# Will we ever again have a President that understands the rudiments of economics? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 6, 2009, 7:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-we-ever-again-have-a-president-that-understands-the-rudiments-of-economics/480059 "2009-01-06T07:11:18Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2009, 3:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-we-ever-again-have-a-president-that-understands-the-rudiments-of-economics/480059/21 "2009-01-06T15:10:24Z")
> [@Aquila\_Be](#): > > 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. The issue rarely is what specific expertise the actual president has. No one person can know everything. In a way, Cheney and Bush were correct in saying that a president can learn what he needs to know and get the advice he needs. The issue is really how does this person go about learning and asking for advice? On the one hand, you have someone like Clinton, who, if he didn’t know something, went out and really learned about it. The problem with Bush was not that he didn’t know everything from the start, but his assumptions and his attitude towards acquiring knowledge and advice. He started from the position that his ideology was correct and allowed himself to be steered towards advice that confirmed his biases. > [@RickJay](#): > > That’s a silly criticism. “All other things being equal” is an assumption made in every science. He wasn’t criticizing the science of economics. He was criticizing the people who purport to apply it without understanding its assumptions, in particular, that “all other things being equal” is rarely a condition that exists in the real world. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2009, 3:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-we-ever-again-have-a-president-that-understands-the-rudiments-of-economics/480059/22 "2009-01-06T15:19:55Z")
> [@Princhester](#): > > 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. This. I’m a conservative and I agree that Reagan’s view was the right one, but I don’t believe it’s objectively verifiable or that other views are objectively wrong, especially since any discussion of this type must include an agreement on what the proper role of government is. And that question is also one on which reasonable persons may disagree. ---
**Author:** ![Kent\_Clark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kent_clark/32/105_2.png) [@Kent\_Clark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kent_Clark)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2009, 3:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-we-ever-again-have-a-president-that-understands-the-rudiments-of-economics/480059/23 "2009-01-06T15:24:49Z")
Herbert Hoover had something more than a clue about economics. Unfortunately, every assumption he had turned out to be either inadequate or flat out wrong for the situation he found himself in. ---
**Author:** ![tim-n-va](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tim-n-va/32/3001_2.png) [@tim-n-va](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tim-n-va)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2009, 3:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-we-ever-again-have-a-president-that-understands-the-rudiments-of-economics/480059/24 "2009-01-06T15:29:52Z")
It has been a long time since I had any formal coursework but isn’t “All things being equal” essentially the same as a first partial derivative without people going into a panic over calculus? My favorite line is “All the economists in the world placed end-to-end still wouldn’t reach a conclusion.” ---
**Author:** ![Jackknifed\_Juggernaut](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/9de053/32.png) [@Jackknifed\_Juggernaut](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackknifed_Juggernaut)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2009, 3:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-we-ever-again-have-a-president-that-understands-the-rudiments-of-economics/480059/25 "2009-01-06T15:32:04Z")
> [@Stan\_Shmenge](#): > > …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. Solve our problems? If only he had the power. I don’t know why people think that the role of policy makers is to solve economic problems when they simply don’t have this ability. What policy makers can do is _manage_ the economy. This means determining the appropriate monetary and fiscal policies based on the economic situation, and then implementing the policies. Sometimes tax cuts are needed and sometimes they’re not. Sometimes increased gov’t spending is good for the economy while other times it’s not. We allow our monetery policy maker (the Fed) to adjust interest rates to keep the economy moving along at a reasonable pace while battling inflation. But yet we expect our fiscal policy makers to stick with simplistic platforms like “lower taxes” and “small government” when sometimes the opposite is needed. Maintaining a consistent, but wrong, policy does no one any good. Obama, so far, seems like he understands this better than any president in recent history. He doesn’t seem to have any fear of being labeled a flip-flopper. I thought Michael Bloomberg would have made the best president, at least as far as the economy goes. Obama seems to be setting up his economic strategy very much like Bloomberg probably would have. In order to minimize the impact of the recession, it’s the government’s job to fill the roles that the private sector is abandoning. When the rest of the economy is de-risking and de-leveraging, it is the government’s job to risk itself up and lever itself up. And that’s exactly what is happening. Now is when deficit spending is appropriate, not when the economy is humming along. In fact, when the economy is doing well, taxes should be high enough to support government spending. Historically, we’ve done the opposite. It’s the deficit spending during good times, driven by greed, that has greatly contributed to the mess we’re in. And during bubbles, the most recent recession always seems to be forgetten. In fact, when taxes are too low, government spending actually increases, because taxpayers perceive that the government services that their taxes are supporting are cheap. So they elect politicians that promise more services, not realizing that the services are far more expensive than they think. ---
