Clintons Economy vs. Clintons Stock Market

For starters, no President should ever take credit for an economy or a stock markets. Both are related to years of things breaking down or building up, and there are so many other factors that go into both.

I will enlighten you and the otheres here at ATS, but I am sure you will all have something negative to say about the truth, as it is coming from wall street (the source of the problem) and a republican (am I allowed to say that?).

In the 1990's the stock market was a beautiful thing. It made alot of people rich and made the rich even richer. It turned the average housewife into a stock jockey and allowed people to add 4 rooms to their house, put swimming pools in the back yard and send kids to college. BUT, it was the how and the why that is whats wrong. First off.....Greed is good, it allows people to take risk and be rewarded for it. Now, Greed is bad too. It was the greed of Wall Street in the 1990's that created this "problem" and we are still paying for it today.

The crux of the problem revolves around a PONZI scam (google it to see what it means). Wall Street and the Clinton administration perpetrated the largets Ponzi scam since the Dutch Tulip craze of 1636 (hence my statment below.....know your history or repeat it). In the early 1990's the jobs outlook was bleak and Washington turned to technology companies to provide a shot in the arm. There was a sincere push to speed things up and creat new technologies, but no need for the American public to "upgrade" to new systems. Hence the birth of Y2K. For those youngsters on here, that was the scare that the world would come to an end due to technology failures of our computers. We had just begun to let computers run our lives and most people were not able to understand this.

If the government said its time to upgrade, people listened....so Government and big business jumped on the ship and let it go. Washington pushed San Fransisco and silicon valley and they jumped at the chance. The whole Y2K bug was born. By the mid to late 1990's just about every fortune 500 company had set up a Y2K committee. They were reviewing their own systems and making all "necessary" upgrades. They also reviewed the systems of vendors and suppliers and made sure they too were complient...forcing smaller companies to upgrade their systems and spend money they really could not afford. This created hundreds of thousands of jobs. actually more than a million jobs were created including the private secotr and "consultants". This was huge for the Clinton administration. BUT, nothing was produced by these people. An economy is measured by production. This was the beginning of the US economy changing to a services economy.

A few things happened here. First off, these new computer companies needed capital to grow. Where did they turn??? WALL STREET. Wall Street was more than happy to bring these companies public. thousands of companies called on wall street and thousands others had wall street come knocking on their door. Wall Street would bill the company as a Y2K solutions company. The company would go public for about $18 and first trade would take place at $90. PROFITS PROFITS PROFITS. This went on for about 4 years, then it was hard to sell. So Wall Street turned to Al Gore's baby and started selling internet companies. We were told to push everything as an internet play. pets.com, toys.com ... you name it we pushed it. If an old fashioned company had an internet weg page, it was now a play on the internet. It drove stocks to all time highs. it was crazy and crazy money was made.

Clinton benefitted greatly from this. 1) it was his stock market, so it was his economy. BUT the economy did not exist. Nothing was being produced. There were no production increases, no innovations were being made. This allowed for the balanced budget...2) the treasury was collecting huge tax gains on investment by joe and jane six-pack from their stock trading. People would go home from work and get on their computers and buy and sell stocks. Holding stocks for 5 minutes could generate 15% gains. It was insane.

Like everything insane, things must come to an end. It did. Just about after Y2K was deemed a total DUD, companies were forced to lay off for lack of work. Some companies were able to convert themselve to software soltuions companies and remain solvent, but most crashed and burned. Toys.com went from $96 to $0. Pets.com stock became worth less than those silly pet socks they were selling. The only thing was Clinton was no longer President. A new president had taken over. George W. Bush was our leader and stuck with the failings of the prior administration. Companies collapsed under the new administration, with the biggest 2 being Worldom and Enron.

Enron was s pecial case, it was Wall Streets wet dream. We made so much money on that company it was insane. The concept of Enron was brilliant, btu again, they went from a company producing oil and gas equipment to an energy trading company. Whats the difference? Now they produced nothing!!!! There were no "real or hard" assets anymore. Just paper profits. Paper profits are easily maniputlaed and they were!!!!

We on wall street pushed it and pushed it as profits rose, BUT we knew the financial situation of the company and had what we called an Enron Put on the market. At certain levels of their stock price on the way down there were more and more covenants of their credit facilities going bad and they had to take extremem measures to correct this, diluting earnings. Everyone on Wall Street knew this and was heavily short enron. Enron was a victim of the game. The further down they went, the more money wall street made. Wall Street forced them into bankruptcy, because it was good for profits.

Presidents hould becareful of what they take credit for and what they want credit for.

I was one of the junior guys at the time, not profiting from all of this and was let go once the markets really came in hard.

Worked for a little longer in the trading business, but now work as a finance manager for an international company (non-american so shoot me for that too)

OK. let the zingers fly. Everyone say your peace. Chew me up and spit me out. I can take it!

Now...everyone get back to work!


[edit on 12-10-2007 by traderonwallst]

reply to post by traderonwallst


Great post!

I remember being in San Jose in March 2000 and NASDAQ dumped about 15% in one day. Everybody at this seminar I was at was licking their chops at what a "buying opportunity" this was. That was when NASDAQ was around 4800. I knew people who mortgaged their house to buy more CMGI because they wanted to make $5 million from their $20,000 investment instead of just $200,000.

