People constantly chose to mistakenly blame the previous administration for the current economic conditions.
But why can they not realize that the current economic conditions have been building for three decades and that by simply "blaming Bush" is to ignore the economic realities?
I am by far NOT a fan of the previous administrations poor fiscal policies and pointing to them as the "cause" is counter productive and hypocritical when the current administrations fiscal policies are nearly identical but just more radically incorrect.
The catalysts for current economic conditions were started when we abandoned a "hard currency" and went with fiat money in the seventies.(the creation of the Federal Reserve early last century was the true "beginning") And the Federal Reserve artificially keeping interest rates below where natural market conditions would have placed them (we can thank Alan Greenspan for that) fueling poor and irrational investments by both businesses and individuals.
An immediate result in the seventies was the OPEC oil crisis. From there the the double digit inflation and double digit unemployment ensued until policies were put in place to correct them in the early eighties. But the failure to address the root causes combined with deficit spending at the time (which is dwarfed by what we currently have) simply delayed the problems.
Through out the nineties "times were good", but underneath the "cheap" money was working to destabilize the economy.(the internet boom/bust was a major visible symptom of the problems) Many credit Clinton with "running a surplus" (which never happened, but the deficit was at very low levels) not realizing that the economy at the time was running at an inflated unsustainable level.
As the underlying foundations continued to erode, nothing was done and is still not being done to rectify the situation.
Every effort to date has been to try to re-inflate the economy to the previously unsustainable levels. These actions just delay true economic "recovery" and will just make the next economic correction exponentially worse.
So to blame one administration is incorrect and naive. The reality is there have been several administrations and Congresses controlled by both major political parties that have failed to address the true problems.
The current administration has done nothing that will rectify the current conditions (but to exasperate them) and have actually been extremely distracting to the issue by disingenuously "blaming" the previous administration or the baking sector as a whole and attempting to tie in health care and "cap and trade" (which as written and proposed will do more harm than good in economic terms).
The last time there was this level of "anti business" rhetoric coming from an administration was during the thirties and economic recovery was delayed almost a decade.
g: first, Never stated that the recession has nothing to do with state economies but that you can not fully blame the recession for state economic troubles, simply because many states budget are not in trouble.
Second, to assume that I am a Ron Paul "fan" is an incorrect assumption on your part.
Third, As for "zero acceptance" of other economic theories is again not a correct assumption.
Fourth, the message is that to simply blame one administration for the economic troubles is naive, there is not an economist either Keynesian or Austrian the thinks that and was attempting to show the "ripple effects" that policy can have in the future.
And last, I attacked no one, I just was asking if it is naive that so many take such a narrow partisan view of economics. I probably should have worded the question differently.
But why can they not realize that the current economic conditions have been building for three decades and that by simply "blaming Bush" is to ignore the economic realities?
I am by far NOT a fan of the previous administrations poor fiscal policies and pointing to them as the "cause" is counter productive and hypocritical when the current administrations fiscal policies are nearly identical but just more radically incorrect.
The catalysts for current economic conditions were started when we abandoned a "hard currency" and went with fiat money in the seventies.(the creation of the Federal Reserve early last century was the true "beginning") And the Federal Reserve artificially keeping interest rates below where natural market conditions would have placed them (we can thank Alan Greenspan for that) fueling poor and irrational investments by both businesses and individuals.
An immediate result in the seventies was the OPEC oil crisis. From there the the double digit inflation and double digit unemployment ensued until policies were put in place to correct them in the early eighties. But the failure to address the root causes combined with deficit spending at the time (which is dwarfed by what we currently have) simply delayed the problems.
Through out the nineties "times were good", but underneath the "cheap" money was working to destabilize the economy.(the internet boom/bust was a major visible symptom of the problems) Many credit Clinton with "running a surplus" (which never happened, but the deficit was at very low levels) not realizing that the economy at the time was running at an inflated unsustainable level.
As the underlying foundations continued to erode, nothing was done and is still not being done to rectify the situation.
Every effort to date has been to try to re-inflate the economy to the previously unsustainable levels. These actions just delay true economic "recovery" and will just make the next economic correction exponentially worse.
So to blame one administration is incorrect and naive. The reality is there have been several administrations and Congresses controlled by both major political parties that have failed to address the true problems.
The current administration has done nothing that will rectify the current conditions (but to exasperate them) and have actually been extremely distracting to the issue by disingenuously "blaming" the previous administration or the baking sector as a whole and attempting to tie in health care and "cap and trade" (which as written and proposed will do more harm than good in economic terms).
The last time there was this level of "anti business" rhetoric coming from an administration was during the thirties and economic recovery was delayed almost a decade.
g: first, Never stated that the recession has nothing to do with state economies but that you can not fully blame the recession for state economic troubles, simply because many states budget are not in trouble.
Second, to assume that I am a Ron Paul "fan" is an incorrect assumption on your part.
Third, As for "zero acceptance" of other economic theories is again not a correct assumption.
Fourth, the message is that to simply blame one administration for the economic troubles is naive, there is not an economist either Keynesian or Austrian the thinks that and was attempting to show the "ripple effects" that policy can have in the future.
And last, I attacked no one, I just was asking if it is naive that so many take such a narrow partisan view of economics. I probably should have worded the question differently.