Public Opinion: How Much Control Over the Economy Will the Next President Have?
And whom would you rather see try—John McCain or Barack Obama? Post your thoughts.
Reader Comments
Economy
The U.S. is at the crash & burn threshold, because of catastrophic fuel prices & the subsequent cost of all goods carried by trucks, airplanes & trains. Food price escalation, like the boost in crude oil, is a constant. Merchandisers are struggling to moderate the prices to consumers, but the accumulated costs are nearly at the breaking point for an increasing number. When massive buyer purchasing power falters massively the U.S. may face economic chaos & ruin. No President can long manage such chaos. Clearly it is already past time for economic price control to be applied to oil, fuels & food. We are nearing a time of crisis, when nothing else will work in time to prevent disaster. The economy has over 6 months from now to hit bottom; how will it look by mid-January '09 ?
Simultaneously, the U.S. Congress must determine the cause of the high oil & fuel costs in order to bring order to these basic commodities. The basic problem may rest with the shortage of & value of the U.S. dollar. Instead of selling trillions of U.S. dollars to the Orient to finance a reckless war & singular corporate enrichment (military enhancement) our government should be inventing capital projects to sell to the World & enrich the Treasurey, (eg potable water generation & distribution, military protection not just alliances, massive compatible power generation/distribution, affordable, universal Health Care & disease control for all the Nations & feasible ground transportation everywhere). Yes! A free market is preferable, but you can see where the free market is taking the U.S. & perhaps the World economy! Can you & the masses live with that?
Candidates and the economy
I prefer McCain because Obama has shown little in the way of experience or expertise. He's only about good speeches. Winging it, he shows just how little he knows about anything. The press tends to overlook this. I don't. However, it really doesn't matter as the congress is the spending control (or lack of) and the fed is the money machine. The less of our money the government gets, the less it can waste. That's a good principle for either candidate to run on but I doubt that's in Sen. Obama's repetroire at all and we can only hope that Sen. McCain means what he says about spending. We'll see
Neither candidate will be satisfactory because of lack of experience and on the part of Mc Cain, he admits that he does not know enough about economics. In addition, he (Mc Cain) has stated that one of his first priorities will be to eliminate cumbersom regulations on business. Is he kidding, no "cumbersom regulations" of banks, oil comppanies, insurance companies, health insurance companies, credit card companies, pharmacuticals, and the home mortgage companies)!
Economic Control
When the borrower can print his own money why is there any expectation of responsibility or restraint?
When the borrower has a limited term to spend, why should there be any concern for repayment?
economy-president control
The President will have, and has had, very little control of the economy. The major actor on the government side is the Fed. The Fed is an independent agency not subject to presidential control. The Fed is in a bind at present because it cannot cut the prime below 2% to help the economy and it cannot raise the rate to control inflation. The "invisible hand" of Adam Smith is the only control that we can look to to keep things on an even keel. The good news is that it works, the bad news is that the President and the Congress, whoever they may be cannot resist attempting to tinker with the business cycle, often with disastrous results. As far as the candidates go, Obama's ideas on the economy are those that have been shown not to work back in the 50's and 60's. McCain is definitely the safer candidate, although both of them leave a lot to be desired.
economy
I think it is unfortunate that so many people in the US rely on the Government. The Government has become to big and involved with every aspect of our lives. This huge Government is probably the largest employer in our Country and requires so much money to operate I would applaude and definately vote for anyone who could start reducing the size and scope of our Government.
Most of the people in this country earning under $50,000 that also have two or more children are probably paying little if any income tax at the present time. Obviously, all the people on welfare, SS, SS Disability, etc. are probably not paying any income tax either. Where does all the money come from to run this Government? Let's start by eliminating all the pork as President Bush told Congress not to long ago. Let's cut the spending. Our Economy should thrive under an open market. Maybe there aren't enough people working and too many on the dole. I would never vote for any Democrat because they pander to all the people that want handouts from the Government so they can get their vote. I think they have also tried to allow prison inmates to have the right to vote. They seem to be against all the people that build business and obtain wealth (The American Way) and only want to tax and legislate against the so-called rich. Didn't they get the message when they tried the Luxury tax and totally decimated the Custom Boat builders in this country. Perhaps if they actually read the Constitution (it is actually written in very simple language) they might get it. It doesn't say that everyone has to have the same things and every one should have equal amounts it says everyone should have equal opportunity. Let's focus on that and quit giving things away just to get votes.
Not Much, and Here's Why
A president's ability to influence the economy has been overblown for many years. After all, even Franklin Roosevelt's influence, rubber stamped by a compliant Congress, did far less to revive the economy than did Germany and Japan during WWII.
In fact, a President's powers are less than ever, even with a compliant Congress. That's because almost two thirds of Federal spending are so-called "mandatory programs" such as Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, Food Stamps, and other non-discretionary programs. Add to that fact that we and the rest of the world are more dependent on global factors -- including the impact of importing 60% of our 20-million-barrel-per-day oil habit.
There is one exception -- the biofuels policies imposed on us by the Democratic Congress in 2007, spurred on, this time, by a compliant President. As the World Bank has now apparently discovered, 75% of the increase in food prices over the past several months is being driven by 3 very bad federal policies that have been put in place by a bipartisan cabal -- a 51-cent subsidy to oil companies -- petroleum "blenders" -- to use corn based ethanol; a 54-cent per gallon tariff on imported ethanol; and worse of all, a government mandate to produce 9 billion gallons of corn based ethanol this year, going up to 15 billion gallons by 2015.
Aside from stupid, Soviet-style economic planning of that nature, the President's powers are pretty much limited to who he puts in charge of the Federal Reserve Board. Demographic trends have much more impact than do federal policies in an increasingly global economy.
