So, presidents can't control gas prices (or the general economy)?

Well, if "control" means fully control, that's true, and would even be true if the US were less federalist and more of a centralized national government, a la France. But, Macron also can't totally control the French economy. Setting aside acts of God, Xi Jinping might not 100 percent control the Chinese economy.

But, US presidents can influence the economy. And, they can influence oil prices, either directly influence oil prices, or influence the larger economy, which will then influence oil prices, and of course gas prices.

Take Shrub Bush 15 years ago. By 2006 or 2007, people who were educated news readers knew something about the housing bubble and why it was bubbly. Bush could have leaned on the Fed to start easing air out of that bubble, as well as leaning indirectly on the accreditation agencies to stop rating shit sandwich CDOs etc as being significantly above shit grade.

But, he didn't. And, no, I don't think he was totally idiotic about this. Yeah, he got gentleman's C's on his MBA, but he got an MBA.

That wouldn't have controlled the economy, but it would have influenced it. And, it would have influenced oil prices from not going to $147 a barrel (about $125-130 in today's terms). 

Or, before then, LBJ's guns and butter certainly influenced the economy. So did Nixon's price controls attempts.

As for influencing oil prices more directly?

Well, Russia IS the second-largest producer of oil after Saudi Arabia, and though it uses more itself, it's still a major exporter.

And, gee, WHY are oil prices so high right now?

Yes, recent winter storms were a factor, but as West Texas Intermediate threatens to approach triple digits, we all know the biggie: Russia and Ukraine.

And, those of us who aren't part of the bipartisan foreign policy establishment know the roots of all this: Slick Willie Clinton breaking Poppy Bush's promise not to expand NATO eastward. That then has been followed by hints, off and on for 15 years now, or more, that Ukraine (and Georgia, remember that?) would be covered by NATO's "umbrella" in some way. (Maybe we need Roe v Wade type penumbras and emanations?)

Then, there's "who's Ukraine?" Answer: kleptocrats and neo-Nazis. And, other than briefly, during the Russian Civil War, there's not been an independent Ukraine for centuries. Closest to that is the old Kievan Rus of pre-Mongol times.

From Biden's point of view, this is exacerbated by NATO members not wanting to fall fully in line on trade embargoing, and in some cases actively resisting. 

From the sensible point of view, the problems of NATO's European members are exacerbated by Biden, who may get lucky if Macron can get him off his tree limb.

Beyond backing off warmongering, there's other things Biden probably could do at the margins to help a smaller bit.

Could he knock prices back to $70 a barrel? Probably not any time soon. Could he ease them back to the $80/bbl range if he backed off on Ukraine and did whatever he could domestically on the edges?

Yes.

As for those gas prices? Panicky Democrats like Maggie Hassan and Mark Kelly wanting to nix the federal gas tax right now? This is a lower-grade version of the same dumb as suspending FICA taxes and other things. It's only 5 percent of the current cost of gas prices, and, since it hasn't been raised, well, since Slick Willie kneecapped Boris Yeltsin on NATO, it's part of why we needed Biden's infrastructure bill — our highways are crumbling.

And, Status Quo Joe's idea of releasing 50 million barrels of strategic reserve oil? We import 6 million barrels a day, and that is going up, slowly but surely, as the fracking miracle becomes hollow. Backing off warmongering would help a lot more. (We imported 10 million barrels a day in 2018.)

The TrumpTrain "economic miracle" is about to jump the tracks

Is the economy worse now than Jan. 20, 2019? Via Zero Hedge, unemployment stats say yes.

Wouldn’t it be horrible if the number of Americans without a job was higher today than it was during the Great Recession of 2008 and 2009?  Well, that is actually true.

Paging the #TrumpTrain — economic cleanup on Aisle 5; toxic spill is spreading! Michael Snyder adds that, because states have continued to tighten unemployment eligibility, the spike in filings mean that it's really a BIG problem.

Related? The workforce participation rate remains at 63 percent. Per the graph at left, it hasn't budged more than half a percentage point or two one way or the other for almost seven years.

