Just asking. Reagan had somewhat of a clue, and he was basically a layman. It is hard to think of one before or after that. Obama has announced plans that demonstrate that he has never had a whiff. 600,000 new federal employees? Yah, that is going to solve our problems.
Cite?
I won’t dignify that.
So you’re saying overseeing a massive increase in size of the military in response to a perceived threat to national security, funded by a concurrently massive increase in the national debt equates to “having a clue?”
And the response to make everything better is to cut taxes; and relax oversight, to the point of a massive collapse of some form of national banking system resulting in a taxpayer bailout costing hundreds of billions of dollars, thus adding more to the taxpayer’s future liabilities?
This thread appears to thus have been poisoned from the start, and I think you may have instead intended to post it in GD.
I can decide whether you meant this as a rant or a debate, but let’s move it to Great Debates.
samclem Moderator, General Questions
I don’t agree with the Bush tax cut. I would have made the tax system more progressive, if anything. As far as the military, it is one of the few legitimate functions of a national government, IMHO, and in the HO of the founders, whom are all spinning in their graves.
The “collapse” of the banking system purely fictional, and is no concern of mine. I sold my house when I realized I couldn’t make the payments. Some banks followed foolish policies loaning out money. If I was in charge, it would be tough noogies for them. The bailout should never have happened. I blame Lee Iaccoca for setting the trend. What did we get? A bunch of K-Cars uglifying the interstate.
I said Reagan had a clue. I said that not many, before or after, seem to have one.
Currently listening to “Under the Influence” by Eminem, so, well if you don’t like my …
Yes, thanks, I put it in the wrong place. 
Not agreeing with your views on economics (more ethics, but anyway) != not understanding economics.
I find it hard to imagine Reagan being uniquely gifted among Presidents with a handle on basic economics. Certainly men with far better educational backgrounds have held the office, before and since.
In any case, I figure what Reagan did was necessary for a sufficiently rapid expansion in American economic and military power to hasten the end of the USSR, which was worthwhile, but let’s not ignore the long-term problems that resulted.
Economics is not a field of study in which there are single universally agreed answers. It’s a field in which personal values lead to competing theories about what is appropriate. It seems to me very likely that the OP considers that anyone who disagrees with his own views on appropriate economic management must lack understanding of the basics of economics. I doubt that is an objectively supportable view.
What does the OP mean by Economics? The field of study being developed by economists in universities around the world or the ideology being hatched in think-tanks like Cato and Heritage. Because the two don’t have much to do with each other. Reagan didn’t have much of a clue about Economics or much else and this fact is revealed by his own economic advisers like Stockman.
Clinton OTOH listened carefully to his economists and sometimes defied party orthodoxy in deference to their advice; for example NAFTA and deficit reduction. That is a major reason why his presidency was one of the most impressive economic eras in US history: economic growth,falling poverty falling deficits, falling unemployment, rising stock markets and so on. Bush (2) listened to ideologues and hacks and the results are there for everyone to see.
Obama appears to be in the same vein as Clinton; pursuing sensible Democratic policies while listening carefully to what his economists are saying. The idea of a fiscal stimulus with a combination of bigger government spending and tax cuts designed to boost demand has a great deal of support in both theory and empirical work and it’s exactly what the US economy needs in the current circumstances.
At this link marietta edu we have listed under the heading ‘Famous Economics Majors’ a sub category that includes the following former Presidents:
Politicians and Policymakers
George H. W. Bush Former US President (Yale)
Ronald Reagan Former US President (Eureka College)
Gerald Ford Former US President (University of Michigan)
Presidents as Econ majors aren’t exactly thin on the ground.
My impression is that most people who do BAs in economics are just lining up to go into an MBA program. This is the perfunctory path to getting an executive position in some company that will give you a huge bonus, regardless of how you perform. The ones I’ve known don’t care much about one theory or another. It’s just a stepping stone. And when the professor talks about, oh, let’s say something as rudimentary as supply and demand, their ears suddenly go deaf when the professor says, “All other things being equal.” The problem is that all other things are rarely equal.
Presidents can call upon just about anyone they want to advise them about economics. Then they make a decision. They usually choose the theorist who they think will benefit them politically most. That’s what Reagan did. He didn’t have any more of a rudimentary understanding of economics than Carter or Bush I or Bush II or Clinton. True economists don’t go around using terms like “welfare mom” as code for “black women,” especially when the vast majority of people on welfare are white.
So your answer to the OP would be that it’s perfectly OK and safe to elect a complete economic illiterate as ‘The President’ because he (having enough insight to recognise his own deficiencies in economic theory) can always be relied on to know how important it would be for him to select a good, competent bunch of economic advisers who would benefit him politically.
Perhaps you’re right. That’s always worked so well in Latin America.
Given most people’s understanding of even the rudiments of economics, I doubt we’d recognize one if we got one.
My college econ professor liked to quote Harry Truman, who once lamented, “Somebody find me a one-armed economist! All of mine say, ‘Well, on the one hand… then again, on the other…’”
That’s a silly criticism. “All other things being equal” is an assumption made in every science. Tell me; how fast does something fall towards the Earth? If you can answer that question without making one or more qualifications, you don’t know what you’re talking about.
I would guess that ALL Presidents have known more than a cvlue about economics. But why would anyone think political decisions are made only for economic reasons?
Even if the President was the greatest economist in the history of the world and twice as smart as Einstein, it mwill not matter if he decides he needs certain votes or had an ideological bend in a particular direction.
Reagan fell for the laffer curve. That’s the opposite of having a clue. Reagan probably actually had the least clue of any POTUS in recent history.
Remember when we had an economist for POTUS? sigh
I agree. Reagan was economically clueless. His economic ideas (rightly called “voodoo economics” by his own Vice President) were that you can increase government revenue by lowering taxes, that poor people will somehow benefit from giving rich people money, that unregulated businesses will always behave, and it’s okay to go billions of dollars into debt if … well, actually I don’t think he even had a theory for that one.
And what did Reagan spend our money on? A massive military build-up to defend us against the all powerful Soviet Empire. Which shows that his foreign policy instincts were as good as his economic ones.