« *Globalization*, by Don Boudreaux | Main | Which countries have the best and worst flags? »
How economically important is an inspirational president?
Mark Thompson, a loyal MR reader, writes:
I'm wondering if you would be willing to address the question of whether and how much of an economic effect a President can have simply by making people feel good about themselves.
Mark's own answer is here. I'll say that the personality of the president matters most in models with multiple equilibria. There can be a high-output equilibrium and a low-output equilibrium, and perhaps the mood and demeanor of the President can shift the country from one to another. "Good morning, America!" etc.
But are these models true? I've never seen general evidence for their applicability, although I recall Ronald Reagan's smile and Jimmy Carter's pessimistic sweater. Furthermore GDP growth rates are statistically indistinguishable from a random walk (NB: in a test with low power), which doesn't help these models either. Since the temperament of the politician seems to persist over time, you would think that patterns in GDP would be more predictable than they are. But they aren't.
Note that if you buy into multiple equilibria models of business cycles, it is a matter of great importance when the Fed acts to stimulate the economy. It would probably be too late now because the pessimistic mood already has set in. But more vigorous action, say a few months ago, might have kept spirits high. That's if you buy into those models.
Posted by Tyler Cowen on January 14, 2008 at 07:41 AM in Political Science | Permalink
Comments
I don't know about presidential demeanor, but this post certainly does nothing to improve my confidence in economists' understanding of the national economy. No offense intended, really.
Posted by: tgb1000 at Jan 14, 2008 8:00:13 AM
This isn't exactly the same thing, but James David Barber, a political scientist, categorized presidents according to how hard they worked (active-passive) and whether they seemed to enjoy the experience of being president (positive-negative). For example, Lyndon Johnson routinely worked 16 hours a day, while Calvin Coolidge slept 11 hours per night and still took naps. Reagan enjoyed the presidency while Carter was all doom and gloom. Lots of room for discussion here, but still interesting.
Posted by: Ned at Jan 14, 2008 11:19:26 AM
Ned:
I had forgotten about that study, which is quite influential, if a profound oversimplification. From what I recall, most political scientists still regard it as useful as a loose predictor of Presidential performance.
It's a bit different from my initial question, which was more economics based, but it's worth keeping in mind nonetheless. At the very least it leads to the conclusion that style matters, albeit not necessarily in the way my question speculated.
Posted by: Mark at Jan 14, 2008 12:17:40 PM
I'd like to think there is no effect, that the economy is more rational than that. Indeed, we can kill this meme -- FDR made Americans feel good but couldn't get the economy off the dime until the war.
Posted by: John Kunze at Jan 14, 2008 12:43:47 PM
Except that real GDP growth was actually stronger under Jimmy Carter then it was in Reagan's first term.
Posted by: spencer at Jan 14, 2008 2:43:26 PM
I meet many business leaders who think something like this is true. They say that it's possible to "talk ourselves into recession." I'm guessing that they would vote for an upbeat candidate over a doom-and-gloomer. For me, I don't think anyone can point to a recession and say that its predominant cause was pessimism.
Posted by: Bill Conerly at Jan 14, 2008 10:27:30 PM
There is probably also a component with what the country needs at the time.
Much like when the economy is sluggish, you don't worry too much about an inflation uptic (unless The Fed is particularly clueless at that time), when the country is too cocky, it doesn't need, and wouldn't benefit from an unrealistically upbeat President.
When the country was in the doldrums, they didn't need a Jimmy Carter. They needed a Ronald Reagan.
And today, likewise, now that the country is clueless and scared about the domestic economy and terrified of thugs with boxcutters that have no country, while overly belligerent and cocksure with other sovereign nations, and our place in the world...yes, this would be my shameless plug for Ron Paul.
And one more thing. Dr. Cowen made a comment about Ron Paul being elected causing the Dow to drop. Well, Philip A. Fisher makes a brief analysis of such pronouncements.
He says that when the outcome is predictable, that the benefit of a pro-economy President will be discounted, in fact too much so. So, once the results are finalized, the market will drop...because the pre-election runup was too high. So, yes, if Ron Paul the Republican nominee, and he is elected, the market will drop. But not for the reason Dr. Cowen implied.
Posted by: Andrew at Jan 15, 2008 6:34:48 AM
Leadership is defined as bravely LEADING the country on a new path they weren't already going.
What most politicians do is figure out where the mass of people are headed, then jump at the front of the mob and then scream loudest what they hear the people murmuring.
Posted by: Andrew at Jan 15, 2008 6:38:10 AM
If you have to buy cabal alz, please come to our company.
Posted by: buy cabal alz at Jan 1, 2009 10:53:13 PM
Flyff gold
flyff Penya
flyff money
buy flyff penya
cheap flyff penya
cheap flyff gold
Posted by: aion kina at Mar 18, 2009 2:23:17 AM
Is it realistic?
Posted by: batter at May 14, 2009 9:48:53 PM
Everything is decided by the market instead of any single human being’s personal feeling.
But opportunity and efforts are same important on the way to yr goal.
Like the aion gold performance in the market.
Posted by: hellen at May 14, 2009 9:49:34 PM
It seems we will be in economy ression for quite a long time. We can see the economy crisis effect everywhere.
Posted by: jim at May 14, 2009 9:50:00 PM