Fellow contributor resident financial whiz Vanilla Ice may like this. Yep, change we can believe in. Why should this concern you? Well, if you like having a job, a house worth something, a functioning world economy, the US is the ticket out of the mess. It got us into it, it is the way out. The global financial implosion is Obama's 9/11 and as you can see, economists do not rate his handling of the crisis very highly. Mmm, I wonder what they would have said had it been a Republican at the helm instead of The One, the untouchable. Hypocrisy anyone?
On average, they gave the president a grade of 59 out of 100, and although there was a broad range of marks, 42% of respondents rated Mr. Obama below 60. Mr. Geithner received an average grade of 51. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke scored better, with an average 71…
[E]conomists’ main criticism of the Obama team centered on delays in enacting key parts of plans to rescue banks. “They overpromised and underdelivered,” said Stephen Stanley of RBS Greenwich Capital. “Secretary Geithner scheduled a big speech and came out with just a vague blueprint. The uncertainty is hanging over everyone’s head.”…
The economists’ negative ratings mark a turnaround in opinion. In December, before Mr. Obama took office, three-quarters of respondents said the incoming administration’s economic team was better than the departing Bush team. However, Mr. Geithner’s latest marks are lower than the average grade of 57 that former Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson received in January…
The economists didn’t just single out the U.S. for criticism; 70% of participants said the response of governments around the world to the global recession has been inadequate.
At least one of them rates better than Paulson — slightly. Whew! In fairness to The One, we are talking about economists here; the range of “expert” opinion varies as widely as nationalizing the banks and pouring trillions into a stimulus to spending jack squat and letting the bear market devour any company it finds in its path.
When the poles are that far apart, you’re bound to disappoint some people bitterly no matter what you do. On the other hand, what’s his excuse for forgetting to staff the Treasury Department or sending Geithner out to announce his plan when he doesn’t have a plan yet? Reserve a special place for those two missteps in your rapidly bulging “What if Bush did it?” file, please.
Exit fun fact: The same economists put the odds of a depression at one in six. Lower than I’d have guessed, frankly.
1 Opinion(s):
Yes Dobes, makes for interesting reading. Problem is that the correlation between political leadership and economic performance, at least in developed democratic countries, is not strong enough to be significant, and statistical significance usually only materialises from about 20 years. There are just too many variables. This is why we can now say with confidence that Robert Mugabe is the primary contributing factor in Zimbabwe. What is interesting though, is that when markets do well, political leadership takes the credit, but the converse doesn't hold. I suspect if the US economy continues to flounder Obama will blame Bush, like the ANC blames Apartheid. I continue to watch the space.
Post a Comment