Quote:
|
Originally Posted by onetime2
This has been covered many times before. Every President is forced to take credit for the economy because those ignorant of these matters assign blame to him when it falters.
The stock market is not the economy. The economy is made up of millions of companies (from monsters like Wal Mart to the local newstand), thousands of industries, and billions of consumers. The economy is not easily influenced. The single person with any sort of control on the economy is the Chairman of the Federal Reserve (currently Alan Greenspan) and even his manipulation of interest rates (which immediately have a real effect on the economy) takes many months to significantly impact the flow of the economy.
Sustained productivity growth over the long term has a direct impact on employment. The more productive workers are the fewer workers required. If, as you state, productivity has increased primarily from the fact that people have been laid off and workers are being forced to do more how do you reconcile the fact that productivity has been increasing significantly for about a decade? This obviously would include the "low" unemployment period under Clinton's tenure.
Politicians can talk all they want but the reality is the President has almost no influence on the economy in 99% of cases.
|
If president bush was actually the "no bullshit common man" that his supporters like to paint him to be than he wouldn't pretend to have a say in the economy.
I didn't say layoffs were the only reason that productivity has increased. Offshoring and technology no boubt help too. What i meant was that i think they are probably a factor in the productivity increases that you're seemingly try to pawn off as a sign of a rebounding economy. If they have indeed been increasing for the past decade than why are they even relevant in a discussion about any kind of current economic upswing?