I'd rather have improving uncertainty. Here's why. Improving fundamentals can dissipate quickly if the uncertainty becomes certainty, but in a very negative form. At that point, fundamentals don't matter, and any improvement will be erased quickly.
That said, I don't think blaming politics is necessarily correct. There are all kinds of issues in play now. Even without Iraq, this economy is skating on a razor's edge. And I don't necessarily think pointing a finger at the current administration is 100% correct, either. After all, most of the current mess may have seemed to occur under this admin, but are really the after effects of a near decade long party. That can be construed as a political statement, since I had no love for the previous admin, but it isn't one. I don't believe politics play much of a role in economics EXCEPT when it engages in "politics by other means". That is, war.
Whenever political maneuvering awards a contract or provides a subsidy or provides any other special treatment, without regard to economic realities, the real forces of the economy undermine the intentions.
I believe that the China situation, with regard to the hardware industry, was very special under Clinton due to his relationship with their donors. As a result, it's unlikely that there would be any improvement under Bush, and more likely a deterioration. This, regardless of any geopolitical situation, would be a reality. Geopolitics only provides good copy and a solid backdrop. |
