Clinton's 2nd term, I'd say.
stockcharts.com[g,a]dacaniay[d19900228,20030228][p][vc60]&pref=G
However, I don't believe I ever said all of Clinton's 2 terms were a bubble.
And, no, this isn't as bad as the Great Depression; unemployment has (so far, anyway) not even gotten to half of its 25% peak.
And the Iraq situation is definitely prolonging this thing and will continue to do so until it is resolved one way or another.
Frankly, I think Presidents have a lot less to do with economic performance than many people (such as TP) and they often believe. They can influence- -maybe. Maybe not. They can't dictate.
But if someone is going to insist, as TP does, the Clinton was responsible for all that prosperity, AKA bubble, then they had best be prepared for the blame for the consequences when the bubble pops as they invariably do. When they do, they have consequences. Large amounts of ultimately unserviceable debt is built up in them. That debt forces companies and individuals into bankruptcy. Their creditors are suddenly left with the assets and income stream they had been relying on and end up either forced to cut spending or bankrupt themselves. It feeds on itself until a hard core of the hardy is reached. And getting to that point can be very harsh and disruptive.
If you have a problem with this, take it up with TP. I don't think CLinton was an economic idiot or a genius and I'd say the same of Bush.
Frankly, I wish Bush had never heard of Iraq. After 911, Afghanistan had to be cleaned out. We should be completing that and also building it back up again. NOTHING would be as hard a blow to OBL than a democratic, prosperous Afghanistan as an example.
And it should be made clear to all other countries that if they harbor and encourage his like, they can expect to deal with the US military.
And some other countries, such as Saudi, would require at least some strong warnings. |
