In my personal opinion I consider politicians for lack of a better term "interesting." It's hard for me to understand all of the reasons why different people try to go all political.
I liked Robert's analogy of the little boy with a bucket tiring to make the shallow end of the pool deeper. He then points out how little control politicians hold in the realms of long term economic growth, by changing short term policies. I would be in quasi agreement here if Roberts did his part to be a tad more specific.
For example the new breed of American celebrity politicians like Obama and Palin seem to have little control over our long term overall economy as individuals (perhaps Sarah's book sales will measurably increase GDP...however an increase in GNH is undetermined). I think this is a different case when you look back in history at different political situations. Some of Stalin's short term policies impacted Russian economy drastically to this day(though not in positive manner). Like Josh displayed with his brakes, gas petal and no steering wheel example is politicians are given tools to impact the economy but since this is only part of the system can be controlled how can we possibly get it to go where we want it to, at the "correct speed", with the headlights on and everything.
It's funny to think that often it's believed that these figures have the power to fix or destroy some thing as complex as an economy....
Alas though if there is a group that I don't feel bad about blaming economic problems on it's politicians (because there "interesting") but I suppose when it comes down to it at least there out there doing their thing....ramble mania post...ek....I'll stop now.