Whoever is elected will come into office facing one of the largest economic fall outs in American history. I think that the American people will be looking especially towards the new administration to set the economy back on track. Thus, I thought that our current economic state will probably have some effect on the election, whether it be helpful to McCain or Obama, or it may have no real effect.
However, Ron Paul makes a point that, while good economic policies are important, the president does not need to be an expert economist to set things right. This would then suggest that McCain's "lack of knowledge" in the field of economics wouldn't hurt his chances as president.
Personally, I think that as this financial crisis persists, the economy will become by far the greatest issue of this election. I think that this will give Obama an edge in the election, as the people will grow antsy for change in the White House and stray away from voting for McCain, who offers "more of the same." This could perhaps be one of the best things to happen to the Obama campaign.
My question is, do you think that the current state of the economy will aid McCain's campaign, Obama's, or neither, as Ron Paul suggests?
This article is also interesting, but a bit biased as well. Still, I found it amusing and think it's worth taking a look at.
Posts
6 comments:
I do not agree with the statement that the president does not have to be an expert economist to fix the financial crisis in the U.S. Although the president has cabinet members as well as the Federal Reserve to assist him with the job, it ultimately requires the knowledge and judgment of the president himself to discern whether a plan will work as intended or not. Since the president is the highest ranked member of the executive branch, I would not feel comfortable having a president that is unable to judge and qualify the suggestions of his cabinet members. Although the president does not develop policies by himself, he should still have a strong background in the area in order to understand which choices will have greater benefits to society. However, I do agree with Ron Paul on the statement that the president does not run the economy. The people should have the ultimate power in the market and the government's job in the economy is one that assists the consumers and producers with taxes and spending. Although the president does not have complete control over the economy, he should be able to understand the fundamentals so that the government can complement the actions of the Federal Reserve.
While the economy is such a significant issue for this year’s election, it is uncertain which candidate will have a slight edge as a result of the financial crisis. Although Obama is relatively new to Washington and only has a short senate experience, many people will be turned away by McCain’s lack of knowledge on the economy as well as the “more of the same” that people say he offers.
I agree with Atticus when it comes to the president's knowledge on economic matters. While it may be true that the president does not control the economy, he does have tremendous influence regarding taxation. The president's stance on key issues, such as taxation, and interest rates can drastically change the way the economy moves. For example, if the Federal Reserve increases the interest rate, investment and consumption expenditure decrease. The dollar rises, and net exports decrease as a result. Finally, a multiplier process induces a further decrease in consumption expenditure and aggregate demand decreases. John McCain's response to the question about interests rates shows that he probably does not understand these many effects.
While the Republican party has long promoted lower taxes and small government action in the economy, this policy can only get so far in times of crisis. It is a widely accepted fact that even if people have more of their own money to spend, they will spend less if they are anxious about the returns on their investments. The economy's current state makes me believe that the lower tax rates and limited government action will not help the situation.
As the second article that Peter shows, Barack Obama already has a six step program to combat the problems in the economy. By creating these steps in the first place, he has proven his credibility in economic matters. Furthermore, his plan points out exactly where the Republican ideology fails: without regulation unwise borrowing can lead to colossal failures like that of Fannie May.
While the current economic crisis may be "resolved" by the current administration, Obama and McCain's input on the subject could be extremely important when America votes. McCain has been pegged as a candidate who does not know much about the economy, but promises more spendable income through lowered taxes. Obama is incredibly knowledgeable, but many voters frown on big government. I predict that should the economy fail to repair itself, by November, the candidates' economic discussions will be very important.
There is a saying about the president and the economy that says, “When it comes to the economy, the president is like a coach. He gets too much blame when things go bad, and too much credit when things go well.” The reality is the president does have influence on the economy. He can control the amount of regulation the government imposes, but, ultimately, the United States’ economy is a capitalist market and its success is more influenced by the consumers and businesses than the government.
The fact that McCain is not an expert on economics is not a huge issue. Yes, it is preferable that our president is educated and well versed in as many areas as possible, but the president has access to experts who are the leaders in their respective fields. A president needs to be able to digest their advice and make an informed decision.
Unfortunately for McCain, most voters do not take the time to think through all of this. They view the president as responsible for the economy. Voters whose pockets are suddenly light from the free falling economy will want a president they believe can save them from economic depression. To them, this means one who understands economics.
Also unfortunate for McCain is the fact that Democrats tend to be viewed more favorably when it comes the economy. To combat this he is attacking Obama with the charge that raising taxes at this time is bad for the economy. This charge might be valid, if it were not for the fact that Obama has said he is not going to raise taxes on the middle class, he is only going to raise taxes on people making over $250,000 a year.
The New Republic has an interesting article on Obama as a big spender. It is not completely related to the current economic crisis but is worth a read.
http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_plank/archive/2008/09/18/hey-big-spender.aspx
I think the economy issue will aid Obama because he is such a good speaker, and most voters believe everything they hear without really thinking about it. Obama is able to make it sound as if he really knows what he's talking about when it comes to the economy and that his policies will immediately produce a drastic change in the economy. In reality though, I think his "plans" will destroy the economy because he has no clue as to how to actually fix the economy.
As to the President being an expert on the economy, it is absolutely unnecessary. How many presidents have been economists? FDR, Lincoln, and Clinton weren't economists but they were able to fix ailing economies. If the people really wanted a president who is an expert on the economy, they might as well vote for Ralph Nadar. I mean the guy's been an economist his whole life.
Although I am writing this comment post-election, I still wish to praise Peter for presenting a correct prediction. As it turned out, the economy became the single most significant issue of the 2008 Presidential Race. Even it's repercussions were touched upon in Peter's post. The economy's significance and stagnated state as an issue helped bring victory to the Obama campaign on election day since, historically, people tend to vote the party not previously in power. Unfortunately, McCain's only addressed advantage (the President does not need to be an economic genius in order to be effective) did not fall through.
Peter, you were certainly right in your prediction that the financial crisis would be the defining issue of the 2008 election. There is no question that the American people's faith in Obama's ability to help the nation decided the election.
It will be interesting to see what happens four years down the road. The economy will most likey take more than four years to make a recovery. Moreover, the American people who are losing the homes, retirement savings, and standards of living may have to wait more than four years for things to get better. In other words, no matter what Obama does during his first term, the struggling U.S. economy may once again be the central issue of the 2012 election. If this is true, Obama may have a tougher time gaining that same confidence from the American people he had in the 2008 election.
Post a Comment