Brain Glutton, while it is considered proper board etiquette to let a Pitted poster know that he or she has been Pitted, making a point of posting the same link twice and ratcheting up the level of taunting is not necessary and comes way too close to being a jerk.
[ /Moderating ]
The West Wing? Delusional soap opera written to entertain morons.
Here’s a little bit of unpleasant reality for you from post #12 in this thread:
So much for the: Remember when we had an Economist as “El Presidente”.
What the hell is it with you and your passion for having a “Leader” anyway? Aren’t you above the age of consent yet?
An undergraduate econ major is not the same thing as an economist. “Economist” is a profession. Pus it usually requires a graduate degree, doesn’t it?
For instance, my father majored in economics but immediately went on to law school and has spent his entire career practicing law – mostly in an area of the law that wasn’t even particularly related to economics. Calling someone like that an “economist” would be a pretty big stretch.
Thanks acsenray. That’s what I would’ve said except on the day of my last post I was hit by a car and hospitalized, so I couldn’t respond.
Again, thanks for pointing out the obvious while I was getting a CAT-Scan to search for internal bleeding.
Certainly not me.
The OP asked for a president that understands the rudiments of economics, which an undergrad fulfills. Having an economist as president is a whole different animal.
As RickJay said earlier, the presidency is a political office and will make decisions for political reasons. Even within economics you can go down two very different paths depending on if you’re trying to pursue results for the short run or the long run. Every single economic decision a president makes, knowledgeable or not, can’t placate everybody. There isn’t one panacea policy that will just magically right the course. Economic policy is a constant tweaking of institutions that allows for the desired results at that particular time.
Also, for future reference, it’s widely accepted that around 4% unemployment is the natural unemployment rate for the US. cite? my econ notes and textbook from back when i took intermediate macro and labor economics.
“The real world is a special case” - my econ professor in business school (said with a smile).
It is one thing to understand basic economics, it is another to follow the Chicago School, the Cato model, Keynesian, Stiglitz, Hayek, etc. Do we want a classical or neo-classical? Should he embrace the new research on Behavioral Economics (when Economists try to be Psychologists, and do both poorly)?
Maybe a Presidential Freakonomicist is the way to go!
Finally - a small request. Can we PLEASE stop giving credit (or blame) for the nation’s economy without TRYING to recognize that Congress writes the bills that the President signs, and that it can take awhile for government action to actually have a result that can be measured?
Reacalibrate humor meter. Reboot central nervous system. Any unsaved data will be lost.
Obama not only understands economics, he is willing to engage the nation’s best and brightest economists. It is they who say his understanding is profound. I frankly value their opinions more than that of the OP.
Look, if you’re trying to be reasonable like that, you’ll never make it as a talking head pundit. 
That is too bad, because I have a great face for radio.
When Presidents stop taking the credit for a good economy, they’ll stop getting the blame for a bad one.
No, not even then.
The thing is politicans are NOT interested in solving issues they are interested in getting elected.
You don’t win a presidental race by saying the truth, you tell people what they want to hear.
Furthermore you aren’t understanding we have a federal system of government. This means you have to compromise.
A state like Wyoming with half a million has as many Senators as California with 36 million. In order to get votes for California you have to give the Wyoming people something, even if it’s economically wrong. This accounts for the disproportion of mining and agriculture influence in America.
Obama made tons of promises so he has to put these people to work. If he doesn’t he won’t get reelected.
The thing is your misunderstanding people wanting to be elected with those wanting to do good.
There are very few politicians at any level who care about anything than keeping their job.
If this cynical view were true, you’d think they’d take a job with better job security.
I don’t deny politicians care about staying in office, and sometimes make decisions just to get reelected. But if they didn’t actually care a bit about the job they’re doing, they (at least guys at the Presidential level) could certainly take a much easier job for higher pay.