Which presidential candidate understands economics best?

The only presidential hopeful we had running on the economic ticket was Ron Paul. And he was less popular than Steven Colbert, host of a comedy news commentary.

Presidents in these times tend to be riding a populist ticket, like Hoover and Roosevelt did back when. And Hoover and Roosevelt messed it all up, going backwards with tax hikes on the wealthy (Hoover hiked it from 25% to 63%!!!), protectionist strategies raising tariffs, and unsustainable government programs like Social Security.

Today, McCain, Obama, and Clinton are boasting campaign promises to fix programs like Social Security Roosevelt started with another program astonishingly similar to Social Security.

Then they want to add another program like universal health care? How do we pay for both Social Security, where we're already running out of $$$, and add a new trillion dollar program like universal healthcare?

And we're getting talk about tax hikes on the wealthy again from Obama. Superficial morons with no understanding of the economic repercussions. They just have no idea. History never repeats itself, but it always rhymes.

Same problems, same solutions, same results. Pathetic.

Regardless of some similarities to past economic problems this one is new - and uncharted. Politics being politics, one can expect every candidate to have a solution. Since there is no record of anyone in government having the foresight to see this mess coming and calling for intervention, it would indicate that everything is normal - fix it after it's broke.

Ron Paul appears to be the only candidate
who truly understands why and how we got
into the present mess. It would be politically
disasterous I'm sure but, he would make an
excellent VP if for no other reason than to
guide McCain through the eventual minefield
he would be encountering should he be elected.

All of these believe in global climate change. That means they are all into voodoo (of the devil) economics. They have no good ideas!(especially the democrats)

Owning investments and proficiency at economics are not joined at the hip. I don't see much of a correlation between investing and economics.

Would I hire an economist who could not balance his checkbook? Yes. Would I hire an economist who invested only in bonds? Nope.

Yeah, none of these candidates can be considered an economics expert. But I think Hillary has her superiority better than the other two because of her net worth her experience on the board of directors at Wal-Mart. The most important is she still can ask her husband -- former president Bill for help. You know, Bill's 8 year presidency proves his competence at economy. I think one book "The Clinton Charisma" tells it: http://dealstudio.com/searchdeals.php?deal_id=93826&ru=279 , it mentioned the bill which ended the deficit in 1993 and something else. So I stick up for Hillary!!!

Bill Clinton 's economic contributions included NAFTA which politicians are running from (incorrectly now) and welfare reform (which was largely thanks to his adviser Dick Morris). Clinton has been criticized for mishandling the Mexican debt crisis and his term benefited a lot from the "peace dividend" which should be credited to Ronald Reagen and the Asian crisis which sent oil prices down and gasoline as low as 85 cents a gallon. The prosperity of the 1990s sowed seeds for many of the problems we have today such as the need to increase military spending, the high prices for oil (since the country went nuts over SUVs), high prices for nat gas (as people upsized their homes to big ticky-tacky box houses and McMansions). The President really relies a lot on who he chooses as advisers and historians say that makes a big difference in how well they do and we don't know who the teams will be. In any case, the government generally and also the American public need to do better at forward thinking about economic matters. As you write, everyone has solutions to this current situation but they didn't see it coming and may not have as full of an understanding as they should of what is happening-- TV commentators and experts (who even Ben Bernanke said he listens to for some of his information) have not appreciated fully the complexities of the current housing situation. There is also a big disconnect in understanding the global economy. Hillary Clinton's recent comments suggesting the US is headed for the decades long stagnation like Japan reflects a lack of understanding of the huge differences between the 2 economic and political systems.