I’m sure I will get downvoted into oblivion for this, but I’ve gotten a pretty reasonable answer to this question from someone who grew up in the south, and was a descendent of slave owners.
A huge amount of the economy of the southern states was dependent on slave laborers, and suddenly, they were stripped of their investments into those slaves, so they were disproportionately affected economically, and have been behind ever since.
Its likely not the entire reason, but its also hard to see it not being a contributing factor, especially historically.
Asking the real questions.
For the past 60 years the majority of recessions have started during Republican presidencies. GDP growth and deficit reduction also favors Democrat presidencies.
That has far more to do with the boom-bust business cycle creating waves of anti-tax conservative-leaning voters when markets are good and waves of pro-public spending liberal-leaning voters when markets go bad.
Similarly, the D/R economic divide has much more to do with Republicans heavily investing in export-oriented state economies (particularly those with big fossil fuel reserves) while Democrats coast on the LBJ legacy that plays well in large urban metroplexes. So, consider Wyoming, which is practically a fief of the Cheney (really Vincent, Dick just married in) family for decades. The state is practically a company town, what with the volume of O&G exploitation that commands employment. And the Vincent/Cheney clan sits at the top of the pyramid. They’re heavily invested in Republican politics, because Republicans are deeper in the pockets of fossil fuel business.
Swing over to Kentucky, where a deeply conservative democrat Governor Andy Beshear holds office, or pop up to Vermont, where one of the last liberal Republicans Phil Scott holds sway, or pop over to New Jersey where Republicans periodically go into and out of high office because their Dem counterparts are constantly getting indicted for SEC violations and bribery scandals, you’ll get a different political dynamic despite the same two parties running the show.
Ultimately, both parties are invested in the long term growth of the FIRE sector and a US political hegemony internationally. So their policies don’t vary significantly, outside of a few niche hot-buttons. Fights over abortion and the rights of trans-people simply don’t have a huge impact on the state or national economies. By contrast, their alignment on education privatization and their focus on a steady return for stock portfolios means every state from California to Florida to New York to Texas has the same set boilerplate set of problems - skyrocketing real estate costs, ballooning student/medical debts, stagnant wages, decaying urban infrastructure, and enormous wealth inequality thanks to wave after wave of scams at the public and private levels.
I gotta guess:
LBJ = Lyndon B Johnson?
O&G = a construction company?
FIRE = Financial, Insurance, Real Estate
SEC = Securities and Exchange Comission
I always wondered what does president have to do with recessions or other “times” . Isn’t it basically over payed position and main job is to smile at the Camera ? Otherwise it would be monarchy would it not ?
(For the reddit like literals, it’s exaggerating and oversimplification bordering joke that highlights basic point. That is a president should represent a nation not govern it ) .
There’s a few ways the president can impact the economy, though not by themself. Usually the majority of the rest of the government is involved too.
The first is that the president is de facto leader of their party. This isn’t an enumerated power, but traditionally the way the parties work. So the president, usually, has a lot of cooperation from their party’s Congressional members.
Second, it is generally typical for the House and Senate to switch to the control of the same party as the president. This is due to general voting attitudes, as most people vote down the ticket for their party. This can vary with Congressional term limits though.
Third, veto power. Even when Congress and the President are not aligned, the president can veto laws that would have a significant impact on the economy. The opposition party would need a super majority to override that veto.
Lastly, there is executive order. This can impact foreign trade, infrastructure, and regulations. Sometimes these are found unlawful by the courts and rescinded, but they can still have had an impact before then.
So as it’s basically as i said. Not a ruler just a representative. Aside from president being commander-in-chief of the armed forces of course.
Those to be associated with economical changes are people themselves and the part of the government that made laws affecting the economy.
President is more or less the either lucky or unlucky about time of election or rather the economy cycle stage.
Because kings have to have serfs and slaves, and all the yokels think they’re going to wind up the kings, they’re wrong.
Yup, you can tell who they are because they dined out laughing and having fun while.making thier constitutes stand 6 feet apart in masks unallowed to dine out. They also innovative with grat jobs for the masses like creating human poop maps. They also do so much to make sure everyone has a few feet if side walk to live on
I’ll tell you what, Cletus. A bunch of demonKKKrats are saying things I don’t like to think about, so here’s what I’m gonna do. I’m gonna go on that there post, and I’m gonna write a bunch of stupid shit that don’t make no sense! Yeah brother, that’ll show them commie fucks, I’ll tell you what!
-@pasta4u
I can’t figure out if you had a stroke before or while writing this comment.
Because of the democrats. Obviously.
/s
Capitalism favors a slight shortage against an inelastic demand, to maximize profits. Farming subsidies protect our food supply by ensuring significant excess supply during normal conditions, and sufficient food supply during droughts, disasters, and other calamities.
However, all that subsidized excess production tanks the market price of agricultural products during normal market conditions. Any state that relies on farming as a primary source of revenue is going to be poor and heavily reliant on subsidies.
