economic policies, then i think the only figure that really shows how good or bad those policies were is the final figure. In which case, 6 of the last 12 Presidents were all better than Reagan - with only Jimmy Carter and a bunch of Republicans being worse.

[Marcus Aurelius]

I don't know who is responsible.



But I'm afraid that we are all fooked.

[atlcomedy]

Originally Posted by Doove

We can argue all day over when in a President's term he actually takes ownership of the economy,.

That's just it...he never does...yes he impacts it and gets too much credit/blame depending on the outcome..

..but to judge a Presidency by the economy lacks understanding of our economy.

[charlestudor2005]

Originally Posted by atlcomedy

..but to judge a Presidency by the economy lacks understanding of our economy.

I'm not an economic genius...I don't even subscribe to the theories of any of the "great" economists since I don't know who they are.

But even to my slow mind, it seems that what a President does on any given day isn't reflect on the next day in the economy. I dare say, it's not reflected in the next quarter. I don't know the amount of time, but it would be easier for me to believe that the difference between the implementation of policy and the economic response is about 4 years. So what a president does in the first year of his term isn't reflected in the economy until the first year of the next term...and so on.

I'd be interested in hearing from more learned minds on this board about this issue.

[atlcomedy]

Originally Posted by charlestudor2005

I'm not an economic genius...I don't even subscribe to the theories of any of the "great" economists since I don't know who they are.

But even to my slow mind, it seems that what a President does on any given day isn't reflect on the next day in the economy. I dare say, it's not reflected in the next quarter. I don't know the amount of time, but it would be easier for me to believe that the difference between the implementation of policy and the economic response is about 4 years. So what a president does in the first year of his term isn't reflected in the economy until the first year of the next term...and so on.

I'd be interested in hearing from more learned minds on this board about this issue.

So Carter is an economic genius?

Bottom-line they have an impact...just like the weather and natural disaster have an impact....

but the President doesn't drive the economy

[pjorourke]

Originally Posted by bigtex

PJ, I hate to be the bearer of bad news but it seems you left out a very significant historical fact from the end of the above sentence. Did you do so on purpose or did you just forget? It should have read "economic policies are perpetuating the recession" which officially began on September 15, 2008 in the final few months of George W. Bush's 8 years in office!

You mean kind of like how Bush W inherited the recession that actually started on Clinton's watch?

[WTF]

Originally Posted by pjorourke

You mean kind of like how Bush W inherited the recession that actually started on Clinton's watch?

Well then Reagan inherited Carter's recovery.

[atlcomedy]

Originally Posted by WTF

Well then Reagan inherited Carter's recovery.

RTFF

I said that half an hour ago

[atlcomedy]

WTF??? why are we even getting our panties in a bunch about Charles Tudor Economics?

[pjorourke]

Originally Posted by Doove

Reagan started when the index was at its highest level in the chart, so there was nowhere to go but down.

And how did it get to the highest point? The dumbass policies of Jimmy.

But again, its the trend that counts. Everything else is just the hand you were dealt. And Obama's trend sucks, and is getting worse.

[pjorourke]

Originally Posted by WTF

Well then Reagan inherited Carter's recovery.

Yeah right! Gas lines anyone?

[Texas Contrarian]

It's great fun to read these threads for the comedic value.

Carter's recovery? ROTFLMAO!

It would really be funny to hear someone try to explain that!

Jimmy inherited a bad problem from Nixon/Ford, but spent the first two-thirds of his term making it much worse and digging a deeper hole (just as Obama's doing now).

In 1978, he managed to replace the disastrous Arthur Burns with an even worse Fed Chairman, and only was prevailed upon to reverse course in the summer of 1979. By then it was too late to save his failing presidency. A severe recession was already preordained, since the Fed had to break the back of inflation and restore some semblence of sound money.

Now it's Obama who inherited a bad situation and sems hell-bent on making it much worse. Our current "recovery" is built on a foundation of loose sand. Just wait and see what happens when the Federal Reserve tries to withdraw ZIRP (in place since December 2008) and QE. Then where is Treasury going to go? The market for 7s and 10s could go up in a puff of smoke after QE2 withdrawal, and our government has largely been borrowing short (5 years and in). What happens when short rates go up, too? It won't be a pretty picture if these guys try to monetize trillions of dollars more debt.

The bounceback following severe recessions is usually very robust. The fact that the current recovery is so lame, even in the presence of unprecedented levels of fiscal and monetary stimulus, is a very depressing sign.

Proving that you can be an even more fiscally irresponsible president than your predecessor, when he himself was the most fiscally irresponsible president in modern history, is not exactly a blueprint for success.

[Doove]

Originally Posted by pjorourke

And how did it get to the highest point? The dumbass policies of Jimmy.

Kind of like the way the DJIA and the economy tanked under Bush? Oh, that's right, the President doesn't have any impact on the DJIA.

But again, its the trend that counts. Everything else is just the hand you were dealt. And Obama's trend sucks, and is getting worse.

Oh, now it's trends. Again, Reagan's "trend" finished worse than 6 of the last 12 Presidents.

[pjorourke]

Trend = difference between where you start and where you end.