Clinton's tanking economy?

Maybe just maybe you knew some people who went to grad school to better themselves. It troubles me that you equate someone going to grad school as a negative. Besides, anyone who has ever been to college knows its much harder to afford tuition and live at the same time than it is to work. That is unless you're one of the elite who depends on Daddy and Mommy for every dime. I worked my way through school but I hope I can make it possible for my son to not have to do that so he can spend more time on studies. I applaud anyone who goes further than a 4 year degree and I think everyone who has done that is a better person for it. I was the first in my family to get an advanced education so maybe my son will be the first with a Masters or dare I dream, a Phd. But now, I think we are getting off topic here so I'll stop prodding and let you get on with defending Bubba and bashing Bush neither of which I hold any loyalty for.

No, I don't disdain anyone from geting a higher education after college---I did. Its just that I did that after a few years of work after college. These people went into grad school immediately after college. The reason; The economy sucked and there were no jobs.

Originally posted by nyeff
Here is a more links to Clintons doomed economy plan..................
********************************************
But the Clinton administration forgot that more abundant money carries certain dangers. One is higher prices. Known popularly as inflation, this lowers the purchasing power of money, which forces the Fed, sooner or later, to raise the interest rates back to a higher level. The usual consequence is an economic slowdown or even recession. A by-product may be a lower exchange rate internationally.
www.mises.org...
********************************************

Interesting, but it doesn't prove that the economy was slowing down during the latter part of his 2nd term.

No, kramtronix, you're right . It doesn't prove that at all. What does is the actual numbers we see in the stock market. We had huge falls which indicated an upcoming unstable period. If you look at it in a graph, you can see that huge declines in the market coincided with government attacks on Microsoft which was attempting to force them to include Netscape Navigator(a better browser at the time if you ask me) in their Windows(the worst OS on the market if you ask me) software. Also at the time, I think they were trying to force Pepsi to add two cans of Coke in every 12 pack. (That last one was a little joke...though it might have given socialist another idea to run with.)

The thing is, whether Tom Brokaw was telling us or not, we were headed for a downturn due to high taxes on business which were falsly reporting profits when, in actuality they were taking loans. Enron reported the loan from Citycorp in 1998 as a pre-pay for services it knew it could never afford to provide. After if was allowed to carry over on the books due to the repeal of the Glass-Steagal Act, it began to compound the consequences but the same criminals who perpetrated the whole thing and who knew were able to slide out after selling their stock and then once the truth was forced out by the new administration's treasury secretary (Robert Rubin went to work for Citycorp after leaving the Clinton admin) who forced compliance.

What this all boils down to is this. In a capitalist based economy....and we all have to be in agreement thats what we have in the US..but in that type of economy which is based on private sector business numbers...there is no denying that. If your economy is capitalist then its based on private sector(business) numbers.

Aside from whether we all think big government and social programs are good ideas or not..thats not the issue. If it is, we might argue that a socialist economy should be established and we all work for the government while living in community housing, all making the same living.

We have to acknowledge that the economy we study isn't that way but rather based in entrepenuership in a capitalist republic. Now, with that established, we must conceed, whether we are democrat or repugnant as the Colonel likes to say, that high taxes and a rich government as opposed to minimal government and low taxes is detremental to this type of economy. Now, I think that arguing that government raising taxes is beneficial for this kind of economy is not a logical argument. What I think the liberals are arguing for is a change to a socialist economy where our trusted and honest politicians run things as opposed to the current system where our crooked businessmen run things. The problem is, you can't implement socialist protocols upon a capitalist economy and expect anything other than negative results. What I'm saying is, you might think a diesel burning vehicle is more efficient that a gas powered vehicle but putting diesel in a gas engine is just wishful thinking and in the long run will damage the engine.


We have to use the right fuel for the right engine. The U.S. economy is cutthroat and people win and lose and its not fair 90% of the time but such is the nature of the engine we have and is been a longer running engine than any other but when we dump socialist fuel in it, we get the knock and ping that we have seen over the last few years. The socialist protocols would work great..for a socialist economy. ..if socialism worked ..and I think it does not because it inhibits the natural urge of people for freedom and the old "it hasn't worked because the right people haven't tried it yet" excuse that has been uttered by every failed atttempt to date..save the first, is a shallow arguement used by people who give into their power-hungry lust to control everyone and anyone around them..which is human nature to some and great if you end up oe of the .05% at the top. I'd bet it would be peachy..but everyone cannot be there and the chances aren't that great that you or I would be either. Maybe the Colonel would but if it didn't happen for him, by the time he found out he didn't like it, it would likely be too late to do much about it as this kind of government is employed with force upon the masses.

Thanks for the reply. Now I understand.