Why Clinton was successful

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
As many of you know I'm not a fan of Clinton. I think he was the first neo-con president in the trosky mold. Love police state, loved "free-trade", and sold out to wall street for cash with telecommunications deregulation and financial services deregulation which we saw what that caused.

Anyway Here's why we boomed dispite his cheap-labor-ways from conseputal guerilla.

The economic boom came as a direct result of the Deficit Reduction Act of 1993. He raised the tax rate on the top to a top marginal rate of 39% and brought revenue back into line with spending. Here's why that worked.

Budget deficits put inflationary pressure on the economy -- or at least many believe that they do. The result was high interest rates that kept economic growth down to 2% -- the number the Fed believed was low enough to hold off inflation.

It turned out that with the budget steadily moving back into balance starting in 1994, the economy could sustain much higher GDP growth without inflation. In fact, interest rates continued to drop, and this had a further stimulating effect.

Everybody talks about taxes as a drain on the economy -- and they certainly can be. But at least with taxes, you get something for your money in the form of services and infrastructure. Nobody considers "private taxes" also known as interest payments. Interest is factored into the cost of everything you buy.

The lowered interest rates in an expanding economy had the same stimulative effect that tax cuts are supposed to have. They lowered everybody's balance of payments, and put more disposable income in people's pockets. Here's the thing, tax cuts mostly benefit people with assets. Interest rate cuts benefit people with debt -- the people on the bottom or in the middle.

Thus you have a boost in consumer spending, mortgage refinancing where people cash out their home equity, and that winds up going into the stock market and new small businesses. Thus did the public tax increases in 1993 lead to "private tax" cuts -- cuts in interest rates, that led to growth without inflation.

Had those tax rates remained in place, we were looking at a real possibility of paying off the national debt in ten to fifteen years, freeing up 300 billion dollars in interest payments. Down the road, we could have been looking at increased social spending AND tax cuts.

There you have it. Tax increases on the top led to balanced budgets, removed inflationary pressure, allowed higher levels of non-inflationary growth, lowered interest rates across the board, stimulating both consumer spending and investment. And it was all Clinton. He proposed the Deficit Reduction Act, and busted his ass to get it passed by one vote in the House, and Gore's tie breaker in the Senate.

Today, people in polls say that both public services and balanced budgets are more important than "tax cuts" -- and that includes people on the top. He restored the good name of "progressive taxation."
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,797
6,772
126
Originally posted by: InSuboRdiNaTioN
There are plenty of individuals with graduate degrees in Economics that could tear that statement apart.

I always thought that education made most people more sophisticated in their stupidity, but I'll defer to LunarRay since he avoided that somehow.
 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
Originally posted by: InSuboRdiNaTioN
There are plenty of individuals with graduate degrees in Economics that could tear that statement apart.

There are blue men on Jupiter too.


Bring it on, convince me. I've always wanted a clear a convincing case why Clinton *was'nt* responsible for the lowest unemplyment in 27 years with his fiscal responsibilites as this article is very convincingly illustrates to me.
 

KK

Lifer
Jan 2, 2001
15,903
4
81
Originally posted by: Zebo
Originally posted by: InSuboRdiNaTioN
There are plenty of individuals with graduate degrees in Economics that could tear that statement apart.

There are blue men on Jupiter too.


Bring it on, convince me. I've always wanted a clear a convincing case why Clinton *was'nt* responsible for the lowest unemplyment in 27 years with his fiscal responsibilites as this article is very convincingly illustrates to me.

Do you not think the Tech Bubble was brought on by technology and not by politicians?

KK
 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
I don't know KK. That certainly could be it.

Then I'd have to ask if the low intrest rates caused by clintons sound economic policy as stated above did'nt make venture capital and governemnt capital more accessable therby allowing the tech bubble to happen?
 

KK

Lifer
Jan 2, 2001
15,903
4
81
Originally posted by: Zebo
I don't know KK. That certainly could be it.

Then I'd have to ask if the low intrest rates caused by clintons sound economic policy as stated above did'nt make venture capital and governemnt capital more accessable therby allowing the tech bubble to happen?

