Economically, Obama could be Americas best president

satansbed

http://www.forbes.com/sites/adamhartung ... president/

Interesting piece

WOOT!!

Godfather.

Godfather.

OnTheEdge

Yeah...i'm feeling it :roll:

mikepegg44

satansbed wrote:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/adamhartung/2013/05/16/economically-could-obama-be-americas-best-president/

Interesting piece

WOOT!!

I would be wary of someone who equates economic success to record highs in the stock market indices

Go Beavers

Godfather. wrote:

Godfather.

Godfather laughs all the way to the bank with his big returns.

Forbes: clearly another cog in the liberal media machine

mookeywrench

Obama coincidentally took the reigns of the presidency right when the recession hit the trough. It looks like he's making progress, but it's only the natural business cycle.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

mookeywrench wrote:

Obama coincidentally took the reigns of the presidency right when the recession hit the trough. It looks like he's making progress, but it's only the natural business cycle.

So, what you're saying is that any fool can be the president of the USA. Whether they are any good or not depends on whether or not they time their term with the natural business cycle?

mookeywrench

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

mookeywrench wrote:

Obama coincidentally took the reigns of the presidency right when the recession hit the trough. It looks like he's making progress, but it's only the natural business cycle.

So, what you're saying is that any fool can be the president of the USA. Whether they are any good or not depends on whether or not they time their term with the natural business cycle?

I'm saying that declaring a President to be the best economically only on the basis of whether the economy is in an upswing is a foolish judgment when all other facts are considered with what causes the economic upswing.

When it comes down to a trough created by the invisible hand and declared by economists vs. a federal government that has been deadlocked and endless stand-stills between the house and executor for the past 4 years, I'd say the invisible hand has held more influence on the economy's up-swing.

satansbed

mookeywrench wrote:

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

mookeywrench wrote:

Obama coincidentally took the reigns of the presidency right when the recession hit the trough. It looks like he's making progress, but it's only the natural business cycle.

So, what you're saying is that any fool can be the president of the USA. Whether they are any good or not depends on whether or not they time their term with the natural business cycle?

I'm saying that declaring a President to be the best economically only on the basis of whether the economy is in an upswing is a foolish judgment when all other facts are considered with what causes the economic upswing.

When it comes down to a trough created by the invisible hand and declared by economists vs. a federal government that has been deadlocked and endless stand-stills between the house and executor for the past 4 years, I'd say the invisible hand has held more influence on the economy's up-swing.

Except in the last 5 years the "invisible hand" has been more visible than ever, motor bailout, massive stimulus, increasing regulation. Also when you compare the states to Europe you see the u.s. has returned to growth, while Europe which has instead implemented austerity has not.

satansbed

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.co ... &seid=auto

mikepegg44

satansbed wrote:

mookeywrench wrote:

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

So, what you're saying is that any fool can be the president of the USA. Whether they are any good or not depends on whether or not they time their term with the natural business cycle?

I'm saying that declaring a President to be the best economically only on the basis of whether the economy is in an upswing is a foolish judgment when all other facts are considered with what causes the economic upswing.

When it comes down to a trough created by the invisible hand and declared by economists vs. a federal government that has been deadlocked and endless stand-stills between the house and executor for the past 4 years, I'd say the invisible hand has held more influence on the economy's up-swing.

Except in the last 5 years the "invisible hand" has been more visible than ever, motor bailout, massive stimulus, increasing regulation. Also when you compare the states to Europe you see the u.s. has returned to growth, while Europe which has instead implemented austerity has not.

which regulations do you believe led to the recovery?

The recovery effort is based on spending yourself out of debt. If the FED does not pump 87 billion dollars a MONTH into the economy on top of the trillions already put there, there is no recovery. when they stop the market will crash, guaranteed. Free money will always benefit those at the top, but the peasants certainly aren't experiencing the growth that hundreds of billions of stimulus dollars should realize. Rich people got richer, but there is a reason that the amount of those on assistance has nearly doubled and not gone down...

Also, the EU does not have the same ability as the FED to QE their way to an inflated recovery.

satansbed

when the economy grows its easier to reduce the deficit.

When the pie grows the slice of pie the government takes in taxes grows also. Hence why the deficit forecast shrunk for this year

mikepegg44

satansbed wrote:

when the economy grows its easier to reduce the deficit.

When the pie grows the slice of pie the government takes in taxes grows also. Hence why the deficit forecast shrunk for this year

remember though they raised tax rates.

satansbed

mikepegg44 wrote:

satansbed wrote:

when the economy grows its easier to reduce the deficit.

When the pie grows the slice of pie the government takes in taxes grows also. Hence why the deficit forecast shrunk for this year

remember though they raised tax rates.

That is a factor but GDP growth is more important

mikepegg44

satansbed wrote:

That is a factor but GDP growth is more important

it certainly is.