How much control does the President truly have over the economy?

ShakyhandsBTCer

sr. member

Activity: 448

Merit: 250

It's Money 2.0| It’s gold for nerds | It's Bitcoin

Quote from: galbros on June 14, 2014, 10:39:21 PM

In the United States the power of the President is very constrained regarding the economy, in many ways much more than prime ministers in other systems.

If you look historically probably the most influential president at trying to move the economy was FDR and even his new deal was almost derailed by the US Supreme Court, e.g. minimum wage law, that was actually passed by Congress was illegal according to the court until the next year when it wasn't. Other presidents, Ford, Carter, even more pathetic.

So while the president can sometimes set the tone, either willingly or otherwise, outside of their appointment of the Chair of the Federal Reserve, not a lot they can do, assuming good will.

The president can influence what laws that congress at least proposes.

The president can regulate via the various government agencies (EPA - obama has used the EPA a lot, SEC, DEA, DOJ, HHS, OCC).

The president can put pressure on Congress to get certain law passed (he is not always successful, but always can start a public debate)

galbros

legendary

Activity: 1022

Merit: 1000

In the United States the power of the President is very constrained regarding the economy, in many ways much more than prime ministers in other systems.

If you look historically probably the most influential president at trying to move the economy was FDR and even his new deal was almost derailed by the US Supreme Court, e.g. minimum wage law, that was actually passed by Congress was illegal according to the court until the next year when it wasn't. Other presidents, Ford, Carter, even more pathetic.

So while the president can sometimes set the tone, either willingly or otherwise, outside of their appointment of the Chair of the Federal Reserve, not a lot they can do, assuming good will.

ShakyhandsBTCer

sr. member

Activity: 448

Merit: 250

It's Money 2.0| It’s gold for nerds | It's Bitcoin

Quote from: sana8410 on May 10, 2014, 10:50:38 AM

Quote from: solarion on May 07, 2014, 02:44:45 PM

Quote from: gigEls on May 07, 2014, 02:00:19 PM

He is a puppet of people with money.

Naturally. In this case owned and operated by goldman sachs.

not only Gold man Sachs Was RGB and other wall street firms that threw him parties to promote him, I worked at one of them and they threw him a event.

The president is not accountable to anyone that gives him money. He runs for election at most two times and as unfrequent enough intervals so that as long as he manages the country sufficiently people will donate money to his campaign.

The president controls the economy via regulation and economic policies. He cannot crash it nor can he make it boom but he can nudge it in either direction based on how well he manages it.

r34tr783tr78

sr. member

Activity: 481

Merit: 268

If Goldman Sachs controls the american state and hence the world, I guess the 550 millions it paid in fines to the SEC in 2010 was a political donation (http://www.sec.gov/news/press/2010/2010-123.htm)
Or the 416 million fine it paid to EU last month (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-04-02/goldman-sachs-to-nexans-fined-by-eu-for-power-cable-cartel.html)

solarion

hero member

Activity: 966

Merit: 513

Quote from: sana8410 on May 10, 2014, 10:50:38 AM

Quote from: solarion on May 07, 2014, 02:44:45 PM

Quote from: gigEls on May 07, 2014, 02:00:19 PM

He is a puppet of people with money.

Naturally. In this case owned and operated by goldman sachs.

not only Gold man Sachs Was RGB and other wall street firms that threw him parties to promote him, I worked at one of them and they threw him a event.

Sure, there are lots of rich guys barry owes a bj to. I was just going by largest corporate ~~bribes~~ campaign contributions. Goldman also gave the controlled opposition lots of "contributions".

sana8410

sr. member

Activity: 448

Merit: 250

Quote from: solarion on May 07, 2014, 02:44:45 PM

Quote from: gigEls on May 07, 2014, 02:00:19 PM

He is a puppet of people with money.

Naturally. In this case owned and operated by goldman sachs.

not only Gold man Sachs Was RGB and other wall street firms that threw him parties to promote him, I worked at one of them and they threw him a event.

