You've got more than a few things wrong in your post, uw. First, there is no doubt that the causes of the terrific economic times of the 90s were multiple but one of the central, perhaps essential, causes was as a consequence of Bob Rubin's actions. Rubin, so the stories go, convinced Clinton in 92 to focus on debt reduction as a prime economic solution for the doldrums. The connection via the bond market to economic upturns was not apparent. Became so then.
So Clinton, in my view, gets credit for being smart enough to listen to Rubin, to put him in his administration, and to finally appoint Rubin as his treasury secretary.
There are multiple reasons as well for the present situation. One is that the Glass-Stegall act was abolished by congress breaking down the walls between banking and analysis (as I understand it Greenspan permitted a 25% relation earlier). Phil Gramm, a Rep was the key player over the years in that. But Clinton went along with it. One of the reasons I consider him a Rockefeller Rep in a great many of his policies. Another is the absence of serious accounting rules. As I understand that Arthur Leavitt, Clinton's appointee to run the SEC, pushed very hard through the 90s for those accounting reforms but got stymied by almost bloc voting on the part of Reps. You are free to point out that some Dems voted with them. There is a story that Leiberman threatened Leavitt's job if he kept pushing. Who knows.
As for my 401(k), it's a 403(b) and, thanks to the 90s, among a great many other things, it did wonderfully and is still in fine shape. It has a great deal further to go down to even get close to the shape it woudl likely have been in had Bush I been reelected in 92.
So, neither, in my view, Bush nor Clinton are in any serious sense responsible for the bubble, nor for its collapse. However, Bush is responsible for attempts to keep things afloat after the economy, not the markets, began drifting. He did not do that; his economic team did not do that. And he is now the first president in modern times to have a term of net job loss in the economy. You will, I promise you, hear more about that as we get closer to serious campaigning. Assuming the Dems, big assumption, can get their act together.
Your turn. |
