>I hardly think our economy is on the edge of collapsing. You've got to understand the economics of a Presidential election year. Don't believe everyting you read. Compare our unemployment rate with France. The housing market is choking on sub-prime loans because of greed and fraud, not George Bush.
>
>I really think those who live in societies that are much smaller and/or with much more managed economies may over-estimate the effect presidents ( and even congress ) have on the US economy. By this logic, Jimmy Carter - who the rest of the world loved because of his flaccid foreign policy - should not have presided over 22% interest rates. Bill Gates contributed more to the prosperity of the 90s than Bill Clinton ( whose major achievement was to leave Alan Greenspan in place. )
>
>Bankers - and specifically the Fed , currency speculators, junk bond traders, international cartels and just natural market fluctuations have a lot more to do with our economy ( and yours ) than weather or not 'public opinion' in Europe likes our president or not.
>
>Shell Oil probably has more to do with the Dutch economy ( at least with the finances of the Dutch royal family <s> ) than anything your politicians do.
>
>Ironically, if we had really fought a 'war for oil' we'd be in pretty good shape. Unfortunately, we opted for nation building rather than old fashioned conquest ( where the Iraqis would have been sold to the Saudis by now as labor to replace the Filipinos and Indonesians with Arabic speakers ) and all the oil would be coming our way for $10 a barrel <g> If we were as evil as people think we are we'd be rich <s>
>

The problem is even if you are fighting a war for oil (paging Alan Greenspan), you cant come out and say that you are. Not plausible. And thats a pity. So you do get saddled with the nation building hard work thing too, even if you were at first against nation building (paging GWB). $10 a barrel would be a financial disaster for big oil i would think. I dont see that as a goal of this admin.