The conclusion seems right. Many people still aren't that financially ready to beat another recession, which odds indicate are likely to happen soon. Worse? Trump, other than wanting to fire Powell as Fed head, is likely to pull a 1920s and double down on tariffs.

The coming recession, without that, probably won't be that bad. But, Trump's volatility will make it worse. How that plays out, and is played, in the 2020 election will be interesting indeed.

The larger problems are structural and, as they have been for 40 years, caused in various degrees by both duopoly parties. Eric Levitz from the NY Mag says but "prime age" labor participation rate is up, without asking why this is the case, if true. Maybe more 20somethings can't afford college? Maybe more mothers are now working mothers? 

Nor does he try to square this with the overall participation rate still being stagnant.

Is the economy THAT bad? Or some yuppies that bad?

If you’re 52 and moving back in with your parents? That’s what 52-year-old Ann Bauer did. Maybe in part:

Kim Foss Erickson, a financial planner in Roseville, Calif., north of Sacramento, said she has never seen older children, even those in their 50s, depending so much on their parents as in the last six months.

“This is not like, ‘OK, my son just graduated from college and needs to move back in’ type of thing,” she said. “These are 40- and 50-year-old children of my clients that they’re helping out.”

But, maybe instead, it’s yuppies who have shot themselves in the financial foot and are looking for one more bailout from soft-touch parents:

Parents "”jeopardize their financial freedom by continuing to subsidize their children,” said Karin Maloney Stifler, a financial planner in Hudson, Ohio, and a board member of the Financial Planning Association. “We have a hard time saying no as a culture to our children, and they keep asking for more.”

And, here’s a few of those soft-touch parents:

Bauer’s parents won't take rent money or let her help much with groceries. She’s trying to save several hundred dollars a month for a house while working as a meetings coordinator.

Bauer would prefer to live on her own, but without her parents’ help would “probably be renting again and trying to stick minimal money in the bank,” she said.

Renting instead of owning? Boo-hoo. I doubt you ever do save enough money to buy a house.

Here’s another softie:

Shirley Smith, 80, said she and her husband didn’t hesitate when they invited Bauer to return to their home in Eden, Wis. Buying groceries for another person isn’t stretching her budget too much, she said.

“I’ve got three kids and any of them can come home if they want,” she said.

Personal angle: I moved back home in my late 20s, and lived there for about three years into my early 30s. Making less than $7 an hour, in the mid-1990s, I not only bought groceries, I saved money.

If you’re desperate enough that you have to move back in with your parents later in life, I accept that. But parents who are STUPID enough to not charge rent, room and board, or whatever, even if just nominal amounts, deserve whatever trouble they get.

U.S. now world No. 2 economy

The dollar going in the crapper has made the European Union’s eurozone is now the world’s largest economy.

“With the euro now trading around 1.56 against the dollar, the size of its annual output (at market value) has exceeded that of the United States,” US investment bank Goldman Sachs estimated last week.

“Brief as the development may prove to be, European policy makers will no doubt derive some pride” from the event.

Well, there, Goldman Sachs is wrong. That development is likely to last a while; in fact the Eurozone is likely to expand its lead in size over the American economy:

the economy of 320 million people — which churns out 15 percent of global gross domestic product — has slowed but shown a degree of resiliency to the US slump that few would have counted on just a few years ago.

Historically thrifty German consumers helped the national retail sector gain 2.7 percent in January, with the trend continuing in February according to the HDE sector association. …

Bank of America economist Holger Schmieding said that “apart from the housing market correction in Spain and Ireland, the eurozone has no major domestic problem,” while Jennifer McKeown at Capital Economics noted: “The eurozone hasn’t built up the same kinds of imbalances that we’ve seen in the US and the UK, too.”

That last line also bears careful notice.

If the continental members of the European Union take note, they may decide, if Great Britain continues to dither about dropping the pound and adopting the euro, that they don’t wan’t the UK to be part of the eurozone.

Gordon Brown, you’re officially on notice to shit or get off the europot.

Free polls from Pollhost.com

How long will the Eurozone be larger than the U.S. economy?

6 months 1 year 2 years 3 years 4-plus years