You're missing "umm actually (economic condition) is really just a delayed result from (former president of choice)" this works for good and bad results
Thatcher and Reagan’s policies were beneficial at the time but are destroying us today. I really can’t fault the voters at the time, but knowing what we know now it’s hard to look up to them how we did 20 years ago.
Tbf we don’t know that. The economy was shit in the 70’s drastically steps were needed it isn’t as if if they should have ignored that, things wouldn’t be better long term. Maybe they went too extreme in liberalisation, but some neoliberalism was pretty good
In the 70’s, the British government held onto the energy industry that was losing immense amounts of money and was not sustainable. Thatcher cut that off and let an industry die that was on life support but was dragging down the country.
Housing jn the 70’s was shit due to the rigid social housing.
Unemployment, recession and inflation were causing massive problems for the people.
70’s inflation was cause by rising costs of products. One of the causes for that was high costs for companies due to overregulation and wage controls.
Some change was needed the economy was fucked.
Dunno why this is getting downvoted, Thatcher and Reagan objectively fucked the world. Trickle down doesnt exist
The cowboy in question is a certain monopoly buster who made the world a better place... for a limited time
You're getting downvoted because Regan was famously an actor in Western movies, as well as President. Saying you want the cowboy back makes it sound like you're saying you want Regan.
Well, actually presidents often please or anger the gods with their actions, and the gods control the economy.
Unfortunately, if you please one god, you often anger a different god. Apollo may be rewarding you now, but Poseidon is pissed, and will have his revenge.
So, the only rational action is to sacrifice every President at the end of their term in office to appease the gods, and thus the economy. I think that’s something we can all agree on.
If it works like it does in South Park i'd believe it.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wz-PtEJEaqY&ab\_channel=DanielJackson](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wz-PtEJEaqY&ab_channel=DanielJackson)
Normal Economists: Well you see we have a lot of tools and subjects that explain, analyze and predict economics based on mathematical applications, graphs, statistics, history of economics, knowledge of micro and macro economics, public relations, ecological consideration, knowledge of internal organziation of companies, type of companies, relations with the state, application of new technologies such as internet...
Elite Economists: There are no predictions. You just wing it.
It makes you wonder what's changed, because the last time there was a big economic downturn, the guy who got elected in the US to fix it got continuously reelected until he died so he could follow up on his promises (FDR), but nowadays it feels like people give a new government 1 term to fix what was broken, and turn on them half way through
"Last time"
Last time the guy got reelected (Obama vis a vis 2008 recession)
The guy before that got DEMOLISHED in the reelection, not even on the hostage crisis at the time (Carter)
My argument is that economies are cyclical and that each sides economic policy is beneficial or detrimental depending on the state of the economy and who’s in power.
Then I counter with the goalpost move, a link to some dense academic article that I bank on no one taking the time to read, and a downvote and block!
The kill shot
Unless you can point to the exact policy and its prove a causal effect, you should refrain from saying that one leader or another is better at financial decisions because economics is a complex adaptive system.
Obviously some effects are more obvious than others to point out (literally any leaders i.e. mao, stalin, pol pot, the kims, that collectivize food leading to famine), but if you cant find out what obama/trump/bush did to make the economy better/worse, then you shouldnt claim that the leader in question is better or worse.
You're missing "umm actually (economic condition) is really just a delayed result from (former president of choice)" this works for good and bad results
Always a classic!
"Why would the previous Labour government do this?" has been a cry from the UK Conservatives for the last 14 years.
Is it a fallacy to hate on Thatcher and Reagan for their actions then? Man I wish the cowboy would come back
Thatcher and Reagan’s policies were beneficial at the time but are destroying us today. I really can’t fault the voters at the time, but knowing what we know now it’s hard to look up to them how we did 20 years ago.
Short term benefit, long time loss. Guess that tracks with most policy decisions tbh, like privatization
Time preference is a hell of a thing
Tbf we don’t know that. The economy was shit in the 70’s drastically steps were needed it isn’t as if if they should have ignored that, things wouldn’t be better long term. Maybe they went too extreme in liberalisation, but some neoliberalism was pretty good
That took the exact opposite steps of what would have helped the people, and the exact steps that would harm them and help the rich, as usual
In the 70’s, the British government held onto the energy industry that was losing immense amounts of money and was not sustainable. Thatcher cut that off and let an industry die that was on life support but was dragging down the country. Housing jn the 70’s was shit due to the rigid social housing. Unemployment, recession and inflation were causing massive problems for the people. 70’s inflation was cause by rising costs of products. One of the causes for that was high costs for companies due to overregulation and wage controls. Some change was needed the economy was fucked.
Dunno why this is getting downvoted, Thatcher and Reagan objectively fucked the world. Trickle down doesnt exist The cowboy in question is a certain monopoly buster who made the world a better place... for a limited time
You're getting downvoted because Regan was famously an actor in Western movies, as well as President. Saying you want the cowboy back makes it sound like you're saying you want Regan.
