Hillary claims she is being attacked.

#78
#78
truefan said:
Now, that is PURELY your opinion and I would like to hear what you have to say to see just how uninformed it really is.
Click to expand...

Its not an opinion, you need to go back and read all the posts we have on this thread. I think TennTradition and I beat it to death in an arguement.

To be fair to all presidents usually the economics of the previous administration hit their apex after they are gone. I have talk to some economists who believe Clinton got credit for Reagan's policies? So my guess is we wont know the truth behind Bush until much later.
 
#79
#79
MontereyVol said:
Its not an opinion, you need to go back and read all the posts we have on this thread. I think TennTradition and I beat it to death in an arguement.

To be fair to all presidents usually the economics of the previous administration hit their apex after they are gone. I have talk to some economists who believe Clinton got credit for Reagan's policies? So my guess is we wont know the truth behind Bush until much later.
Click to expand...

I'm just curious, why is it that Clinton doesn't get credit for the economy while he is in office yet Carter does get the blame for the economy while he is in office? Which one is it? Not saying you brought up Carter, just curious.
 
#80
#80
MontereyVol said:
Its not an opinion, you need to go back and read all the posts we have on this thread. I think TennTradition and I beat it to death in an arguement.

To be fair to all presidents usually the economics of the previous administration hit their apex after they are gone. I have talk to some economists who believe Clinton got credit for Reagan's policies? So my guess is we wont know the truth behind Bush until much later.
Click to expand...


Did you forget about the recession during the H Bush presidency? So it was Reagen's fault????
 
#83
#83
truefan said:
Did you forget about the recession during the H Bush presidency? So it was Reagen's fault????
Click to expand...
Actually, that recession was a function of the economic cycle, enhanced by some credit issues associated with Long Term Capital and loose lending by thrifts. The administration had nearly nothing to do with the cycle.

In fact, the last cycle visibly impacted by administration policy was probably in the transition from Carter to Reagan. Presidents and their policies only tangentially impact the economy. Heck, the fed just barely impacts the economy with all of its machinations.
 
#85
#85
jkell24 said:
I'm just curious, why is it that Clinton doesn't get credit for the economy while he is in office yet Carter does get the blame for the economy while he is in office? Which one is it? Not saying you brought up Carter, just curious.
Click to expand...

Not to sound pompous but I live in Monterey. I get into alot of conventions and lectures due to NPS and the Leon Pinetta Institute. Most economists agree we were living the 90's due to Reagan's policies. I always thought trickle down economics was stupid, on the other hand it also lead to the bursting of the bubble in the dotcom bust.

I would however agree mostly with what BigPapaVol states that presidents dont effect the economy as much as everyone thinks. I however disagree with his fed argument.

Last point is Hillary is now on record for the government taking control over the market, which I must say would be unholy and against everything the US has ever stood for in economics.
 
#86
#86
MontereyVol said:
Not to sound pompous but I live in Monterey. I get into alot of conventions and lectures due to NPS and the Norman Mineta Institute. Most economists agree we were living the 90's due to Reagan's policies. I always thought trickle down economics was stupid, on the other hand it also lead to the bursting of the bubble in the dotcom bust.

I would however agree mostly with what BigPapaVol states that presidents dont effect the economy as much as everyone thinks. I however disagree with his fed argument.

Last point is Hillary is now on record for the government taking control over the market, which I must say would be unholy and against everything the US has ever stood for in economics.
Click to expand...

Its not pompous at all, well stated.
 
#89
#89
MontereyVol said:
Not to sound pompous but I live in Monterey. I get into alot of conventions and lectures due to NPS and the Leon Pinetta Institute. Most economists agree we were living the 90's due to Reagan's policies. I always thought trickle down economics was stupid, on the other hand it also lead to the bursting of the bubble in the dotcom bust.

I would however agree mostly with what BigPapaVol states that presidents dont effect the economy as much as everyone thinks. I however disagree with his fed argument.

Last point is Hillary is now on record for the government taking control over the market, which I must say would be unholy and against everything the US has ever stood for in economics.
Click to expand...


Thanks, now I enjoy this kind of discussion. I think you hit the keyword with "dotcom" for our mid-90's boom.
 
#90
#90
MontereyVol said:
Not to sound pompous but I live in Monterey. I get into alot of conventions and lectures due to NPS and the Leon Pinetta Institute. Most economists agree we were living the 90's due to Reagan's policies. I always thought trickle down economics was stupid, on the other hand it also lead to the bursting of the bubble in the dotcom bust.

I would however agree mostly with what BigPapaVol states that presidents dont effect the economy as much as everyone thinks. I however disagree with his fed argument.

Last point is Hillary is now on record for the government taking control over the market, which I must say would be unholy and against everything the US has ever stood for in economics.
Click to expand...
What do you disagree with. I think even the Fed will tell you that they've lost much of their ability to move the economy. Either way, the Fed operates independently from the two parties, as it should.
 
