Paul Krugman: The Real and Unexpected Way Presidents Help the Economy

Presidents probably get too much credit when economic times are good, Paul Krugman suggests in his Monday column. Reagan certainly did. Of course, now that there are growing signs that the U.S. economy is at long last improving, Obama's approval rating is rising and conservative pundits and pols are scrambling to prove that this president should not get the credit. "There’s a palpable sense of panic among Republicans, despite their victory in the midterms," Krugman crows. "They expected to run in 2016 against a record of failure; what do they do if the economy is looking pretty good?"

Oh well, that's their problem, he concludes before taking a deeper dive into the question of just how much credit presidents in general, and Obama in particular, is due.

It's not what you might think.

First a little history. After the recession in the '80s, when the economy improved under Reagan, he was lionized as a  miracle maker on the right, for cutting taxes and having "conjured up the magic of the marketplace and led the nation to job gains never matched before or since," Krugman writes. Two tiny details however argue against the utter miraculousness of it all, according to the columnist/stickler for facts. "The 16 million jobs America added during the Reagan years were only slightly more than the 14 million added over the previous eight years," Krugman points out. "And a later president — Bill something-or-other — presided over the creation of 22 million jobs. But who’s counting?"

Serious economic analysis reveals that the real driver of the country's economy is the Fed. It was under Paul Volcker's leadership in the '80s, and Krugman argues that his determination to bring inflation down and tighten money policies are what caused the recession in the first place. It sent mortgage rates abover 18 percent. Then the Fed reversed course, loosened the money reins, and with declining interest rates, housing and the rest of the economy started soaring. "Reagan got the political credit for “morning in America,” but Mr. Volcker was actually responsible for both the slump and the boom," Krugman writes.

So, this time around, is it the Fed rather than the White House that should get the credit for the current recovery?

Kind of both. Krugman:

Since then, however, scorched-earth Republican opposition has more than reversed that initial effort. In fact, federal spending adjusted for inflation and population growth is lower now than it was when Mr. Obama took office; at the same point in the Reagan years, it was up more than 20 percent. So much, then, for fiscal policy.

There is, however, another sense in which Mr. Obama has arguably made a big difference. The Fed has had a hard time getting traction, but it has at least made an effort to boost the economy — and it has done so despite ferocious attacks from conservatives, who have accused it again and again of “debasing the dollar” and setting the stage for runaway inflation. Without Mr. Obama to shield its independence, the Fed might well have been bullied into raising interest rates, which would have been disastrous. So the president has indirectly aided the economy by helping to fend off the hard-money mob.

Summing up: The Fed is more responsible for the recovery than Obama, but had the other party been in the White House during this period, things would be a lot worse. Oh yeah, and as per usual, according to Krugman, Obama's over-the-top detractors, whining about how he has been mean to bankers and hostile to business  and therefore hurtful to the economy as a whole, look like "knaves and fools." Again.

Enjoy this piece?

… then let us make a small request. AlterNet’s journalists work tirelessly to counter the traditional corporate media narrative. We’re here seven days a week, 365 days a year. And we’re proud to say that we’ve been bringing you the real, unfiltered news for 20 years—longer than any other progressive news site on the Internet.

It’s through the generosity of our supporters that we’re able to share with you all the underreported news you need to know. Independent journalism is increasingly imperiled; ads alone can’t pay our bills. AlterNet counts on readers like you to support our coverage. Did you enjoy content from David Cay Johnston, Common Dreams, Raw Story and Robert Reich? Opinion from Salon and Jim Hightower? Analysis by The Conversation? Then join the hundreds of readers who have supported AlterNet this year.

Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure AlterNet remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to AlterNet, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.

DonateDonate by credit card


Thanks for your support!

Did you enjoy AlterNet this year? Join us! We're offering AlterNet ad-free for 15% off - just $2 per week. From now until March 15th.