American Presidents and the Economy

Play

10:00

The economy is top on the list of American voters during this Presidential election season. On this hour, we’ll take a look back in history to talk about the best and worst Presidents as economic stewards for our nation.

Guests

  • Bob Deitrick (author and co-owner of Polaris Financial Partners)
  • Lew Goldfarb (author, CPA and professor at the University of Cincinnati College of Law)
  • Steve Morgan (research analyst and co-owner of Polaris Financial Partners)

Join The Conversation

  • Tappats

    I am disappointed by the show that attempts to bring credibility of two authors that prima facie argue using both scientific method and supposed objective conclusions that the democrats have been better at the helm for our country.  While NPR has never indicated it is fair and balanced, publicizing content that is obviously biased in such a hypocritical fashion is reprehensible.  Two components the authors seem to discount about economics is: the long run vs. the short run; and, the periodic impact of current policy in future policy.  Furthermore, econometrics is easily influenced by biases.  While it can be accounted for, if the authors purposely choose factors bias one factor over another, the results and conclusions are flawed.  By using provocative and absolute terms like “40 years is the average time that people save for retirement” they are obviously piquing the interest of undecided voters who will be voting with their wallet.   They also play off the short term memory that most people have and their relative lack of education regarding the economy.  It is easy to say they use objective analysis to synthesize data, but their book and their interview support extreme subjectivity with comments like “Obama has led the country to the highest economy” but “disposable income has decreased, although that factor isn’t as important as others”.  Couple disposable income with how they recognize “there is low demand”, and we realize that when there is redistribution of wealth in conjunction with increased welfare spending, demand cannot increase.  Add the “facts” about the Glass Steagall Act being repealed, they gloss over how Bill Clinton did that during his term.  The immediate affect was a recession that George Bush inherited.  Obama deserves no credit for his role, he didn’t do the stimulus, Bush did.  The Fed has done quantitative easing, not Obama.  And the short term affect is to bolster the stock market.  The long term affects will be increased burden as we struggle to pay debts with a weak dollar.  Other than FDR, no president has had the economic and social issues that Bush did: inheriting a depressed economy and turning it around; 9/11; Katrina; the economic meltdown in 2007.  Deitrick even said “The Bush administration didn’t regulate the things they should have”.  How could they, by law they couldn’t.  And, Clinto ushered in a period when China will rival the US.  By making them Most Favored Nation, and shipping millions of manufacturing jobs overseas, the US is no competition.  Furthermore, Clinton signed Nafta which economist agree will only serve to increase the economies of our neighbors who economies were weaker than ours.  It has done so.  Obama continues to weaken our dollar and the long term impact will be to our kids who will be subservient to the Chinese when our economy is at rock bottom.  It will get there as we continue to borrow, grow a our government, and redistribute wealth.  Whatever factors used to decide democrats are better, for the economy, its easy to see that in the short term, they may have better ways of allowing people to spend money, but the long term impacts are what the republics fix each and every time.