Neue Kolumne: Obamas große wirtschaftspolitische Kurswechsel

The United States went through two economic regime changes in the 20th century—Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal in the 1930s, and the Reagan Revolution in the 1980s. The arrival of Barack Obama in the White House amid financial collapse and severe recession has the feel of another sea change in U.S. economic policy.
_
wow, don't you think that this is a gross exaggeration?
_
both the changes undertaken by FDR and Reagan had their origin in the "new" economic theories -- For FDR, it was interventionism (aka Keynesian), for Reagan it was Supply Side. Obama shows no sign of adopting any kind of new economic theory (other than rejecting 'bushonomics'). Indeed, his advocacy of tax cuts suggests that he still accepts much of supply side orthodoxy.
_
the point here is that Obama never articulated any rationale in terms of economic policy -- it was all boilerplate. Indeed, there is no evidence that he has any real understanding of the relationship between the federal government and the economy -- certainly he didn't study it in school, and his two years in the Senate before he started running for President did not provide him with working knowledge.
_
People grossly exaggerate the significance of Obama's election, because Bush was such a horrorshow. But "not being Bush" is not a sign of being an innovative thinker who is going to redefine everything (although the media will portray it that way). Obama is just some kind with no real experience, a good campaign manager, and a journalistic establishment behind his candidacy.

plukasiak has numbed him/herself so much there is no ability left to perceive a sea change as it is happening

Keynes's "General Theory" didn't come out until in 1936, and Keynesianism didn't really take off in the U.S. until after World War II.
_
that's why I called it interventionism, and put "keynesian" in quotes!
_
The point is that while the end of the Bush era is more than justification for celebration, this idea that Obama represents something other than 'not Bush' is silly. Obama is getting the same kind of treatment that Bush got after 9-11, and you'd think that people (especially the media) would realize that simply because there's a crisis doesn't make our leadership a figure of transcendent wisdom.
_
here's a question -- do you think that had it been Bill Clinton taking over, that things would be worse than under Obama? Do you think that Obama's approach will be fundamentally better than Hillary Clinton's had she won? If so, please explain why.

I'm inclined to agree with plukasiak, although I also believe that the most powerful tool that any sitting president possesses is the bully pulpit. The president has the unique ability to set the national attitude and outlook, no matter what the external circumstances.

Grossartig, vor allem «die Haltung der USA gegenüber dem Rest der Welt» ist wichtiger denn je.

Grüsse aus Berlin (einem Teil des Restes der Welt)

Matt

http://botschaftneukoelln.wordpress.com/