3 ms·

That article sounds like politics in general is bad for business with which I agree. That original article didn't mention politics at all, either. It seems lik

by jeromec 16y ago

That article sounds like politics in general is bad for business with which I agree. That original article didn't mention politics at all, either. It seems like you're the one reading that into it. The huffingtonpost.com link does mention economic policies, and uncertainty, but that's to be expected, as, I agree with you, people do begin to look for someone in charge to blame. The reality, however, is that we were losing 750,000 jobs a month before Obama was even sworn in. The problem is that we didn't hit bottom with a complete financial system collapse and a full blown depression. Then Obama could not be blamed, because the only way to go would be up. As it stands, however, we averted that level of crisis and pain, yet many people don't realize the severity of the hit to our economy, and how long it will take to fix it -- no matter who is in charge.

protomyth 16y ago
Generally, for better or worse, the current sitting President is generally praised / blamed for all matters economic.
- fleitz 16y ago
  It's surprising that the guy who heads the organization that owns the banks, regulates the banks, prints the money, and appoints the guy who sets the prime rate would be held to account for economic matters involving primarily those organizations.
  - jeromec 16y ago
    Central banks do not control the entire economy. There is much more involved, and economics is so complex that even experts vigorously disagree much of the time. Presidents themselves do not usually possess a high degree of economic insight and understanding. This is why all types of presidents from different parties have presided over recessions, depressions, and bursting bubbles. This leads some, like Ron Paul, notably, to suggest the fundamental system is flawed, and therefore suggests tinkering will never fix it, so the Federal Reserve should be abolished. I'm not saying I think he has the right strategy, but I do think he is correct in his reasoning for why we often experience economic angst.

by jeromec 16y ago

protomyth 16y ago

Generally, for better or worse, the current sitting President is generally praised / blamed for all matters economic.

fleitz 16y ago
It's surprising that the guy who heads the organization that owns the banks, regulates the banks, prints the money, and appoints the guy who sets the prime rate would be held to account for economic matters involving primarily those organizations.
- jeromec 16y ago
  Central banks do not control the entire economy. There is much more involved, and economics is so complex that even experts vigorously disagree much of the time. Presidents themselves do not usually possess a high degree of economic insight and understanding. This is why all types of presidents from different parties have presided over recessions, depressions, and bursting bubbles. This leads some, like Ron Paul, notably, to suggest the fundamental system is flawed, and therefore suggests tinkering will never fix it, so the Federal Reserve should be abolished. I'm not saying I think he has the right strategy, but I do think he is correct in his reasoning for why we often experience economic angst.