I just finished reading a February 6, 2008 Op-Ed piece in the Washington Post by Robert J. Samuelson. Mr. Samuelson reflects the consensus of many economists that presidents have usually had serious negative consequences when they attempt to influence the economy.
I recall Nixon's wage and price freeze which screwed me out of a raise. It worked long enough to get him elected during a short term economic boom which subsequently led to 12 percent inflation (1974) when the controls were removed.
In 1933 Franklin Roosevelt imposed New Deal policies designed to end the depression. They had little impact, World War II ended the depression.
Kennedy and Johnson followed expansionary policies to reduce unemployment. They ultimately led to high inflation.
Ronald Reagan's tax cuts and spending restraints are thought by some to have reduced inflation (thanks Nixon) from 13 to 4 percent. The real hero was the Federal Reserve which, giving credit deserved, Reagan supported.
Clinton was one of the most successful presidents in matters of economics. He left things alone and didn't try to manipulate the economy.
So, when the public clamors for presidents and congress to improve the economy, watch out.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Some would argue that Woodrow Wilson (with the help of an isolationist congress) caused the depression by passing a series of protectionist trade laws that resulted in retaliatory laws in Europe.
I think you are right, nice to think that our presidency has a tradition going on at least a hundred years.
Post a Comment