Quote:
Originally posted by Superbelt
Policy decisions, both internal and external such as tax cuts and starting wars, and helping america and the companies in its borders feel secure. Keeping the nation financially solvent, paying down our national debt (to me this is the most direct and powerful means a President can effect the economy). His ability to charge up the american population. The willingness of the government to go after companies who cheat the system such as the disregarding of several major corporations moving their accounts offshore.
|
Yep, I've heard plenty of my neighbors say "You know, I wasn't going to get the bigger house/new car/the DVD player I always wanted, but Clinton/Bush/Carter/whoever has made me feel much safer so I'm gonna splurge".
The things you mention most people take for granted and they do not impact day to day or long-term spending. Americans feel relatively safe, they generally believe that, while not altruistic and certainly out for their themselves/their leaders, corporations are more or less safe investments. These aren't things at the forefront of their economic decisions.
Interest rates, home prices, inflation, jobs, ease of getting credit, consumer confidence, consumer spending etc have far greater impacts than anything you mentioned and are not directly controlled by the President. The President may be able to influence some of them perhaps putting pressure on the Fed to lower interest rates (although Greenspan is pretty good about keeping out of the politics game), inspiring consumer confidence to a minor degree, etc but he has no direct way of impacting these things. He could start a major government jobs initiative but that would only be a short term fix and would simply increasse the debt you rail about.
The President has no way to know what will inspire confidence or what the reaction of the consumer will be to any of his actions. The consumer is unpredictable because he/she has varying needs/desires/fears. What causes consumers to stop spending one year may influence them to spend more the following year. There are far too many influences on the consumer to think any one action can have a predetermined effect on him/her. And, in the end, it's the consumer who determines what the economy does.
Once again, throwing out one or two figures to describe the economy and the relative success or failure of an administration is misleading and in many cases just political finger pointing. How about throwing in the incredible levels of productivity increases for each administration? What do you think that does? More productive workers means fewer workers are required. How about throwing in the trends around women joining the workforce in a major way? What do you think that does to the numbers?