Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney would likely be better for the economy than President Barack Obama would, because there’d be a better chance of avoiding the fiscal cliff under Romney, says David Rosenberg, chief economist at Gluskin Sheff.

"Normally the president can only have a marginal impact [on the economy],” he tells Yahoo.

“But we're at an important inflection point,” thanks to the fiscal cliff. So “it could make a very big difference" who wins, Rosenberg says.

Editor's Note: You Deserve to Know What Obama and Bernanke Are Hiding From Americans

The issue is who can reach across the aisle for a bipartisan compromise that would avoid the cliff, Rosenberg says. And he thinks Romney proved himself on that point when he was governor of Massachusetts.

"In so far as he can be a candidate that would be able to more readily compromise with the opposition, that would push me in the direction that he'd overall be better for the economy," Rosenberg says.

He adds two caveats. First, there’s a possibility Romney would ignite a trade war with China.

And second, the stock market has become totally dependent on Federal Reserve easing. So a change by Romney to a more hawkish Fed chairman could hurt the market.

On the campaign trail, Romney continues to charge that the economy has weakened under Obama.

Meanwhile, the president says he’s willing to “wash [House Speaker] John Boehner’s car” or “walk [Senate Minority Leader] Mitch McConnell’s dog” to achieve an accord that would avoid the fiscal cliff.

Editor's Note: You Deserve to Know What Obama and Bernanke Are Hiding From Americans