Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (129403)	12/9/2000 8:59:22 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 1570145

I don't think that Jim was saying they were a disaster just that they were a bad thing. Lots of bad things can happen even in a period of economic growth and prosperity. Tim, First I don't remember when the tax cut was implemented but I believe it was a while back. In any case,I don't think it is responsible for the skewing that Jim refers to...indiviual tax cuts, although popular, rarely are big enough to truly stimulate the economy. However, I believe the intent of Jim's post was to make Clinton wrong on one more issue...and frankly, its getting old. Now I am not terribly enamored with Clinton's playing with cigars on my time; however, no one can deny, that under Clinton we have had the longest economic expansion in the history of this country. Furthermore, we have had a fairly proactive foreign policy that has actually accomplished some good. Now its rare to have a President who can keep the domestic economy humming while also doing well in foreign diplomacy. In addition, he brought some very talented people to the White House; to whit, my ex professor, Donna Shalala. His picks may have been partisan but they also were required to have ability....not always the case in past administrations. As for the Feds, they stated they were raising rates due to a fear that inflationary elements may have been ready to take over the economy. They believed that the inreasing risk of inflation stemmed from a high level of employment, resulting in tight labor markets that were putting increasing pressure on wages. And they were concerned about increasing oil prices which had creeped up from $10 a barrel to over $20 at the time of the first increase in the fed rate to over $35 recently. Complicating this whole scenario was the issue of worker productivity. With the advent of the net, productivity had been on the rise and had managed to vent off some of the pressure on wages....however, no one was sure to what degree that would continue and forestall an inflation problem. In light of my understanding of what led to the rate hikes, can you understand how I thought Jim's comment was a bit specious and was mostly intended to support his particular bias....that the world would be 100% better if Clinton had never happened and a Republican had occuppied the White House in his absense? ted The feds when they I think the economy