Quote:
Originally Posted by vvvvv
Reagan actually ruined our economy. You don't remember people walking away from their houses that they owed more on than they were worth? 1988, 1989 were horrible because of the damage Reagan did. 1990, 1991... lots of people got foreclosed on. It took Bill Clinton to fix it.
Bush ruined our economy. It took obama to fix it.
Republicans love off shoring. Bush signed NAFTA. Republican donors are people who don't care about the environment, your health, or whether you have a good paying job. You will still need the Koch brother's energy even if you are in jail, a hospital or a housing unit in the ghetto.
The Republican led congress is fucking up what could be done right now to improve your lives. They even admitted it happily. Do you not remember them saying they wouldn't allow anything good to be attributed to Obama? So they block even in funding of troops. If they really have a shit they would write a troop funding bill with nothing else attached to it.
|
Most economists will tell you that presidential policy has very little impact on the economy. In terms of importance, the president would rank a distant distant third behind market forces and the Fed. Even though the president names the chairman, the fed has always operated largely independent of the political process and every president since Reagan (and possibly before) has reappointed a head from the previous administration.
Volcker - nominated by Carter, reappointed by Reagan
Greenspan - nominated by Reagan, reappointed by Bush, Clinton, & Bush.
Bernanke - nominated by Bush, reappointed by Obama
Yellen - nominated by Obama, TBD
Playing the blame game is silly but if for some reason anyone feels the need to blame anyone for â??printing trillions of dollarsâ?? (aka quantitative easing), the person to blame is Bernanke, the chairman of the fed who was appointed by Bush and retained by Obama. Keep in mind that blaming the Grobama economy on Bush because Bush nominated Bernanke means you also have to credit Carter for the Reagan economy because Carter nominated Volcker.
The labor force participation rate is what it is because of market forces,
Globalization and technology driven automation obviously two big reasons.
Is there anyone out there who believes that Trump will somehow be able to stop people on GFY from hiring Indian SEO gurus, graphic designers from the Balkans, Filipino chatters, or Hungarian pornstars? Do you think the next president will be able to stop Eastern European programmers from programming bots to do any number of things which were formerly done by hand?
Another reason itâ??s back to what it was in in the 70s is because of the levelling off of female participation. The president has nothing to do with it.
Labour markets: The "quasi-structural" unemployment issue | The Economist