Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Just off the top of my head I'll list a few things that helped fuel the 90s economic boom. The first was cheap oil, courtesy of Bush 41 when he stabilized the Iraq/ kuwait situation. Oil price wars helped so I can't give all the credit to Bush 41. Clinton was definitely in the right place at the right time and I will give him credit for a "hands off, let it regulate itself" approach to the economy. If only Bush 43 and Obama were smart enough to know they're NOT smart enough to tinker with the economy like Clinton was.
The dot com bubble. Clinton enjoyed a few years of that although it was already rapidly collapsing by the end of his second term. Bush 43 walked into that and then 9/11 made things a lot worse. Both Bush 43 and Clinton were responsible for the housing and financial meltdown, Clinton started it and Bush accelerated it.And Obama is following Bush 43's lead and then some. It seems if they'd just leave things alone we'd all be better off, like they deliberately want to wreck things and keep people off balance.
If Paul Krugman says something that doesn't make it right. He's in the EDITORIAL section of the New York Times. Because that is where people express their OPINIONS.
If Paul Krugman says something that doesn't make it right. He's in the EDITORIAL section of the New York Times. Because that is where people express their OPINIONS.
That is the irony!!!
Krugman is an economist so for ONCE he is talking about something he is qualified to talk about.
I never could figure out how and why the NYT thought that Krugman should be writing in the OPINIONS section of their paper.
Just like him jumping the shark with an opinion that Sarah Palin was responsible for the Arizona Shootings. What's an economist doing offering ridiculous opinions like that for anyhow?
I think Krugman understands that presidents have limited impact on the economy. People look up to the sitting president and expect him to turn things around, like he is some kind of god. Presidents can intervene (or not) to make things smoother but that won't change economic trends. And people will assume they are responsible no matter what they do or don't do.
I think Krugman understands that presidents have limited impact on the economy. People look up to the sitting president and expect him to turn things around, like he is some kind of god. Presidents can intervene (or not) to make things smoother but that won't change economic trends. And people will assume they are responsible no matter what they do or don't do.
Furthermore, the 90's boom was not all good. The excesses built by the end of the 1990's, massive investment mis-allocation in favor of the internet, labor markets at white-hot levels, all ended badly.
I know the diehard loyalists on either side don't like to hear this but there is no Economy On/Off switch in the White House. The economy primarily moves due to demographics and innovation cycles.
The 90's were the perfect storm of a new technology making its way to the masses at the same time the largest generation in history were hitting the main years for earning and spending on their growing families.
We are just starting the reverse of that trend now with the Boomers just leaving their peak spending years and the infrastructure built in the 90’s to produce the new technology is already in place.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.