For Dave, Clinton's Fantastic Economy

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: buckmasterson
Good point Red Dawn...

Actually I wasn't making a point as I was inviting opinions about Clinton and the Republican Congress working together (or at times against each other) contributing to the robust economy of the 90's.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: buckmasterson
Good point Red Dawn...

Actually I wasn't making a point as I was inviting opinions about Clinton and the Republican Congress working together (or at times against each other) contributing to the robust economy of the 90's.

No RD, according to the Bush Loyalist's it wasn't "Robust" times as jobs were being slaughtered at an even worse rate than now and Clinton was doing everything he possibly could to massacre the Economy even worse for his successor.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: buckmasterson
Good point Red Dawn...

Actually I wasn't making a point as I was inviting opinions about Clinton and the Republican Congress working together (or at times against each other) contributing to the robust economy of the 90's.

No RD, according to the Bush Loyalist's it wasn't "Robust" times as jobs were being slaughtered at an even worse rate than now and Clinton was doing everything he possibly could to massacre the Economy even worse for his successor.

How about speaking for yourself instead of "Bush Loyalists"

 

[tcsenter]

FACE IT, the economy was better under Clinton, whether it was because of him or not.

Well...DUH. Nobody has to "face" what is statement of fact. The question is one of significance. For example:

Let us suppose it is raining when Mr. Jones receives a telephone call informing him that he won the lottery.

You could just as well offer this statement of fact: Face it, it was raining when Mr. Jones won the lottery.

Okay, sure, it'll be tough, but I'll face it.

Its another thing to say: Face it, Mr. Jones won the lottery because it was raining.

Umm...no.

 

[AyashiKaibutsu]

Presidents aren't that big a factor in the economy. Any high school economist could even tell you that economic well being forms a wave graph. The bigger the upturn the worse the downturn will be when it comes and it will come. If you run the economy up really fast or too high, your just asking for trouble. I don't think it's any of the presidents faults.

 

[DT4K]

Originally posted by: wkabel23
[sarcasm]You're right the economy is booming now, no unemployment, everyone is happy and has a job. Wow, Bush sure is a good President![/sarcasm]

FACE IT, the economy was better under Clinton, whether it was because of him or not.

You all seem to be missing my point.
Do you even read my statements?
I tried to make them clear.
I didn't say the economy was great.
I didn't say the economy was bad under Clinton.

As I said about 16 times, the point is only that job cut announcements are not evidence of a dreadful economy.
Again, I AGREE THAT THE ECONOMY WAS IN GOOD SHAPE IN 1997, yet Kodak cut 20,000 jobs in 1997.
Can you hear the words that are coming out of my mouth?????
Kodak cuts 20,000 jobs in 1997, economy is doing good in 1997.
Just because they announced big job cuts in the last few days doesn't indicate that the economy is terrible as dmcowen has suggested.

Originally posted by: AyashiKaibutsu
Presidents aren't that big a factor in the economy. Any high school economist could even tell you that economic well being forms a wave graph. The bigger the upturn the worse the downturn will be when it comes and it will come. If you run the economy up really fast or too high, your just asking for trouble. I don't think it's any of the presidents faults.

Agreed.
That is the point.
The economy is cyclical. Economic and tax policy from the whitehouse can have an impact on moderating the cycles, but no president and no congress has control of our economy. Greenspan perhaps has more influence than anyone else, and all his decisions can do is keep the lows from going too low and keep the highs from going too high.
My thread title was sarcastic and was a response to dmcowens thread on Bush's economy.

 

[xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx]

Originally posted by: Shanti


Kodak cuts 20,000 jobs in 1997, economy is doing good in 1997.
Just because they announced big job cuts in the last few days doesn't indicate that the economy is terrible as dmcowen has suggested.

Moreover, when did Kodak become a barometer of economic well-being?

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Shanti

Originally posted by: wkabel23

Originally posted by: Shanti

Originally posted by: Strk
Shouldn't the part about 22 million jobs(around there anyways) being created be taken into consideration when discussing Clinton? I'm not really trying to defend him, but it's worth acknowledging. (I haven't read the entire thread, so I'm not sure if anyone has mentioned this part or not)

Come on man, it's a short thread, surely you can read it all.
As I said, I'm not blaming Clinton for anything and I agree that our economy was very strong during the majority of the Clinton administration.

dmcowen started a thread implying that our economy was in terrible shape and it was Bush's fault.
He quoted recent job cut announcements from Kodak and others as evidence of our poor economy.

