# It's official: President Obama Is The Best Economic President In Modern Times **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [September 7, 2014, 7:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-official-president-obama-is-the-best-economic-president-in-modern-times/697794 "2014-09-07T19:23:49Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 18\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![BigAppleBucky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigapplebucky/32/178_2.png) [@BigAppleBucky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigAppleBucky)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2014, 12:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-official-president-obama-is-the-best-economic-president-in-modern-times/697794/41 "2014-09-09T00:17:54Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > 1. He started from the lowest base since the Great Depression. Thanks be to Dubya. I would be the last to say I think the economy is booming. There has been a gradual improvement and a gradual reduction in unemployment, but things certainly aren’t red hot. But the gains have been mainly to the rich and corporations. Corporate profits have soared. In my opinion great fiscal stimulus has been needed since late 2009 and it simply has not been provided, mainly because of Republicans in Congress. In fact, retrenchment of government spending has actually had a negative impact. Things could have been even better. But, thankfully, they also could have been worse if McCain or Romney had been elected. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2014, 8:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-official-president-obama-is-the-best-economic-president-in-modern-times/697794/42 "2014-09-09T08:47:07Z")
We’ve had the best growth in any administration for a long time now. It’s hard to argue that things would have been even better if only we’d spent more money. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2014, 11:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-official-president-obama-is-the-best-economic-president-in-modern-times/697794/43 "2014-09-09T11:53:02Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > It’s hard to argue that things would have been even better if only we’d spent more money. Considering the principles of Keynesian economics, it’s pretty easy to argue this, actually. ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2014, 1:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-official-president-obama-is-the-best-economic-president-in-modern-times/697794/44 "2014-09-09T13:33:13Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Considering the principles of Keynesian economics, it’s pretty easy to argue this, actually. Pretty much. The same economic theory that has explained all the available evidence (and made predictions which could have made you a fair chunk of change had you followed them) has a fairly clear maxim on how to deal with the current slump: _it’s the aggregate demand._ ---
**Author:** ![WillFarnaby](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/willfarnaby/32/514_2.png) [@WillFarnaby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WillFarnaby)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2014, 3:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-official-president-obama-is-the-best-economic-president-in-modern-times/697794/45 "2014-09-09T15:57:16Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Considering the principles of Keynesian economics, it’s pretty easy to argue this, actually. > [@](#): > > Mr. Buckley: Well, how would you account for the almost unanimous opinion of liberal Democrats that in order to reduce unemployment it is necessary for the government to pursue vast spending projects? Since you speak of this as being almost manifestly ill-advised, the question arises why such superstitions should survive? > > Mr. Hayek: Well, it’s almost entirely the work of one man – in a way a genius, Lord Keynes – who is much more concerned about influencing current policies than about advancing the right sort of theories and he was operating then in a very peculiar situation. Now in Great Britain, a successful attempt was made after World War I – which brought a good deal of inflation – to bring prices down to the pre-war level. Prices came down but wages did not, so you had in the 1920s a position in Great Britain where wages were internationally too high and Britain had become noncompetitive on the world market. The problem in Great Britain was to make Britain competitive again and it was clear that this required a reduction of real wages. Notice these real wages had been artificially increased by increasing the value of the pound. So because the pound was par to its former level, people receiving the same wartime salary and wages, or inflated wages, could buy much more. Wages had not come down. > > Now, his first argument was wages must come down. Then he found that was politically impossible, so he must find another way. Instead of getting money wages down, we must depreciate the pound so that given money wages should correspond to a lower level of real wages and then by a curious intellectual somersault I would almost say he led himself to believe that even bringing down money wages was not of any use. It involves a complex economic argument and all he concluded was that – well, we must inflate, in short. > > Now notice several things. Keynes was a genius, but a genius who spent only a fraction of his time on economics – one of the busiest men I ever knew. But he knew very little economics except particularly the Cambridge tradition, and he was much more concerned to influence policy at a particular moment than develop a true theory. In fact, the last time I talked to him was after the war. I knew him very well. When I asked him wasn’t he getting alarmed about what his pupils who swallowed all this theory were doing after the war when the danger was clearly inflation, his answer was: > > “Oh, don’t mind. My theory was frightfully important in the 1930s. Then, we needed an expansion to correct a situation. Do trust me. If this theory becomes dangerous, I’m going to turn public opinion around like this”. > > Six month later, he was dead. And as usual, what happened is that the very doctrine – pupils of this man did apply to completely different situation a theory which was designed to influence policy in a particular situation. The only thing I blamed Keynes for is to making his theory more attractive and effective, he called it THE general theory. In fact, he knew precisely that it was not a general theory, but it was an argument to persuade government in the 1930s to do particular things. > > Mr. Buckley: It was an ad hoc…? > > Mr. Hayek: **It was entirely ad hoc.