NXTplayer

newbie

Activity: 42

Merit: 0

they control the money supply so it's fully control.

zimmah

legendary

Activity: 1106

Merit: 1005

Quote from: Pente on May 02, 2014, 06:00:26 PM

If the president made it his top priority to cut government spending and reduce regulations, I believe he could greatly affect the economy in the long run.

The president also has certain powers that could reduce costs & at the same time show his resolve in cutting spending. For instance, he could give a full pardon to every person in prison on a drug charge, state he will continue to pardon all drug charges the rest of his term, and that would be the end to the war on drugs (at least at the federal level).

Of course, all of this is moot. The goal of presidents is to increase federal power, regardless of the cost to the economy.

Cut government spending? That means they'll recieve taxes but don't spend it on education, healthcare, maintenance of infrastructure, etc.

Great idea.

The economy is in the hands of the federal reserve and the large banks, not the presidents and other rulers or nations. They should completely rebuild the financial system but I doubt anyone has that power.

true2self

newbie

Activity: 43

Merit: 0

Sorry, but puppets has no power.

r34tr783tr78

sr. member

Activity: 481

Merit: 268

It's well known that the candidate that gets more money usually wins. But to be fair, Obama gets most of his money from small contributions.

CarlesPuyol

legendary

Activity: 1148

Merit: 1000

look at the china president...they have the power to make what they want!

solarion

hero member

Activity: 966

Merit: 513

Quote from: gigEls on May 07, 2014, 02:00:19 PM

He is a puppet of people with money.

Naturally. In this case owned and operated by goldman sachs.

gigEls

member

Activity: 66

Merit: 10

He is a puppet of people with money.

umair127

sr. member

Activity: 378

Merit: 250

Quote from: thresher on May 07, 2014, 12:47:15 PM

Quote from: sana8410 on May 07, 2014, 10:58:01 AM

Quote from: thresher on May 07, 2014, 08:26:53 AM

Well if we say Obama has control over the economy, we have to acknowledge that the US economy is controlled by minorities under 29, who make less than 50k a year, since they placed Obama into power through their overwhelming support of Obama Shocked

.

so if they put him there, your saying he had only minority votes is kinda being naive dont you think, There were educated who put him there and middle class that made over 50k a year. Celeberity support also they surely dont make underneath 50k a year

I don't care if some jerk off celebrity voted for him. The point is he was elected basically from Hispanic votes in swing states. His support stems primarily from "minorities" that make less than 50k (because if I say black and hispanic; people will have a shit fit.) He also dominated the population of voters under age 29.

The point was just to comment that if you think the president controls the economy., then these are the people that control the economy. I don't believe that, but than again maybe that's part of why the US is in the predicament it is in.

Listen just because the american people put him there doesnt mean that people voted for him had anything to do with his failures and it goes for all the presidents before him. The ones who put the strings is the ones he owes favors for.

solarion

hero member

Activity: 966

Merit: 513

Quote from: Jcw188 on May 07, 2014, 11:21:56 AM

Quote from: Nagle on May 06, 2014, 01:35:22 AM

Quote from: emilyn1997 on May 02, 2014, 05:10:42 PM

Bush really isn't to blame for the downturn since it was third-party forces outside of his control. His biggest blunder with the economy was the appearance of his mishandling, but he's not really to blame.

The big crash of 2008 could have been avoided at the cost of a smaller crash about two years earlier. Without some of the Bush-era stimulus policies, there would have been a crash in housing several years earlier, but it would have been about the size of the savings and loan debacle of the 1980s. There was a mindset, fully endorsed by Alan Greenspan at the Fed, that rising house prices were a good thing and a source of wealth. Greenspan really didn't believe that someday there had to be a crash in housing. ("Houses can only go up!". Wrong.)

A big problem was the earlier elimination of Glass-Stegall, the law which kept commercial banks from getting into the stock market. While brokerages were separate from banking, a Wall Street crash didn't take down the banking system. That separation was put into place in 1933 because of the 1929 crash. It was repealed in 1999. Trouble soon followed.

We're having the same problem now because of Bernanke. There was the idea that they could use the "threat" of QE, and then QE itself, to prevent a downturn in the market and weakening of the economy. There have ALWAYS been business cycles in the modern economy and the Fed is trying to get rid of them. It seems a bubble has been forming AGAIN because we didn't take our medicine after the last 2. I mean, interest rates are so freakin low already and they used QE and are still using QE, meanwhile we are due for another recession pretty soon (maybe it's happening now) so what the heck is the Fed gonna do if things get ugly now?

