@McGentrix,
McGentrix wrote:I disagree. I'd say there is a tremendous difference in understanding between the two.
Even if true it's just not very meaningful to the choice of president. Someone with extensive business acumen does not necessarily translate into someone who favors policies that are economically sound.
It sounds compelling, a business guy is the best guy to fix the economy. But running a business is nothing like running an economy and this argument counts on the majority of people being ignorant enough not to realize the difference between an economist and a business man.
Quote:Obama has a history of making "out of context" comments and "gaffes" demonstrating his lack of understanding of business.
That's just stupid political mudslinging. Just like the "gotchas" on Romney for his tone-deaf gaffes about liking to "fire" people etc are. This is just vapid political hot air.
Each candidate understands business well enough to be president, you should worry about their understanding of macroeconomics (and even then you really just need to know what school of thought they subscribe to) not what kind of gaffes you read about.
Quote:Romney has a long history in the private sector creating and running businesses.
So? That doesn't mean he'd be a good macro-economic leader, it's an implication made to the ignorant.
Quote:To say their is little difference is like saying a guy that builds cars and a guy that drives cars has the same understanding of cars.
"Understanding of cars" is a very apt comparison. I recommend you give as much weight to "understanding of business" when selecting your next president as "understanding of cars."