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