#91
#91
BigPapaVol said:
What do you disagree with. I think even the Fed will tell you that they've lost much of their ability to move the economy. Either way, the Fed operates independently from the two parties, as it should.
Click to expand...

You have probably heard on TV how the market builds in an anticipated rate cut before the Fed announces what it is. If for some reason the fed comes out with something different the markets react badly. So its not so much that the Fed doesnt control the market as the market is now controlling the fed.
 
#92
#92
MontereyVol said:
You have probably heard on TV how the market builds in an anticipated rate cut before the Fed announces what it is. If for some reason the fed comes out with something different the markets react badly. So its not so much that the Fed doesnt control the market as the market is now controlling the fed.
Click to expand...
but you're talking about Wall St, not the economy. The Fed can clearly make short term blips in the economy and can impact company profitablity by changing borrowing rates, which is what we see when the market "prices in" a Fed change. However, the Fed can only impact corporate earnings a very limited amount. The economy as a whole drives earnings.
 
#93
#93
That all depends on how much the government stays out of the economy. We may get our chance to see how government control does in the next election cycle.

and I believe you are minimizing the feds impact. Lets say the Fed just ceased to exist, the market would eventually destroy itself without institutional control.
 
#94
#94
MontereyVol said:
That all depends on how much the government stays out of the economy. We may get our chance to see how government control does in the next election cycle.

and I believe you are minimizing the feds impact. Lets say the Fed just ceased to exist, the market would eventually destroy itself without institutional control.
Click to expand...
as long as some body existed to regulate rates and fight inflation, then the market would prove better than the FED. Maybe a body made up of Financial Officers from the S&P 500 or something, each with a vote.

The Fed impacts, but Greenspan has been correctly saying for years that the Fed has lost much of it's inluence over the economy.
 
#95
#95
BigPapaVol said:
as long as some body existed to regulate rates and fight inflation, then the market would prove better than the FED. Maybe a body made up of Financial Officers from the S&P 500 or something, each with a vote.

The Fed impacts, but Greenspan has been correctly saying for years that the Fed has lost much of it's inluence over the economy.
Click to expand...

Thats what the Fed is supposed to do.

and right now I would rather have the fed than a board of CFO's that lately are proving to be more like politicians and only trying to promote their own personal profit.

In other words its not a good idea for insiders to regulate themselves. An outside third party always works better.
 
#96
#96
MontereyVol said:
Thats what the Fed is supposed to do.

and right now I would rather have the fed than a board of CFO's that lately are proving to be more like politicians and only trying to promote their own personal profit.

In other words its not a good idea for insiders to regulate themselves. An outside third party always works better.
Click to expand...
but you put out the hypothetical of the Fed going away. I like that the Fed does what it does.

A diverse body of CFOs would likely come to voted decisions that represent the best decision for the whole.

I obviously not advocating anything of that nature, but could see the market make that work as well. Not everyone has a short term view.

I'm saying that the elected gov't has little to do with the movements of the economy and the Fed is becoming less and less influential. From a macro view, the government can really impact a couple of the variables that represent the economy. The remainder is out of their hands.
 
#97
#97
Well, I agree. The government is supposed to be independent of the fed. (unless hillary takes office). so your point is, that you would like to see a board vs a single fed chairman? I cant really argue with that.
 
#98
#98
MontereyVol said:
Well, I agree. The government is supposed to be independent of the fed. (unless hillary takes office). so your point is, that you would like to see a board vs a single fed chairman? I cant really argue with that.
Click to expand...
I really don't care the makeup of the decision making body, as long as it retains independence. I think the current setup of chairman and governors works fine. The chairman has rarely acted unilaterally so we've generally remained very measured in our approach, even to a fault.

The entire debate has been about who gets credit for the economy. The pieces that the elected officials can take credit for are really tax rates and government spending.

We appear to be headed toward increased tax rates, especially the marginal ones for the big earners and that will have an impact on the economy. Guess the government will ramp up its own spending to offset the negative effect. Except that the high tax guys tout their plan as a means to eliminate debt and reduce deficits. That plan is 100% guaranteed to reduce GDP.

I think we've repeatedly proven that reduced tax rates increase government receipts enormously, but it just doesn't sell well as a politician. Increased taxes on the wealthy to pay for programs for everyone sounds like a magic bullet, but it has never worked that way.
 
#99
#99
Well, I will have to admit Macro economics isnt my strong suite. But I'll say this, our president largely effects how the populace feels about the economy. Whether you get scared and hoard your money or go on spending sprees. Clinton had everyone feeling like they were high and cash soaked so people went out and overspent. So you cant really credit the president but the lemmings who buy into his BS.
 
#100
#100
I thought Paul's comments about managing the economy not being the job of the President was very interesting.

I think he is correct. Light use fiscal policy via taxation and spending should be the scope.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top