Using Steven’s logic, we should just dissolve the Federal Reserve and do away with most of the Departments of Commerce and Treasury. Let’s trim the federal payroll of all those taxpayer-supported economists. Let’s relegate the study of economics to where it really belongs–with the practitioners of astrology, palmistry, and tea leaf reading. After all, the economy is magic–it’s alchemy–it just happens. And nothing anyone does or doesn’t do has no bearing on this ephemeral beast called “the economy.”

Steven’s evidence for all this boils down to yet another bumpersticker-sized analysis: if good economies could be created, wouldn’t every President create them?

Weep for Troy State students.

To be sure, policies can only get you so far. For example, a doctor can provide a patient with a plan or regimen for good health. Does that automatically mean that patient will live to be 90 or 95? It depends. First, is the MD’s advice sound? Will the patient follow the regimen? Will there be external events that cannot be forecast?

That’s a simple model for the economy. Good policies–implemented and observed–should lead to a good economy barring any circumstances not planned for. OTOH, bad policies will surely lead to economic problems.

“I would challenge you to tell me precisely what the Commerce Department did (or indeed does today) that is of great consequence to this economy.”

Hmmm. I wonder why Dubya is running around telling supporters that he’s created an Asst. Secretary of Commerce for Manufacturing because his regime is so concerned about manufacturing sector jobs?

And I would agree that the Bush’s move on creating a special “job czar” is a minor move at best, and really nothing more than symbolism. Despite your attempts to paint me as such, I do not see everything through a crude partisan lense. I leave that to others. I would also note that by your logic, you shoudl aplaud Bush’s move.

Your Doctor analogy is flawed by the way, as is much of your economic analysis. Again I refer you to the “ex post ergo proptor hoc” logical fallacy. I take it you still haven’t looked that one up.

And just saying “good policies” are good and “bad policies” lead to economic problems hardly qualifies as much of an argument. Neither in this discussion nor in prior discussions on this issue, have you ever so much as articulated ONE actual economic policy, btw.

Further, this thread is a great illustration of how you never actually respond to what I write. I criticized Kerry’s proposal. Where have you defended it, or actually done anything more than engage in sophomoric jabs?

Just curious.

So far you would be doing well to be getting a C- in the course–and that’s assuming some charity on my part. Responses are required to actually respond to the question asked, and evidence must be provided to back up assertions.