I was simply pointing out some of the massive job cut announcements from 1997, 1998, and 1999 (considered a time of economic prosperity).

My point is just that companies cut jobs for many reasons in good times and bad and it is not neccessarily an indication of the general economic state.
The Kodak cuts for instance are part of a continuing restructuring that has been ongoing for the past 7-10 years. I work for Kodak and can tell you that the recent job cut announcements have nothing to do with the economy.
Kodak had a very long and successful history in film photography. Film is a dying industry and Kodak's attempt to transition to digital has been very challenging. This is the reason for the continued job cuts.

[sarcasm]You're right the economy is booming now, no unemployment, everyone is happy and has a job. Wow, Bush sure is a good President![/sarcasm]

FACE IT, the economy was better under Clinton, whether it was because of him or not.

You all seem to be missing my point.
Do you even read my statements?
I tried to make them clear.
I didn't say the economy was great.
I didn't say the economy was bad under Clinton.

As I said about 16 times, the point is only that job cut announcements are not evidence of a dreadful economy.
Again, I AGREE THAT THE ECONOMY WAS IN GOOD SHAPE IN 1997, yet Kodak cut 20,000 jobs in 1997.
Can you hear the words that are coming out of my mouth?????
Kodak cuts 20,000 jobs in 1997, economy is doing good in 1997.
Just because they announced big job cuts in the last few days doesn't indicate that the economy is terrible as dmcowen has suggested.

Of course you are right. There may have been one or two big job layoff announcements back in 1997 but we haven't been having one after another after another since 2000, no all imaginary, never happened. Those 3 million people didn't lose their jobs, they're all happilly working working in their highest wage positions ever by a penny as pointed out by CAD stocking the shelves at Walmart. Must be that dam Tin Foil Hat screwing up the signal to my head again, bzzzzz, pop....

 

[DT4K]

Originally posted by: nutxo

Originally posted by: Shanti
Dave,
you still haven't given me an answer.
You said you didn't claim the poor economy was Bush's fault.
But your other thread is titled "Bush's Fantastic Economy". Clearly the "Fantastic" part is sarcasm and your statement implies Bush's ownership of the economy.

So explain to me how Kodak's recent job cut announcements are an indicator of a bad economy while the Kodak cut of 20,000 jobs in 1997 was an indicator of economic prosperity under Clinton.

kodaks announcement is because they are stopping production of film and film cameras in the americas and europe

As I said, I work for Kodak.
You are half correct.
They will no longer manufacture traditional film cameras for sale in the U.S. and Western Europe.
They will, however, continue to manufacture and sell these cameras in emerging markets (Eastern Europe, Africa, Latin America, China, etc.)
And there are no plans to stop production of film or disposable cameras.
Kodak has never made money on their cameras. They have always sold at a loss in order to create a market for the film. Film has a very high profit margin. Kodak does the same thing with their medical imaging systems. They have given away millions of dollars worth of high-performance laser imagers to hospitals in exchange for service and supply contracts for DryView laser imaging films. This is what my plant makes and it is used for printing high-definition digital images of CRT's, MRI's, mammograms, etc.

So the problem for Kodak is that they have always had the number one brand name for film, which has a very high profit margin. Now that film is dying, Kodak has to adjust to a digital market where there is more competition and lower profit margins. So cutting these jobs is not a direct result of the decision to stop selling film cameras in the U.S. But both decisions are due to the need to adjust to a new digital market where they no longer have the dominance they did in film. They have to go from being number one by far in their field to being just one of many strong competitors.

 

[DT4K]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Of course you are right. There may have been one or two big job layoff announcements back in 1997 but we haven't been having one after another after another since 2000, no all imaginary, never happened. Those 3 million people didn't lose their jobs, they're all happilly working working in their highest wage positions ever by a penny as pointed out by CAD stocking the shelves at Walmart. Must be that dam Tin Foil Hat screwing up the signal to my head again, bzzzzz, pop....

1998 job cut announcements: 677,795
1999 job cut announcements: 675,132
Total job cuts in the last two years of Clinton administration: 1.35 million

Yeah, there were just one or two announcements.

Jeez, this is like trying to teach a two year old calculus.