jbooma Posted August 24, 2004 Share Posted August 24, 2004 For those that think Clinton did great for the economy, you do understand it was out of his hands. It was the technological boom of the internet that created the stock surge, the boom in the economy and the ability to create a surplus in the government. He did this by investing in the stock market with government funds and made a surplus. He was just president during a good time. I did like him but understand he couldn't have done anything to screw it up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
docdru Posted August 24, 2004 Share Posted August 24, 2004 Originally posted by jbooma For those that think Clinton did great for the economy, you do understand it was out of his hands. It was the technological boom of the internet that created the stock surge, the boom in the economy and the ability to create a surplus in the government. He did this by investing in the stock market with government funds and made a surplus. He was just president during a good time. If Clinton isn't responsible for the good economy then he can't be blamed for the bursting of the bubble nor can Bush be either blamed for the recent recession, nor praised for our "recovery". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbooma Posted August 24, 2004 Author Share Posted August 24, 2004 Originally posted by docdru If Clinton isn't responsible for the good economy then he can't be blamed for the bursting of the bubble nor can Bush be either blamed for the recent recession, nor praised for our "recovery". Actually Bush did take actions to create the recovery. The recession was going to happen no matter what. What Clinton could have done was come down hard on the banks to stop them giving money to anyone who had an ideal but no plan. Not sure if that would make a difference or not. I do think the government could have helped out a lot of the dotcoms but they choosed not to. I agree Clinton couldn't do much but Bush did a lot to get us out, on top of 911 and the war. I think a lot of people don't realize how bad economically we were after 911 with the recession as well, and where we stand now thanks to the tax cuts and other moves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted August 24, 2004 Share Posted August 24, 2004 I believe that I'll go get a cup of coffee now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BG Posted August 24, 2004 Share Posted August 24, 2004 Originally posted by Destino I believe that I'll go get a cup of coffee now. can I borrow .75 cents? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbooma Posted August 24, 2004 Author Share Posted August 24, 2004 Originally posted by Destino I believe that I'll go get a cup of coffee now. watch out for that 7 dollar cup at starbucs you high roller :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted August 24, 2004 Share Posted August 24, 2004 Originally posted by jbooma watch out for that 7 dollar cup at starbucs you high roller :laugh: I have returned with a yummy iced coffee from a non starbucks coffee shop. $1.65 and worth every penny. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbooma Posted August 24, 2004 Author Share Posted August 24, 2004 Originally posted by Destino I have returned with a yummy iced coffee from a non starbucks coffee shop. $1.65 and worth every penny. you forgot us Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mister Happy Posted August 24, 2004 Share Posted August 24, 2004 Originally posted by docdru If Clinton isn't responsible for the good economy then he can't be blamed for the bursting of the bubble nor can Bush be either blamed for the recent recession, nor praised for our "recovery". You are extending that reasoning too far. Presidents can and should be blamed for the economy when it is influenced by something they did. As far as I know, Clinton did nothing to stimulate the good economy nor did he do anything to cause the bubble to be burst. Bush did nothing to cause the recession, but one could argue that his tax cuts helped bring in the recovery. The economy is clearly better now than it was post 9/11, so it is a recovery, whether or not you feel the economy is good right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flashback Posted August 24, 2004 Share Posted August 24, 2004 Clinton, unlike Bush, actually examined multiple policy initiatives and considered the effect they'd have on Americans lives, and tried to implement things that would help Americans. Bush on the other hand, doesn't even try to understand what his own Sec. of the Treasury is trying to tell him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted August 24, 2004 Share Posted August 24, 2004 flash, can you provide us a link to prove this assertion- "Clinton, unlike Bush, actually examined multiple policy initiatives and considered the effect they'd have on Americans lives, and tried to implement things that would help Americans. Bush on the other hand, doesn't even try to understand what his own Sec. of the Treasury is trying to tell him." I wont hold my breath. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flashback Posted August 24, 2004 Share Posted August 24, 2004 Dude wrote a book about it. Maybe check down at the library? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest SkinsHokie Fan Posted August 24, 2004 Share Posted August 24, 2004 Its pretty simple. A president has very little to do with an economy doing well. He can only royally screw it up and create conditions for it to crash and burn. This isn't Bush's recovery this is America's recovery. GW didn't do much to create jobs, people that own business (like myself) did. However a President can completely screw it up. Bill Clinton wisely kept out of the 1990s economy however the conditions created during his Presidencey created the stock market crash in April of 2000. (April 2000 which is basically when the dot.com bubble burst) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbear Posted August 24, 2004 Share Posted August 24, 2004 Let's start with a quick question: Does the economy go in cycles? How long is the traditional upswing? How much of an upswing is it? During the Clinton administration, it's generally accepted that he was lucky enough to be pres during an upswing. Agreed? Now how does his upswing copare to other upswings? From most accounts, that was one of the longest most pronounced. Therefor, I think it's reasonable to suggest that he did better than average at "not