I don't know if the interest rates being low caused more businesses to get loans that they obvisously couldn't payback, therefore causing most of them to go belly up. If the interest rates were directly responsible, aren't they lower now? If they are, what's the difference between then and now. Maybe people learn from past experiences and now are more timid to go out-stretch their budgets. I feel like you cannot blame or give credit for what happened in the late 90's, as the economy was more driven by the technology sector than by politics. Well, maybe you can blame the banks for giving out to many loans. :)

KK
 

Mill

Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
28,558
3
81
Problem is interest rates were already at record lows when our economy was starting to gear back up. The dollar is weak as well, so why the hell would we lower rates anymore? That's a bit suicidal. A tax cut will continue to strengthen the economy and so will a short term weak dollar. After the dollar bottoms out for awhile we can raise rates and hopefully maintain our economic growth. The economy is not as simple as lowering rates and getting a BJ while doing it. Even though it is cyclical you still have certain differences that you have to adjust with other fiduciary policy. The tax cut seems to be the piece in the puzzle we were looking for. Now lets hope we can raise the rates and not experience any more currency problems.
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
Originally posted by: Zebo
Originally posted by: InSuboRdiNaTioN
There are plenty of individuals with graduate degrees in Economics that could tear that statement apart.

There are blue men on Jupiter too.


Bring it on, convince me. I've always wanted a clear a convincing case why Clinton *was'nt* responsible for the lowest unemplyment in 27 years with his fiscal responsibilites as this article is very convincingly illustrates to me.

Hehehehe.... "blue men on Jupiter" That sorta answers the question.. if ya think about it...

One school of thought would argue that gravity is so strong and the climate is not conducive to life on Jupiter... That's why they are blue.. them gaseous bodies of sentient thought.. would come the retort! Just like the planet Economic..
In Economics:
We look to historic events which we assume we understand to predict future events but, no two periods of time are the same. The dynamics that drive during one event may be what was led in another. The chicken or the egg.. The macro actions are sorta basic. Do this when this occurs and that when that occurs.. It means both monetarists and fiscalists are the tail that the dynamic economy wags. Given that bit of brilliant analysis :D, it follows that either the fiscal or monetary policy enacted is reactive. Well... save the Hocus Pocus some fiscal policy folks see fit to inject into the micro aspects so to control, at least in the short term, the activity of the population during periods like now. When the political future of some is at stake. Especially, when the macro enactments are not doing the job and the possible underlying reason is the micro people and their psychology.
So... I argue that it is the people and their collective psychology that starts a boom.. like computers and electronics and software and the like. We buy more and they get cheaper and we buy more and on and on.. but, then at some point either the absence of obsolescence or the saturation of supply causes the sector to shrink and the fittest survive and expand. The bust of the boom.. not really a bust but, a contraction. but, why.. Is it fiscal policy or monetary policy.. Well.. did the cost go up or did the population have less $ to spend? Well.. spend on what.. would be my question.. during the boom.. folks diverted their disposable income toward the newest gotta have gadget or computer... and didn't buy something that they normally might have. (in general) Perhaps that changed and the notion of a computer on every desk.. should have been stated to include ... that are inclined to have one. The segments that use to enjoy those funds went belly up and so too the employees.. and so too their demand for computers and etc.
So what's Clinton to do with all this? The ratio of out go versus in flow was better which allowed for the reduction of the deficit or the (arguably) the creation of a surplus... And, his policy did not interfere with the economic reality. If Clinton had three terms we might be less bad off today IMO, but, I doubt he could or would have done much differently than Bush.. They both would have reacted to the tsunami that engulfed the economy.. maybe Clinton would have better directed the stimuli or tweaked a bit in other directions and we'd be 400 or 500 b less in debt.. maybe not even gone to war.. but that is pennies compared to what Clinton started with NAFTA and his World Economy... Perot knew best... whoosh.. folks do the whooshing and will whoosh till government acts to halt it.. and neither Bush nor Clinton would have done or will do anything there.. So.. Clinton and his Administration are simply reaction orientated once a massive economic change occurs (like NAFTA) No one knows what dynamics will work other than Isolation.. We are reasonably assured what that will do... for us and to the emerging nations who we seek to bribe.. err help.
Just an opinion..
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
By LR "Perot knew best... whoosh"

No that's the Economy Soaring better than it has in 20 years, CAD, Bush, Rush & Hannity said so.


Well... grab on to the tail.. if you're headed to China or India... free ride to Utopia.. where hard work pays off..

I wondered why Clinton had so many Chinese named folks at his White House teas.. No quid pro quo... just orange pekoe..
 

Mill

Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
28,558
3
81
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
By LR "Perot knew best... whoosh"

No that's the Economy Soaring better than it has in 20 years, CAD, Bush, Rush & Hannity said so.