** He was one of the most fascinating men I knew, but the personal magnetism of this man not only persuaded the younger generation of economists. > **[Hayek on Keynes](https://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2014/02/hayek-on-keynes.html?m=1)** > > Robert Wenzel The intellectual somersault Hayek is referring to could possibly be Keynes half-baked attempt to refute Say’s Law. In fact, Say’s Law still stands as far as I can tell. ---
**Author:** ![Velocity](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/velocity/32/18006_2.png) [@Velocity](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Velocity)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2014, 4:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-official-president-obama-is-the-best-economic-president-in-modern-times/697794/46 "2014-09-09T16:02:03Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Considering the principles of Keynesian economics, it’s pretty easy to argue this, actually. It’s the easy but flawed option. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2014, 4:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-official-president-obama-is-the-best-economic-president-in-modern-times/697794/47 "2014-09-09T16:02:20Z")
The principles of Keynesian economics aren’t solid because of Keynes, but because they’ve been shown to be true again and again. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2014, 4:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-official-president-obama-is-the-best-economic-president-in-modern-times/697794/48 "2014-09-09T16:03:21Z")
> [@Velocity](#): > > It’s the easy but flawed option. No it isn’t. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2014, 4:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-official-president-obama-is-the-best-economic-president-in-modern-times/697794/49 "2014-09-09T16:11:39Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Considering the principles of Keynesian economics, it’s pretty easy to argue this, actually. According to the principles of Keynesian economics, do you know what you get when you do fiscal stimulus in times of economic growth? ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2014, 4:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-official-president-obama-is-the-best-economic-president-in-modern-times/697794/50 "2014-09-09T16:13:27Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > The principles of Keynesian economics aren’t solid because of Keynes, but because they’ve been shown to be true again and again. Then the government should be running surpluses whenever growth is solid. As it is now. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2014, 4:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-official-president-obama-is-the-best-economic-president-in-modern-times/697794/51 "2014-09-09T16:14:57Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > The principles of Keynesian economics aren’t solid because of Keynes, but because they’ve been shown to be true again and again. Still, the notion that his theories have influenced a generation of economists based on nothing more than his intense personal magnetism is intriguing, to say the least. By that standard, my own theory of an economy based on hacky-sack and tie-dyed shirts ought to be getting more serious attention! ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2014, 4:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-official-president-obama-is-the-best-economic-president-in-modern-times/697794/52 "2014-09-09T16:20:55Z")
I for one completely accept Keynesian economic theory, tempered with Friedman’s monetarism. Which I think almost all economists do. Krugman, the most famous current Keynesian sure does. He just argued that you can’t do anything with monetary policy when you’ve reached the zero lower bound, thus the need for fiscal policy to provide stimulus. Well, it did. $800 billion of it. And since then, we have achieved very good economic growth, as the OP says, some of the best in postwar history. According to Keynes, that means that if we do stimulus now, we’ll get inflation. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2014, 4:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-official-president-obama-is-the-best-economic-president-in-modern-times/697794/53 "2014-09-09T16:27:08Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > According to the principles of Keynesian economics, do you know what you get when you do fiscal stimulus in times of economic growth? Stimulus isn’t the right prescription for every situation. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2014, 6:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-official-president-obama-is-the-best-economic-president-in-modern-times/697794/54 "2014-09-09T18:52:21Z")
It’s never the right prescription for 2-3% annual growth. And we’re already engaged in fiscal stimulus despite that, because we’re still running huge deficits. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2014, 6:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-official-president-obama-is-the-best-economic-president-in-modern-times/697794/55 "2014-09-09T18:54:54Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > It’s never the right prescription for 2-3% annual growth. And we’re already engaged in fiscal stimulus despite that, because we’re still running huge deficits. Fiscal stimulus and running big deficits are not the same thing. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2014, 6:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-official-president-obama-is-the-best-economic-president-in-modern-times/697794/56 "2014-09-09T18:56:55Z")
I’m glad you said that. Strongly implied in your argument is that not all spending is stimulative. Then you’ll also probably agree that much of the stimulus was not stimulus at all, but merely long desired spending that Democrats had wanted for a long time. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2014, 7:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-official-president-obama-is-the-best-economic-president-in-modern-times/697794/57 "2014-09-09T19:02:35Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > I’m glad you said that. Strongly implied in your argument is that not all spending is stimulative. Not really, but most spending is stimulative in some way. Most pork, even, stimulates (at least) the local economy. This doesn’t justify it, necessarily. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2014, 7:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-official-president-obama-is-the-best-economic-president-in-modern-times/697794/58 "2014-09-09T19:05:18Z")
It’s only stimulative if the money wouldn’t have been better spent elsewhere. During a recession, the money probably wouldn’t have been spent at all. But in good times, a statue of Robert Byrd displaces money that would probably have bought Iphones or a new roof. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-official-president-obama-is-the-best-economic-president-in-modern-times/697794.md?page=2)