**Author:** ![IdahoMauleMan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/71c47a/32.png) [@IdahoMauleMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IdahoMauleMan)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2009, 3:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-we-ever-again-have-a-president-that-understands-the-rudiments-of-economics/480059/26 "2009-01-06T15:33:01Z")
> [@RickJay](#): > > 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 clue 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 will not matter if he decides he needs certain votes or had an ideological bend in a particular direction. That’s the most intelligent post I’ve read on this Board in a long, long time. Thank you for posting. ---
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2009, 3:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-we-ever-again-have-a-president-that-understands-the-rudiments-of-economics/480059/27 "2009-01-06T15:34:54Z")
What evidence is there that Reagan had a clue? Republican economic theory for the past 25 years could fit on a matchbook. It all boils down to: 1. Regulations must be gutted so that business can maximize profits 2. Taxes for the wealthy must be reduced and the benefits will magically trickle down to the middle and lower classes 3. Deficit spending is never to be worried about 4. Raising any tax for any reason makes Baby Jesus cry That’s it. Any moron can memorize these talking points and plenty of morons have. ---
**Author:** ![Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7cd45c/32.png) [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Elendil_s_Heir)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2009, 4:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-we-ever-again-have-a-president-that-understands-the-rudiments-of-economics/480059/28 "2009-01-06T16:03:29Z")
Although, to be fair, it was GHWB who swallowed his “no new taxes” pledge and agreed to a tax hike which helped lay the foundation for the big surpluses of the late Clinton years. (I know, I know: which GHWB’s son then squandered. Oh, the irony!). ---
**Author:** ![Robot\_Arm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/robot_arm/32/18280_2.png) [@Robot\_Arm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robot_Arm)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2009, 6:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-we-ever-again-have-a-president-that-understands-the-rudiments-of-economics/480059/29 "2009-01-06T18:21:30Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > I agree. Reagan was economically clueless. …and it’s okay to go billions of dollars into debt if … You misspelled “trillions”. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2009, 6:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-we-ever-again-have-a-president-that-understands-the-rudiments-of-economics/480059/30 "2009-01-06T18:32:57Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > 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. None of those things are neccesarily always wrong…that is to say, there are times you can increase government revenue by lowering taxes, there are times that increasing the wealth of the rich will lead to better conditions for the poor, that deregulation can make markets behave better, and that running a deficit can improve the economy. One of the problems comes when people then generalize and assume those four things are true in all cases. ---
**Author:** ![Merkwurdigliebe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/74df32/32.png) [@Merkwurdigliebe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Merkwurdigliebe)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2009, 7:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-we-ever-again-have-a-president-that-understands-the-rudiments-of-economics/480059/31 "2009-01-06T19:57:03Z")
> [@Stan\_Shmenge](#): > > 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. Economics isn’t a science with universally agreed upon ideas of what is a good idea and what isn’t. Just because you disagree with politicians on their economic policies and their schools of thought doesn’t mean that they don’t understand it. Obama has some of the most highly-regarded minds in the field behind him and just because they don’t agree with “Uncle Milty” doesn’t mean they’re wrong. Paul Krugman tends to agree with Obama’s approach and someone thought he was smart enough to give him a Nobel Prize. ---
**Author:** ![Cliffy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/59ef9b/32.png) [@Cliffy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cliffy)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2009, 9:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-we-ever-again-have-a-president-that-understands-the-rudiments-of-economics/480059/32 "2009-01-06T21:16:39Z")
> [@Stan\_Shmenge](#): > > 600,000 new federal employees? Yah, that is going to solve our problems. Dude. When times are tough, you get belt-tightening. The federal government, due to size, continuity, ability to print money and adjust interest rates, and monopolization of force is literally the one entity in the country that can ignore that in the short and medium term. If you have an idiotic federal spending freeze like some have suggested, that just means no money for roads, construction, etc. Which means no jobs for laborers, which means an ever increasing spiral downward into Depression. What the government needs to do is spend spend spend. Intelligently is better than profligatgely, but profligately is better than miserly. Because that money goes into the hands of workers and investors, who then use it to buy nail polish and cars, and then the guys who make nail polish and cars have money again, etc., etc. The only way to get yourself out of a Depression is to spend your way out of it. It worked in the '30’s, and it’ll work now. –Cliffy ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2009, 9:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-we-ever-again-have-a-president-that-understands-the-rudiments-of-economics/480059/33 "2009-01-06T21:18:22Z")
