Your theories are wrong but I won't tear them apart
Nah Economics isn't this hard thing that you make it out to be. It is a simple social science that helps explain how the world works. Adam Smith and Marx were 2 of the greatest. You add in a little math and it becomes really quite beautiful.
Nobody has secret info. Yes the president might know (if he even understands, which I doubt) certain things earlier than others, but everyone ends up finding out. But the delay is a couple hours to a day at the most at the highest level and the accuracy would probably be better outside the public sector even.
The 4 year cycle...no but no president controls the economy. Additionally the markets are different from the economy although the neo guys might try and tie it in a bit more.
There is however one issue that matters in America - the economy. The war is nothing. You're wasting your time talking about it unless there is a massive draft and we're all dying. AIDS? Who cares. Space walks? Teachers? Who cares? The economy is what people vote on. Bob Dole will be the first one to tell Kerry exactly how difficult it is to challenge the succesful economic policies of a president.
-Rudey
--Bob Dole did not win
Quote:
Originally posted by CarolinaDG
Actually, my point was that these were common misconceptions, and that I had an opinion completely different. Sorry if I was unclear.
And, Rudey, i.e. "Economics", I also don't think that any of us can TRULY know the full economic spectrum that is the United States. Lord knows my little second degree in Economics from USC has not given me access to the privy information that is only made available to George Bush himself. None of us are completely informed about the goings-on of the budget, foreign influences, etc... I don't try to act like I know, which is also why I didn't publicize my opinion, because I'm not sure if it's right.
Down here, the common defense that republicans use when democrats say that their administrations have proven better economically is that the economy is in a 4 year cycle. So, the improvements that were made during Clinton's administrations were caused by Bush, and the former slump (I understand that our economy is on the uprise now, hence my pointing out the improvements in stocks) was caused by Clinton. Let me reitterate: this is the southern Republican's view. I personally think that this is contradictory seeing as how Clinton held an 8 year term, and some of the causes in the slump of the US economy were caused directly by the incidents of 9/11 and the international doubt of how the US economy would improve.
Sorry if I hated, ok, but people have been jumping down my throat on these boards lately, so I'm already a little on the defensive.
Now. Go at it. I'm sure you want to tear my theories apart.
And PS, I only have about a 3.4 in Economics, and a 3.8 in Music, so you can figure out which degree is my main one. 
|