Who among the presidentiables will be bad for the economy?

Subscribe to Posts via RSS

Post Page Rank

This entry is part 32 of 51 in the series The 2010 Presidential Elections

The 2010 Presidential Elections

bad news
Photo by Stitch

“Who among the presidentiables will be bad for the economy?”

This is an interesting query I got through a random “googler” today.

Loading ...

Now, I don’t know if it’s some random thought or an actual question posed by God knows who but it sounds interesting enough that I wanted to write about it.

Unfortunately, this “googler” wasn’t clear about this question. What does he/she mean by “bad”? And is she referring to pre-elections or post-elections economy? If he/she is referring to pre-elections economic effect, technically, whoever spends more would be good for the economy because it would generate jobs and faster movement of resources through rapid and frantic “purchases” of products and services.

Alternatively, if the “googler” meant “bad” for the economy post-elections, then I would assume he/she would be referring to a sitting/winning president because losing presidentiables can only make so insignificant a dent in the economy (if ever).

As much as I wanted to discuss this further, I realized that considering I’m not an expert on economics and “market forces”, I ultimately decided to turn this into a poll instead.

So, go ahead. Vote! :) And yes, for the purpose of this poll, let us stick to a post-elections scenario. Theoretically, we are looking for that president-to-be who will likely make “unsound” economic decisions and send us back to the Stone Age.