ECONOMIC DECISIONS DRIVERS

The entry of women into the workforce in the second half of the 20th century was one of the most important drivers of economic growth during those decades, but it is hard to identify a single policy that led to that shift. economy, but the impact of any single trade agreement is generally modest. The decades-long process of opening up global trade has had a clear, positive impact on the U.S. That can make their impact hard to measure. Most of the time, however, presidents affect the economy in more subtle, long-run ways. Economists on the right and left say there are various decisions - defaulting on the national debt or sharply limiting trade, for example - that could have a similar effect today. Furth pointed to President NixonвЂ™s 1971 decision to impose price controls in response to inflation as an example of a policy that had a clear - and immediate - negative effect on the economy, one that took years to fully reverse. Outside of crises, presidents canвЂ™t do much to boost the economy in the short term. вЂњThe moment when presidents can make a difference is during emergencies like a global financial crisis,вЂќ said Stan Veuger, an economist at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank. Many observers suspect that, had McCain become president, he would have proposed a bill closer to the one Obama passed.) (ObamaвЂ™s 2008 opponent, John McCain, fought the administrationвЂ™s stimulus package in the Senate, but not because he objected to the idea of a stimulus - he wanted the bill to rely more heavily on tax cuts rather than spending. (Assessments of ObamaвЂ™s other crisis-era initiatives, such as the auto company bailouts and mortgage-assistance programs, have been more mixed.) And many experts ( though not all) believe that the broader set of government actions - by both Obama and Bush, as well as the Federal Reserve - helped avert a full-blown depression. Most economists believe the stimulus package that Obama signed early in his administration helped dampen the effects of the recession critics on the left argue that a larger or better-designed stimulus could have done more.

In crises, presidential action can have an immediate and measurable effect. вЂњA lot of policies take a long time to take effect.вЂќ

вЂњItвЂ™s really hard to assign to a president or even more broadly to a political establishment вЂ¦ credit or blame for things,вЂќ said Salim Furth, an economist at the conservative Heritage Foundation. True presidential impacts are often invisible - as much about what doesnвЂ™t happen as what does - and become clear only years or even decades after they leave office. ItвЂ™s just that their true impact is rarely what gets talked about in party conventions or on the campaign trail. Indeed, presidents, along with Congress, can exert profound influence over the economy, for good and ill. It is impossible to know for sure, but it is likely that the housing boom and bust would have played out much the same way under President Gore as it did under President Bush, and itвЂ™s likely that the recovery would have been just as long (and just as disappointing) under President McCain or President Romney as it has been under President Obama.Д«ut that doesnвЂ™t mean presidents have no power over the economy at all, or that their policies are unimportant. ItвЂ™s just that presidents, in general, have far less control over the economy than the public often thinks. ThatвЂ™s not a knock on the 42nd president in particular. When Hillary Clinton said last spring that she would put her husband вЂњin charge of revitalizing the economy,вЂќ I argued that Bill Clinton doesnвЂ™t deserve much credit for the late-1990s boom.

Economic decisions