With the 2008 recession and the election of Obama, the conservative consensus was shaken. Obama ran on a financial platform that diverged from previous administrations. He campaigned against the “Bush economy” and wanted the federal government to have a role in ending the financial crisis. He believed that it was the responsibility of the government to help in times of crisis. Additionally, he vowed to cut federal spending while investing in infrastructure and education (Levy 717). Once inaugurated, Obama got together a team of financial experts to aid in economic policymaking (Levy 718). In 2009, the $800 billion American Recovery and Reinvestment Act was passed, and it “was the largest fiscal stimulus in American history” (Levy 722). I think this shows that Obama’s response to the 2008 recession went against this conservative consensus that the markets would figure themselves out, and this belief that markets and deregulation would lead to economic growth. Obama advocated for greater financial responsibility for the government. I think that set him apart from the conservative consensus is that while they believe in less government and less help, Obama and democrats believed it was the government’s duty and responsibility to the people to help. That help did not stop with the economic problems of the Great Recession.
I can’t say I really understand why the U.S. Treasury and Federal Reserve have so much authority over economic policy-making. And, if I’m really honest, I don’t understand anything about economics (this was a hard read). I believe that this goes all the way back to Alexander Hamilton, the first Secretary of the US Treasury. He set up the US Treasury Department and the first National Bank, and he believed that it was the Treasury’s responsibility to disperse revenue and help develop the economy. Additionally, he believed that if the US was aggressive and competitive within finance, then the economy would get a boost (https://home.treasury.gov/about/history/prior-secretaries/alexander-hamilton-1789-1795). So with that knowledge, I think it is just a systematic thing where the Treasury and Federal Reserve have power over the economy. In some ways, it might be a good thing, but in other ways, it might be bad. Like, if it were elected positions, the US could elect really stupid people who don’t know anything about the economy. But the president could also appoint someone who is not great. To some extent, money is fake and capitalism sucks, so what does it matter? As far as the economy is concerned, I don’t know. And judging from the article, does anybody? The end of the article talked about the Federal Reserve experimenting, and despite the stimulus and investing and reinvesting, the Great Recession continued (Levy 731). The critics believed that inflation would rise, and it never did (Levy 730). So in conclusion, who knows? I don’t.
Will Wright 
Hey Emma. I really liked your insights in this blog post. This was a hard read for me as well. I just don’t have a brain for economics, haha. In high school my econ teacher would just play Netflix documentaries. It was awesome but I learned nothing. Anyway, I like that you point out how Levy portrayed Obama as surrounding himself with people who were experts in the economy to help him guide his decisions. I think it is important that presidents do this in the case of most topics. There is no way we will have a president who is an expert in science/education/economics/social issues. Mind as well rely on credible experts. I also think it is important that you note how whatever is happening with the economy is sort of working and sort of not—“The critics believed that inflation would rise, and it never did (Levy 730). So in conclusion, who knows? I don’t.” I just hope that the people who are running these unelected bodies (Treasury/Fed) aren’t just trying to line their own pockets and the pockets of the 1%.
LikeLike