Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Dayuhan who wrote (57314)	10/5/1999 10:09:00 PM
From: Ilaine	Respond to of 108807

Greenspan gets the blame or credit as chairman of the Federal Reserve, but all the members of the Federal Reserve Board vote, not just Greenspan. Similarly, Volcker is blamed or credited with ending inflation by raising interest rates, but, again, it was the Federal Reserve Board as a whole which did that. Nixon, Ford and Carter all had to deal with ever-increasing inflation, which could be blamed on several things, deficit spending, including running the presses to pay for the VietNam War, and the shock to the economy caused by the OPEC embargo of 1973. Nixon tried instituting wage and price controls. Ford printed up "W.I.N." buttons - "Whip Inflation Now." Carter did appoint Volcker, and the recession caused by Volcker's policies straddled the end of the Carter adminstration and the beginning of the Reagan administration, and helped get Reagan elected. Reagan, whose popularity increased after the assassination attempt against him shortly after becoming president, was able to obtain from Congress a massive tax cut, and a massive increase in federal spending for the military. The economy did rebound in 1984 ~ you can credit the tax cut, or you can credit the Federal Reserve's wringing inflation out of the United States economy, or you can credit low oil prices, or something else. As for the present economy, it's benefited a lot from deflation, which isn't good for countries that produce natural resources, like Canada, but is good for companies that consume natural resources, like the United States. Or you can credit the Federal Reserve. Greenspan wouldn't mind.<g>

To: Dayuhan who wrote (57314)	10/5/1999 10:14:00 PM
From: Lizzie Tudor	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

All of these events are created by a complex and dynamic interaction of huge numbers of factors. Credit and blame do not, IMO, make a lot of sense. Well ok, but fwiw if the US stock market didn't morph into a huge VC incubator I doubt we would have an internet economy... there would be a few companies, the profitable ones - AOL, etc. and thats it I suspect. I agree a whole bunch of things caused the stock market to climb, but fiscal policy was pretty key... time will tell whether it was a good move or not I suppose....

To: Dayuhan who wrote (57314)	10/5/1999 10:44:00 PM
From: greenspirit	Respond to of 108807

The effect of the Presidents policies on the state of the economy is similar to a leader trying to motivate someone.You can't directly motivate someone to act or behave a certain way. You can make them compliant, but not motivated. However, you can create an environment where shared vision and values entice an atmosphere where intrinsic motivation is far more likely to happen. The Presidency, and his or her effect on the economy, is a lot like that. Using the bully pulpit and economic incentives he/she can create an environment around which the business community and individuals respond favorable or negatively toward the economy. Tax policies play a large roll in this. Reagan convinced the American people (over the head of congress) to cut taxes dramatically across the board in order to stimulate the economy and get it rolling again. Supporting entrepreneurship by giving tax incentives to the start of new business was another factor, as was simply talking about the value of entrepreneurship in a capitalistic society. By constantly talking about entrepreneurship, Reagan created an environment where the term become commonly used around the dinner tables of America. Individual people responded and started small businesses at a startling rate. The economy then started slowly recovering and has been on an upward spiral ever since. This is not rocket science. It's basic leadership theory put into practice. To willingly not see these causal effects is to color ones eyes with ideological blinders IMO. I also believe the easiest thing for someone to do is become cynical and say all politicians are rotten crooks, lacking in knowledge or systemic core values. There are plenty of good decent people working in the political arena. The problem is, it takes real work and effort to locate and learn about them. So much easier to sit back and say they are all a bunch of "idiots" who are in it for their own selfish interests. Not that this describes your point of view Stephen, but I have seen it expressed here by a few unenlightened posters. Michael