screwing it up." NOw let's look at a few things he did do: Nafta and reducing the defecit. Now the last was without much choice, but he didn't fight tooth and nail and he even sacrificed many of his initiatives to do it. Let's get to where I think he did the greatest good for our economy. Over an eight year time period he kept our oil supply cheap. Track our economy over the past 60 years against the cost of energy. When energy has been cheap our economy has done well. When the energy is expensive, our economy suffers. Clinton was viewed as soft on the middle east. "He kept talking at them blah blah blah..." Yes, but he kept them talking! talking and producing oil for cheap for us. Under Clinton, we enjoyed the benefits the Romans got with the pax romana (except it has now ended and in a much shorter time frame then they enjoyed). Finally, he exploited technology. Some on here say he used the government ot start off the internet boom. Are you the same people saying the government should stay out of the next promising tech (stem cell medical research)? Anyway, all of this is from memory. Let me know what you want to question so I can come up with specifics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest SkinsHokie Fan Posted August 24, 2004 Share Posted August 24, 2004 Actually GBear his hands were tied into NAFTA and the tax revenue bubble created the surplus and balanced budget (Congress and the Prez were still spending WAAAY too much during the 1990s, about 7 percent increases per year) Now with cheap oil. I refer you to 2000 when prices skyrocketed and Gore wanted Clinton to tap the strategic reserves. As you have probably figured out short of taking over ME oil supplies there is very little we as America can do about the price of oil. And considering that both India and China's demand for oil has incresed significantly over the past 5 years it only makes sense that oil is going up. No prez can really do much about it. And like I said I'll give Clinton plenty of credit for not screwing it up in the 1990s but I do blame him for having conditions created that caused the market crash of 2000 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbear Posted August 24, 2004 Share Posted August 24, 2004 Skins Hokie Fan, DO you think Bush handled Venezuela right then? Do you think that had any impact on the costs we're seeing for oil now? See at the time, it was the middle east that was the hot spot. Clinton down played the hotspots. He's gotten a lot of grief for not doing more than a few missiles or bombs against Sadam...but the middle east was pretty stable. As I understand it, a large part of our escalating prices for oil now are the perceived instability in the middle east. That's making the futures go higher. Right? Clinton rightly or wrongly seemed to downplay everything in the middle east as something that could be talked out or inspected out. Yes, China and India are uppng the demand side of the equation, but there has been more to it than that. Who tied his hands into NAFTA? I recall his administration being for it (could be wrong). Who negotiated it if not his administration? I thought the state department did, and doesn't the pres hold sway over them? Ratified by congress, but negotiated? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest SkinsHokie Fan Posted August 24, 2004 Share Posted August 24, 2004 GBear From what I studied of the oil market (and I'd be happy to find all my old stuff and send it to you from my class last fall) prices will be effected by actions in Saudia Arabia. Essentially if SA oil supply is disrupted then yeah we are in trouble.The key thing Bill didn't deal with was actually dealing with terrorists. Hence why those market fears did not exist in the 1990s. The Princes of SA control the price of oil and will continue to because of the way the oil market is shaped. It is not a true cartel more so then it is a Dominant Firm model of economics. And the dominant firm is Saudi Arabia Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbear Posted August 24, 2004 Share Posted August 24, 2004 BUt isn't a large part of the increase in prices we have seen over the past year due to the perceived instability in the middle east and in Saudi Arabia in particular? Clinton didn't deal with the terrorists, but not making waves was to our economic benefit. You can argue morals and the like, but our invasion of Iraq is a cause for the perceived instability is it not? Anyway, the point was what did Clinton do for our economy. I said he worked to keep our oil cheap. He bombed instead of invaded. HE negotiated instead of universally backing Israel (more a matter of perception than fact). Now a totally diferent question was shoud he have done or not done some of the things he did to keep our oil cheap. That's a fine question to ask. However, I think it's harder to say that what he did had no impact on our economic boom as has been suggested in this thread and in numerous places on this board. Likewise, I think Bush is getting a free pass for raising the oil prices. You point at India and China. How much has their consumption increased in the last year? Enough to justify the record high prices for a barrel. Enough to justify the price at the pump jumping as it has in a year? Of course all of that being said, I think in the long run oil needs to be more expensive for us to start looking elsewhere, so it's not like I see no good in all this. I just think it's flawed to not see the price of energy as a major contributor to our economic well being when the correlations are strong (yes correlation does not equal causation, but it's a good place to start looking for causal relationships). Thus, I'm very skeptical of those who say Clinton did nothing to prolong our boom. Maybe I'm just a nuance dem But Nuance lead to some pretty good economic times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Sick Posted August 25, 2004 Share Posted August 25, 2004 Originally posted by SkinsHokie Fan And like I said I'll give Clinton plenty of credit for not screwing it up in the 1990s but I do blame him for having conditions created that caused the market crash of 2000 Did Clinton have anything to do with Enron, WorldCom, et al?? I'd love to find a study on the effect of crooked companies vs. crashed internet companies on the recession. I mean, Enron and WorldCom were Billion dollar losses. Did the whole internet bubble amount to that much? Little help? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.