Now don't get me wrong here. This is not an attack on President Obama. Whether anyone likes it or not, he is our President. I for one want him in there for 8 years. If he is, it means he is doing something right. He is extremely intelligent, and he is more than capable of being one of the better presidents of my generation.
My arguments are to the idea that Bush killed the economy. That somehow one man stopped our economic progress. Frankly, I think it is despicable for us as Americans to dodge the responsibility we have to educate ourselves on what is really going on here, yet still clammer on about how bad of a job Bush did with the ECONOMY. The economy is flawed by it's very structure. It's volatility has led to amazing heights, and catastrophic falls. So what's the problem?
I have an answer to that, but I first want you to know I am a pretty hardcore Republican. I believe that it was the Reagan years that set the country on a path to being the central hub for the world economy. He did. There is no arguing it. Please try...it would be fun for me. During the 4 year reign of Jimmy Carter, the US's unemployment was at a staggering 9-10%. Government influence and restrictions on government was much greater and taxes were draining companies of their ability to grow. Reagan came along and introduced a system called "trickle-down" economics. It was widely criticised for its extreme right wing thinking. If you have money, spend it. He reduced taxes in order to keep the money flowing in our country and create jobs for the unemployed. The rich do get richer for sure, but they invest their money into publicly traded corporations that grew at incredible rates. This growth led to job creation and a fall in unemployment to 3-4%. The standard of living went through the roof. The US became the most powerful economy in the world. Americans were impressed enough to elect Vice President Bush to his 4 year residency in 1992.
Reagan's influence ruled throughout the 90's, as did that of Allan Greenspan after he was appointed Chairman of the Federal Reserve. During his time in that position the US economy enjoyed its greatest growth. Even today he is still consulted for much of our current economic policies.
However, Greenspan's beliefs were short-sited in my opinion. He preached that the greater the government control, the less potential there is for growth. Now in theory he is correct. Heavy government taxes and limits put on businesses will inevitably reduce the amount of times the dollar turns over (that is how we measure "economic growth") . Reagan bought it, Bush 1 and 2 bought it, and Clinton tried to take credit for the idea. The idea got even bigger as the US markets spread into other countries. The global economy was turning the US into a powerhouse. With reducing regulations from the government, there seemed to be no limit on what we could do.
Wrong!
What happens when you give a bunch of "bottom-line" thinking businessmen room to abuse the system. Class? Anyone? They abuse it! Obvious answer, but it should be. Clinton got hit with the last economic crisis. Oh you forgot left-wingers? Don't remember Adelphia? Global Crossings? Ok you have to know ENRON! It was the central media target after the famous technology bubble burst, which killed the rapid growth we saw in the late 90's. Now why did that happen? A lack of regulations. Now what did we do about that? We put regulations on the CFOs of major companies to be extra diligent in looking over their financial statements, and making sure they were reporting accurate information. It was called the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. Our hated...gulp...regulation! Bush, a staunch advocate of de-regulation, was putting the government's hands all over business in America. It worked too. It kept companies from giving false financial statements to it's shareholders which ballooned their stock price.
So what do we do about the financial crisis? What do we do when loans are being given to those that can't afford them? What do we do when a 15 year old can be sent a card with $3,000 worth of credit on it? We have to regulate. I know it pains a lot of people not to make Bush the scapegoat (though he saw this coming 2 years ago and the Democrats blocked the legislation...thanks guys), he isn't to blame. It is all of us. I have plenty of credit debt to incriminate myself here. I am having to re-budget to afford it. I am willing to say I was a little to ambitious and it could have cost me. However, I will not blame Bush, and I will not blame Obama when the crap hits the fan 8-10 years from now when we have another crisis.
Our economy is a work in progress. The reason it is so up-and-down is because we are always going to have the powerful few willing to mess it up for the rest of us, and we will always have people looking to get more from nothing (think credit). You want stability? Then we need to demand an economic system that is reasonable in how much leash we give to those with the ability to manipulate the system. We need to make sure credit is given to those with the money to make the payments. We also need to be able to trust those that handle our money. I am not a proponent of regulation, but we need at least some rules in place to protect those making an honest living.
With all that said, I welcome comments/arguments. I also wish Obama all the luck in the world and I hope he is able to lead the country in the right direction. I think he has the right idea with the tax cuts, but he needs not to tax investors. Sorry all you "steal from the rich, give to the poor" people, but they are they ones creating jobs by keeping their money invested in the employers of our great nation. You'll love Obama to death until you get laid off. Keep those fingers crossed.
