So let's pretend that I have been posting for the past few months, last two to be exact. So you already know what has been going on in my life and what games I am playing right? If you don't well then just pretend that I went to Mars on a secret mission to see if Russia had planted a space station the mine the planet of its life essence to use in a super lazor! (Yes, I know I spelt laser wrong). In any case I'm back and better than ever...a Nick 2.0 if you will.
What I would like to talk about today is an issue I have seen recently specifically revolving around the President. People have a tendency to blame any given President about a number of things; whither it be the economy or a war. But what they don't realize is that in terms of actual power the President has little to none, he (and I say "he" not because I don't think women can be President we just haven't had any yet) in actuality affects the economy and wars very little. Sure they implement laws and proposals and ideals into the time that they are President but we need to think about a very limited resource that they all posses and that is TIME.
In terms of economics, there is something called Inside Lag and Outside Lag, and they both effect not only the economy but policy as well. What Inside Lag means is that when the President of Congress implements a quick fix so to speak, this in turn tries to either jump start the economy or have a policy put in place that will immediately try to fix a problem or cause some change. An example would be a Stimulus Package. Outside Lag is a piece of policy or legislation that attempts to solve an issue and create change but it takes much longer to take effect. An example would be Tax Reforms. Outside lag is what causes the most change and it usually occurs over a few years...like 4-8 years. Inside lag takes about a few months.
What does this have to do with the President? What I am trying to show is that in order to evaluate a situation you need to look into the past to see what happened. Look at what Clinton had going for him, there is something called the "Dot Com Bubble Burst" which actually burst after Clinton left and Bush took over. What happened was that there was a push for the Internet and it's stock ballooned (like the housing market did) until the market started to level itself out, like it's supposed to do you also have to throw in Y2K. This played a huge part in the "Dot Com Bubble Burst" as well. But people have a tendency to blame Bush for everything. Now I don't agree with everything the man did in office but you can't pin everything onto one President. It's just not accurate to do that.
So now we come to these past few years and you can see many people blaming Obama for what has happened, and for being to liberal (which he always was by the way). Here is the thing with that, you can't blame him for everything! Sure some of his policies are good ideas like his Health Care reforms but someone needs to pay for it, which I will talk about in the next few days.
So my basic argument is to actually look into the former Presidents and see where issues started and what they tried to do to fix them. That's why most history books don't always attribute things to Presidents because they didn't necessarily do anything to help. Just look at WWII.
