Generally-speaking, I don’t think that it’s a great metric of presidencies.
A president has a limited impact on the economy. They often receive credit or blame from voters based on whether GDP is growing or shrinking during their term, where the factors that cause that may have little to do with them.
Some of the things that they might do may also have a long-term effect (or even a negative short-term effect, but positive long-term effect).
For example, suppose that a sitting president somehow does something that causes 50% of Americans to stay in education four years longer and acquire a useful skillset there. That will probably reduce economic activity during their term; people who would have been out in the workforce are not. But say that the skillset that is acquired is a useful one, something that causes them to be able to much-more-effectively provide something that is in demand. That could greatly increase long-term economic activity.
Or for another example: deficit spending can increase economic activity. American economic activity increased substantially over World War II. But it did so because of wartime spending. That doesn’t suggest that a desirable policy would be to put everyone possible to work making tanks and start invading Germany.
Understanding how these things work requires mental effort, which most of the sheeple prefer to put toward playing their iPhone games and watching their TV shows.
Critical thinking, patience and research? 99.99% avoid such things the way they do disease and sewage. So that’s where we are now as a society.
Generally-speaking, I don’t think that it’s a great metric of presidencies.
A president has a limited impact on the economy. They often receive credit or blame from voters based on whether GDP is growing or shrinking during their term, where the factors that cause that may have little to do with them.
Some of the things that they might do may also have a long-term effect (or even a negative short-term effect, but positive long-term effect).
For example, suppose that a sitting president somehow does something that causes 50% of Americans to stay in education four years longer and acquire a useful skillset there. That will probably reduce economic activity during their term; people who would have been out in the workforce are not. But say that the skillset that is acquired is a useful one, something that causes them to be able to much-more-effectively provide something that is in demand. That could greatly increase long-term economic activity.
Or for another example: deficit spending can increase economic activity. American economic activity increased substantially over World War II. But it did so because of wartime spending. That doesn’t suggest that a desirable policy would be to put everyone possible to work making tanks and start invading Germany.
Of course the only reasonable answer is all the way at the bottom.
I tell you, the worst part of Lemmy is the users.
People. What a bunch of bastards.
Understanding how these things work requires mental effort, which most of the sheeple prefer to put toward playing their iPhone games and watching their TV shows.
Critical thinking, patience and research? 99.99% avoid such things the way they do disease and sewage. So that’s where we are now as a society.