Any examples? IIRC, many such orders signed by Trump were immediately undone or at the very least drastically watered down by Biden.
Honestly I think this is something us humans are really bad at (well we're known to be bad at this). Understanding causal effects through time. Not only are we bad at understanding causal facts but we're really bad at being forward thinking and understanding temporal phenomena.
But I think the main point that the gp is making is that most of the things that happen under a president aren't really felt till well after they have left office. Many wins that presidents have are due to effects from former presidents. Like both Obama and Trump got praised for high S&P 500 values at the beginning of their presidencies. Obama came in after a big crash. There's also no way Trump could be a causal factor for growth in the first 3 months of his presidency. You can't really have that kind of effect that early on. Yes these presidents contributed to these markets, but it would be naive to say that the growth was because of them. Or we can look at the long lasting effects of Regan. Or even Civil Rights and Johnson. While there was more immediate consequences under both these presidents there were also very long term effects that we still see today.
So I'd need a reference to support that idea.
However I'll give you another one. Most people's impression is that Carter destroyed the economy and Reagan's deregulation saved the day. But actually the facts are almost exactly reversed - Carter did the deregulating but the benefits were not seen until Reagan was in power.
See https://noahpinion.substack.com/p/much-of-what-youve-heard-a... for a reference.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aftermath_of_the_repeal_of_the...>
<https://web.archive.org/web/20111019192852/http://prospect.o...>
Canada did suffer during the 2007-8 crisis, though its banking system didn't collapse as the US system did.
The reasons suggested are various. I'm not an expert on either the US or Canadian experiences, though some quick searches suggest a few explanations, including an overall different regulatory and banking environment in Canada (far more centralised to the Federal government rather than distributed to numerous states). NBER and a few other sources look promising.
But you also seem to be assuming that there was a single causal factor or that people are claiming there is a single causal factor. Neither of these are true. There were many factors at play.
My only claim with Clinton was that he did things that helped lead to the events and people do not attribute that to him because he was not the acting head of state. My claim was not about a singular causality, and that would be a pretty bad faith read.
Yeah, not buying it. There are lots of things that happened under Bush that are also posited as contributing to the crash. And 8 years is more than long enough for Bush's policies to have contributed.
That's not the argument being made. The argument being made is that actions under a president outlast the president and have to be considered as part of their legacy. Bush isn't blameless but that also doesn't mean Clinton gets off Scot-free.
The argument is about how attribution to current events doesn't solely lie upon the current acting head of state.
But the comment I was responding to said:
> ...what led to the 2009 financial crisis was mostly done under the Clinton administration...
That goes well beyond "Clinton doesn't get off Scot-free" all of the way to, "Clinton should get most of the blame."
I'm firmly in agreement that Clinton contributed. But I'm going to need serious convincing that what he did was more important than, say, failing to enforce regulations against fraudulent advertising on subprime mortgages. Or blocking the 2005 GSE reform bill which would have allowed more action before that problem blew out of control.
I apologize, this was not my intent.
I was simply answering the question as to what might have been referred to as occurring during the Clinton administration. Not its overall significance in subsequent events.
But you seem to have offered no substantial link to the existence of MBS securities and the repeal of Glass-Steagall. so your conclusion, that arbitrary deregulation, lead to the existence of MBS securities should be even more disputed.
MBS are probably more clearly linked to the complete takeover of the mortgage market by the government. if you turn debt into a commodity you can divide it up however you want. and you turn debt into a commodity by guaranteeing it.
Seems like a lot of the drilling and EPA stuff has been gummed up in courts too
Interesting article link below talking about Biden's push and the problem with R partisan judges.
and the potential that if an order goes too far, court is given opportunity to make a broad and lasting ruling that would limit powers. I can very easily see this happening.
https://time.com/6205771/trump-judges-biden-executive-orders...
I have vague memories of other things, like maybe some Bush orders that didn't get a swift or easy rollback with Obama ... But that was longer ago.
But I think more broadly and nonpartisan, a law passed by Congress or an executive order by the president that is done when someone feels they have a mandate... Often sets broad policy for years and outlasts the mandate. More than most people understand. I think this contradicts the easy, oversimplified statement people like to make that elections don't matter and the parties and candidates are interchangable.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriot_Act
You can tell because of the word “act” which refer to it being a formal legislative action.
>The Act passed the House by a vote of 357–66, the Act passed the Senate with a vote of 98–1.