The fed is out of weapons. All of their tampering with free markets, manipulation of interest rates, looting of savers, encouraging obscene public and private debt levels, it's all to keep the dollar ponzi running a little longer.

thresher

hero member

Activity: 700

Merit: 500

Quote from: sana8410 on May 07, 2014, 10:58:01 AM

Quote from: thresher on May 07, 2014, 08:26:53 AM

Well if we say Obama has control over the economy, we have to acknowledge that the US economy is controlled by minorities under 29, who make less than 50k a year, since they placed Obama into power through their overwhelming support of Obama Shocked

.

so if they put him there, your saying he had only minority votes is kinda being naive dont you think, There were educated who put him there and middle class that made over 50k a year. Celeberity support also they surely dont make underneath 50k a year

I don't care if some jerk off celebrity voted for him. The point is he was elected basically from Hispanic votes in swing states. His support stems primarily from "minorities" that make less than 50k (because if I say black and hispanic; people will have a shit fit.) He also dominated the population of voters under age 29.

The point was just to comment that if you think the president controls the economy., then these are the people that control the economy. I don't believe that, but than again maybe that's part of why the US is in the predicament it is in.

Jcw188

hero member

Activity: 546

Merit: 500

Carpe Diem

Quote from: Nagle on May 06, 2014, 01:35:22 AM

Quote from: emilyn1997 on May 02, 2014, 05:10:42 PM

Bush really isn't to blame for the downturn since it was third-party forces outside of his control. His biggest blunder with the economy was the appearance of his mishandling, but he's not really to blame.

The big crash of 2008 could have been avoided at the cost of a smaller crash about two years earlier. Without some of the Bush-era stimulus policies, there would have been a crash in housing several years earlier, but it would have been about the size of the savings and loan debacle of the 1980s. There was a mindset, fully endorsed by Alan Greenspan at the Fed, that rising house prices were a good thing and a source of wealth. Greenspan really didn't believe that someday there had to be a crash in housing. ("Houses can only go up!". Wrong.)

A big problem was the earlier elimination of Glass-Stegall, the law which kept commercial banks from getting into the stock market. While brokerages were separate from banking, a Wall Street crash didn't take down the banking system. That separation was put into place in 1933 because of the 1929 crash. It was repealed in 1999. Trouble soon followed.

We're having the same problem now because of Bernanke. There was the idea that they could use the "threat" of QE, and then QE itself, to prevent a downturn in the market and weakening of the economy. There have ALWAYS been business cycles in the modern economy and the Fed is trying to get rid of them. It seems a bubble has been forming AGAIN because we didn't take our medicine after the last 2. I mean, interest rates are so freakin low already and they used QE and are still using QE, meanwhile we are due for another recession pretty soon (maybe it's happening now) so what the heck is the Fed gonna do if things get ugly now?

RoadTrain

legendary

Activity: 1386

Merit: 1009

Actually the most powerful economic weapon is fiscal policy. Though it depends on whether it's used correctly.
So the President (and gov't as a whole) does theoretically have significant control over economy. The problem is that he hardly uses his weapon correctly.

sana8410

sr. member

Activity: 448

Merit: 250

Quote from: thresher on May 07, 2014, 08:26:53 AM

Well if we say Obama has control over the economy, we have to acknowledge that the US economy is controlled by minorities under 29, who make less than 50k a year, since they placed Obama into power through their overwhelming support of Obama Shocked

.

so if they put him there, your saying he had only minority votes is kinda being naive dont you think, There were educated who put him there and middle class that made over 50k a year. Celeberity support also they surely dont make underneath 50k a year

thresher

hero member

Activity: 700

Merit: 500

Well if we say Obama has control over the economy, we have to acknowledge that the US economy is controlled by minorities under 29, who make less than 50k a year, since they placed Obama into power through their overwhelming support of Obama Shocked

Topic: How much control does the President truly have over the economy? (Read 4467 times)