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 : Just the Facts, Ma'am: A Compendium of Liberal Fiction -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: American Spirit who wrote (1152)	11/18/2003 1:34:24 PM
From: Oeconomicus	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 90947

Inflation during the Carter era was based on two huge factors, the Arab oil embargo and the huge debt from the Vietnam War. So, now you're an economist, too? Seems you're fact-challenged in that field as well. As you SHOULD know, the Vietnam war ended with a truce in January 1973, winding up a five year de-escalation from over a half million troops in 1968 to 24k at the end of 1972. The US was actively engaged in Vietnam from 1960 to 1972 and had 100k or more troops engaged from 1965 through 1971. So, what did this do to the national debt? Not much. During the entire war, the national debt grew by a whopping 3.4% per annum, probably comparable to growth of the economy during that period. During the peak fighting, it grew slightly faster, but still only 4.2%, slower than during Clinton's term in office. publicdebt.treas.gov There WAS NO "huge debt from the Vietnam War", so you aren't going to pawn off Carter's economic malaise on Vietnam. As for the Arab Oil Embargo, the steepest rise in oil prices came during the second half of Carter's term, with oil prices nearly tripling and gas prices doubling. The embargo was in 1973 and had a rather short-term impact and gas prices rising only about 25%. Carter's oil troubles are more accurately attributed to the Iranian revolution. Of course, Carter's "stagflation" was more complicated than that and, taken together with his foreign policy failures and dismantling of the military, surely makes him the worst president since WWII if not of the 20th century. Still, comparing Bush's economic performance to Carter's is laughable in that 1) you think the conditions are even remotely similar, 2) you think rapid growth, renewed job creation and essentially non-existent inflation are things to be alarmed (or just pissed off) about, and 3) you think ANY comparison to Carter helps your case against Bush. Believe it or not.