> [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](#): > > Although, to be fair, it was GHWB who swallowed his “no new taxes” pledge and agreed to a tax hike which helped lay the foundation for the big surpluses of the late Clinton years. (I know, I know: which GHWB’s son then squandered. Oh, the irony!). True, that. Unfortunately, GHWB’s lesson to the Republican party seems to be that you should never, never, depart from ideology in the face of reality. Anyhow, GHWB proved that he understood economics by calling supply sideism voodoo. ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2009, 9:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-we-ever-again-have-a-president-that-understands-the-rudiments-of-economics/480059/34 "2009-01-06T21:24:32Z")
Will we have a treasury secretary that understands economics? Presidents are party heads that appoint people to control the agencies. They do not have to have a complete understanding of any field. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2009, 10:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-we-ever-again-have-a-president-that-understands-the-rudiments-of-economics/480059/35 "2009-01-06T22:08:50Z")
[Paging **Stan Shmenge!**](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=500538) ---
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2009, 12:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-we-ever-again-have-a-president-that-understands-the-rudiments-of-economics/480059/36 "2009-01-07T00:50:32Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > 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. Reagan was nothing more than a figure head, by most accounts. He was also said a total moron-nice guy, but a moron. (By all accounts, according to his own staff), AND he was in the throes of Alzheimers. Not someone I’d trust as someone who “understands the rudiments of economics..” ---
**Author:** ![DanBlather](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/f4b2a3/32.png) [@DanBlather](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DanBlather)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2009, 12:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-we-ever-again-have-a-president-that-understands-the-rudiments-of-economics/480059/37 "2009-01-07T00:57:54Z")
> [@Stan\_Shmenge](#): > > 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. You are wrong here as well. The FFs did not envision a standing national army. ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2009, 2:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-we-ever-again-have-a-president-that-understands-the-rudiments-of-economics/480059/38 "2009-01-07T02:30:54Z")
> [@RickJay](#): > > 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?** While economics is not an all-encompassing field, in the context of the social arena it is pretty damn close. People’s implicit association of economics with money is the perplexing problem. If economics is about choice, alternatives, and scarcity, then it seems like an absolutely excellent thing to be a master of if you are to make political decisions, of which the hotly debated ones are about choice, alternatives, and scarcity. IMHO. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Second\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@The\_Second\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Second_Stone)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2009, 3:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-we-ever-again-have-a-president-that-understands-the-rudiments-of-economics/480059/39 "2009-01-07T03:34:32Z")
> [@Stan\_Shmenge](#): > > 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. Let’s hope that we never again have a President with Reagan’s understanding of economics. His own budget director, David Stockman, said that supply side tax cuts were a trojan horse to get tax cuts to the wealthy. Bush II’s tax programs were similar. They have not done wonders for the economy (conceding that there are other factors.) I would be satisfied to see an economic team in place that resembled Clinton’s team. During that time the economy prospered. Obama seems to be putting the same kind of people in place. With the exception of Paul Volcker. Volcker caused the 79 recession with the Feds extremely high interest rates, and should get the blame for the lousy economy at the time. I hope that Volcker, who is now a very old man, has very little to do with the economy. But the reasons I liked the Clinton team were that they kept middle class taxes reasonable, got unemployment way down (to the 2-3 percent levels), balanced the budget and kept the size of the federal government employee head count under control. The economy prospered. The “more recent administration” did all the opposite things, which are considered more reckless, and our economy sucks right now. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2009, 3:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-we-ever-again-have-a-president-that-understands-the-rudiments-of-economics/480059/40 "2009-01-07T03:56:11Z")
… [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-we-ever-again-have-a-president-that-understands-the-rudiments-of-economics/480059.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-we-ever-again-have-a-president-that-understands-the-rudiments-of-economics/480059.md?page=3)