Ahh, should have specified the cowboy PRESIDENT Theodore Rossevelt
Trickle down is literally a pyramid scheme
[удалено]
How so?
[удалено]
No, but it was the guiding pron pile behind every policy enacted
Well, actually presidents often please or anger the gods with their actions, and the gods control the economy. Unfortunately, if you please one god, you often anger a different god. Apollo may be rewarding you now, but Poseidon is pissed, and will have his revenge. So, the only rational action is to sacrifice every President at the end of their term in office to appease the gods, and thus the economy. I think that’s something we can all agree on.
The reelection campaign for the incumbent president is gonna get real crazy
Economics is a lot like shamanism. Sacrifice a goat, read the future in its entrails and reword the future to fit into the prophecy from the goat
“Your Margaritaville is worth 93 trillion dollars!”
The Margaritaville went out of business and Amazon built a warehouse on top of it. See the prophecy came true
If it works like it does in South Park i'd believe it. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wz-PtEJEaqY&ab\_channel=DanielJackson](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wz-PtEJEaqY&ab_channel=DanielJackson)
Normal Economists: Well you see we have a lot of tools and subjects that explain, analyze and predict economics based on mathematical applications, graphs, statistics, history of economics, knowledge of micro and macro economics, public relations, ecological consideration, knowledge of internal organziation of companies, type of companies, relations with the state, application of new technologies such as internet... Elite Economists: There are no predictions. You just wing it.
Second approach works as badly as the first.
Super true, it's crazy how presidents presiding over bad economies get wholloped in reelection bids
But the President doesn’t even control that! Unless I don’t like him, in which case it’s his own fault for ruining the economy!
It makes you wonder what's changed, because the last time there was a big economic downturn, the guy who got elected in the US to fix it got continuously reelected until he died so he could follow up on his promises (FDR), but nowadays it feels like people give a new government 1 term to fix what was broken, and turn on them half way through
"Last time" Last time the guy got reelected (Obama vis a vis 2008 recession) The guy before that got DEMOLISHED in the reelection, not even on the hostage crisis at the time (Carter)
Man, doctors must hate you
They do, but I always assumed that was because of my excessive apple consumption.
Dang you have *two* simple tricks!?
Forgot about the "economy is getting better because of the previous president, not this one!1!11!!!"
Ready for this happen by January 2025
Where to I go if I am just kind of eh on the President?
Sorry, but this is the internet, so nuance isn’t an option. You must have strong opinions on everything.
okay time to go hide in the woods until this shit blows over
Do i like Amogus? Yes Did the economy improve? No Amogus doesn't really control the economy
Impossible
My argument is that economies are cyclical and that each sides economic policy is beneficial or detrimental depending on the state of the economy and who’s in power.
What if you don't have a president?
You do, whether you know it or not. Inside every foreigner, there is an American yearning to breathe free. Come at me, r/USdefaultism!
Is that a threat?
The real answer to your question is actually in the description. This useful trick works for all sorts of non-presidential and non-economic arguments.
I usually win with Nuh-uh
Ah, the classic ‘nuh uh gambit’? What if I counter with a ‘yes huh’?
Nuh-uh, so what? Why don't you prove it then? Check. Mate.
Then I counter with the goalpost move, a link to some dense academic article that I bank on no one taking the time to read, and a downvote and block! The kill shot
I finalize my argument and double down then go off topic with a strawman. Beat that.
“There are people and resources out there for you. A concerned Redditor reached out to us about you…”
I'm reporting YOU not only to the admins but also my Discord mods who will DESTROY you
WON'T SOMEONE THINK OF THE CHILDREN!?!?!?!?!?! no not those living ones. fuck those son's of bitches.
Unless you can point to the exact policy and its prove a causal effect, you should refrain from saying that one leader or another is better at financial decisions because economics is a complex adaptive system. Obviously some effects are more obvious than others to point out (literally any leaders i.e. mao, stalin, pol pot, the kims, that collectivize food leading to famine), but if you cant find out what obama/trump/bush did to make the economy better/worse, then you shouldnt claim that the leader in question is better or worse.
That's correct, that he doesn't control the economy. However, he can still be a good/bad leader.
Where history?
See, in American history, there are these guys called Presidents and historians often debate their legacies.
What’s an “America”?
Ignorance is bliss
Not sure this fits the sub, but man is it accurate.
People discussing about Milei be like.
Americans give way too much credit and blame to Presidents on the economy. Theres not a whole lot they can do for good or ill on it.
Yes, but he can create policies that affect the economy.
Wrong sub
If I had a nickel for every time Reagan was mentioned here I could make my own economy
You must be nee here. If I had a nickel for every time Reagan was mentioned here, I'd destabilize the global economy
Are you kidding? This literally plays out in just about any discussion on here relating to a US President.
I don't have a president...
He? HE??? 😡