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 : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: RMF who wrote (742459)	6/13/2006 4:43:06 AM
From: KLP	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

If you read my post, you would know I knew about the tech bubble breaking....In spades, I knew ....not only as a recruiter, but I too, had lots of hyped stocks....mostly Paul Allen's, but several others as well. The bust was much worse than most people knew. I think that Bush did know how bad it really was. Recruiters knew it was....NEVER before in all the years of some difficult times, had I ever seen an article in our trade journal about how to survive in this very bad time. To print something like that, appears negative. But print it, they did. By September 2000, we saw that article. Kept it for the scrapbook....

To: RMF who wrote (742459)	6/14/2006 2:43:25 AM
From: DavesM	Respond to of 769670

I agree with KLP. What Bush did was huge! Yes the tech bubble did burst. The magnitude of the event was huge. Trillons were lost. Market crashes of this magnitude usually result in deep and long economic hard times (the Great Depression, Tokyo and Asian meltdown). There are two ways that a Government can stimulate an economy in recession: Monetary actions by the Fed (or Central Bank), and Fiscal (budget) actions by the Federal Government. IMO, It took both the keep 2001 a mild recession. When the tax cuts were passed, "experts" predicted that the savings would be used by consumers to reduce consumer debt and that consumer spending would contract as a result of the recession. This did not happen, in fact consumer spending was one of the few bright spots in a sluggish economy fighting back from a epic market crash. Yes, the Fed took interest rates to 50 year lows. But if you look at market crashes of similar magnitudes to 2000-2002; (Japan 1989 and Wall Street 1929) very low interest rates alone are not able to turn economies around. After huge financial crashes, Central Banks have actually let interest rates fall to zero (and sometimes lower) - yet are unable to stimulate strong economic growth. (Note: The number of basis points the Fed dropped interest rates as a result of the 2001 recession was almost the same as the amount the Fed eased as a result of the 1991 recession) Timing is important. After a crash IMO, if the resulting recession gets too deep, sometimes even massive fiscal actions by the Central Government is not able to quickly turn things around (once again look at the deficit spending of FDR during the Depression and Japan during the 90's). In fact, for the National economy as a whole, the Tokyo crash resulted in a deeper recession in the United States, than the domestic (and larger) tech crash of 2000! I believe that Bush deserves much of the credit (unless you can explain why the Tokyo Crash triggered a larger recession than the Tech/telecom Crash ten years later). Now I'm willing to spread credit. If not for President Clinton's "surpluses", President Bush and Greenspan would not have been able to stimulate the economy as much as they did - when it was needed.