Just because no one wants to hire you doesn't mean the economy and job market is in the tank.
rolleye.gif
I don't think I'd hire an alleged criminal either.
 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
Originally posted by: Mill
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
By LR "Perot knew best... whoosh"

No that's the Economy Soaring better than it has in 20 years, CAD, Bush, Rush & Hannity said so.

Just because no one wants to hire you doesn't mean the economy and job market is in the tank.
rolleye.gif
I don't think I'd hire an alleged criminal either.

I assume you won't be voting for Bush then since he's a convicted crimminal.(DUI)


And alleged to violate international law with iraq war..I'm not to up on that one though. Just heard it from american prosecutor at neuremberg and a few other people.


 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
Originally posted by: outriding
financial services deregulation

What ???

You are soo wrong on that.

Clinton actually vetoed it it went back to congress and congress overrode his veto.

the cato does'nt agree with you. Text
 

alchemize

Lifer
Mar 24, 2000
11,486
0
0
Originally posted by: Zebo
Originally posted by: Mill
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
By LR "Perot knew best... whoosh"

No that's the Economy Soaring better than it has in 20 years, CAD, Bush, Rush & Hannity said so.

Just because no one wants to hire you doesn't mean the economy and job market is in the tank.
rolleye.gif
I don't think I'd hire an alleged criminal either.

I assume you won't be voting for Bush then since he's a convicted crimminal.(DUI)


And alleged to violate international law with iraq war..I'm not to up on that one though. Just heard it from american prosecutor at neuremberg and a few other people.
I'd hire a convicted criminal well before I'd hire a devout pessimist with a tin foil hat :D Just don't let anyone take your red stapler Dave, and everything will be just fine!


The fundamental problem with this article is the fact that we have tremendously low interest rates right now, and no inflationary pressure, which the article suggests we should have since the deficit has increased.

Not excusing the current spending binge. Just don't think it is a major factor in the economic recovery.
 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
Sounds good al, Besides the fed sets the rates banks can borrow from them at..which effects the rate we can borrow from them at. Not national debt id think. What worries me is the fed has been very kind to Bush with low rates and for three years things have been langishing.. Construction is the only thing keeping us afloat IMO since we hardy make things anymore.



A crimminal? depends what they can do for me I'd suppose but I'd watch them like a hawk. Are you watching?
 

alchemize

Lifer
Mar 24, 2000
11,486
0
0
Originally posted by: Zebo
Sounds good al, Besides the fed sets the rates banks can borrow from them at..which effects the rate we can borrow from them at. Not national debt id think. What worries me is the fed has been very kind to Bush with low rates and for three years things have been langishing.. Construction is the only thing keeping us afloat IMO since we hardy make things anymore.



A crimminal? depends what they can do for me I'd suppose but I'd watch them like a hawk. Are you watching?

Nobody makes much anymore Zebo ;) (at least, not in modern 1st world economies)

United States
agriculture: 2%
industry: 18%
services: 80% (2002 est.)

France
agriculture: 3%
industry: 26%
services: 71% (2002 est.)

United Kingdom
agriculture: 1.4%
industry: 24.9%
services: 73.7% (2000)

Germany
agriculture: 1%
industry: 31%
services: 68% (2002 est.)

Hong Kong
agriculture: 0.1%
industry: 13.4%
services: 86.5% (2001 est.)


As compared to:
China
agriculture: 15.2%
industry and construction: 51.2%
services: 33.6% (2001)

Russia
agriculture: 5.8%
industry: 34.6%
services: 59.6% (2002 est.)

Or compared to:
Somalia
agriculture: 65%
industry: 10%
services: 25% (2000 est.)


Source
 

outriding

Diamond Member
Feb 20, 2002
4,484
3,917
136

ReiAyanami

Diamond Member
Sep 24, 2002
4,466
0
0
actually, its all thanks to technology, or more precisely al gore's internet.

this internet thingy brought a wave of ridiculous and questionable companies that hired and paid like crazy, i know because my dad was being paid 200% during the bubble what he earns now. everybody had mad cash and boy did they spend it, SUVs and obesity, guess they fit well together

nonetheless, basically presidents get elected based on economics which they have little control over. the vast majority of undecided voters take a short term picture and vote their wallet at the moment of the election.
 

Alistar7

Lifer
May 13, 2002
11,978
0
0
The balanced budget agreement of 1993 brought forth the largest amount of foreign investment capital since the end of WW2, made the stock market look like a sure winner for many private citizens looking to invest for their retirement. It is rather amazing that when you follow a budget and actually start paying back what you have long owed, people start opening up the checkbooks again.....