I'm so glad that somebody finally pointed out the whole Y2K conspiracy. That was the biggest fraud ever perpetrated, and Mr. and Mrs. Clinton were the ones pulling the levers behind the curtains. It's really frustrating to see how the entire economy was manipulated to make Clinton look good just long enough until he left office in 2000, at which point Y2k was exposed as a fraud and the bubble burst.

Thanks again for such a great post!!!


[edit on 12-10-2007 by jjohns]

Great post! You made it easy for someone that doesn't have a clue about Wall Street to make sense of it. I agree with what you said, be careful what you take credit for; it can bite you on the ass.

Thanks for the input, but apparently no one else has any opinions on this matter. Go figure, I really thought this was an interesting topic.



No one has a response?
No one has an insult for bashing the Clinton economy?
No one? No one???? Buehler?????

[edit on 12-10-2007 by traderonwallst]

I am open for questions also. I promise to answer to the best of my abilities.

When will the blaming of Clinton and the Excuses for Bush End!!!!

I find this post laughable!

Get real, Clinton did good things for the economy, while Bush ran it into the ground!

Drugs are bad!

I told you what was going on from an "I was there perspective". You come and insult me. I find your response laughable. When will the blind, deaf and dumb belief that Clinton was some kind of Demi-God change?

Please people, if your not going to be constructive.......be quiet.

Everything I told you can be looked up. This is so frustrating.

I did not mean to insult you!

But, we had a budget surplus under Clinton and we have a huge budget deficiet under Bush.

The Dollar is crashing and the rich are getting richer!

Call it progress, call it great, but don't blame Clinton for Bush's shortfalls!

He has been in power since 2000, deal with it!

If you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen, quit listening to Rush, he lies to his listeners and himself (Drug addict, non-christian, etc!)

Originally posted by mel1962
I did not mean to insult you!

But, we had a budget surplus under Clinton and we have a huge budget deficiet under Bush.

The Dollar is crashing and the rich are getting richer!

Call it progress, call it great, but don't blame Clinton for Bush's shortfalls!

He has been in power since 2000, deal with it!

If you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen, quit listening to Rush, he lies to his listeners and himself (Drug addict, non-christian, etc!)

First off, if you read my post you see that Clinton had a budget surplus because of unexpected tax revenue. This was revenue received by the treasury from investment income. This investment income was due to jane and joe 6-pack sitting at home trading stocks with juniors college fund.

Secondly, the dollar is not crashing. Its right where we need it right now. Have you seen the earnings of the S&P 500 companies? Its at record highs. Why? the low dollar. With a low dollar it allows our goods to be cheaper around the world. It also allows US manufacturers to better compete here at home. Companies in China export their lead filled goods here, but they sell them at such a low price people buy them anyway. Its a good thing for a low dollar in an ultra-competitive environment.

Don;t talk to me about not being able to stand the heat of the kitchen. My job is economics, trading and business. I live this stuff everyday. Do you think Bill Clinton ever submitted a balanced budget? Hell no. What good President would? What good CEO would? You never submit a balanced budget because it does not look good the next year. You always, always under cut it so when you finish in the red this year, you can request a bigger budget next year. Its a game, we all play it. Some just better than others. Bill Clinton never did set out to balance the budget, and if you really dissected the "supposed" balanced budget you will go see that it really never was balanced. There was a lot of what if, let it be accounting. Enron and others were big on assumption based accounting. Now all Companies are required to follow GAAP accounting rules. Our government should do the same. No more base line budgeting.

Seriously.......if you nothing of substance to say...please be quiet and let others have the floor.

reply to post by mel1962


Where did I blame Clinton for Bush's short falls? Was it the fact that all those Companies that lied, stole and cheated under Clinton fell apart under the Bush administration? Enron, Worldcom, the airlines. All those Companies were high fliers under Clinton......ever wonder why?

And before you go anywhere.........ENRON WAS A HUGE CLINTON/GORE CONTRIBUTOR. You can go look that up.

By the way, I am my own person and don't need to listen to some guy on the radio to form my own opinions. But if you want, I will wait while you go consult CNN for your next opinion.

[edit on 12-10-2007 by traderonwallst]

"The Year 2000 problem was the subject of the early book, "Computers in Crisis" by Jerome and Marilyn Murray (Petrocelli, 1984; reissued by McGraw-Hill under the title "The Year 2000 Computing Crisis" in 1996). The first recorded mention of the Year 2000 Problem on a Usenet newsgroup occurred Saturday, January 19, 1985 by Usenet poster Spencer Bolles.[1]"

Yeah. 1985. Wasn't Reagan President? Yeah, I thought so....... Move along.....Nothing to see here.....

Who ran with it? Who made it their pet project? I believe it was Algore that went out to Silicon Valley, over and over again.

Nothing to see? Open your eyes man!!!! Lots to see, but you can feel free to move on!

Originally posted by mel1962
When will the blaming of Clinton and the Excuses for Bush End!!!!

When will the blaming of Bush and the excuses for Clinton end??

Everyone seems to think that the Clintons were the best thing that ever happened to the US. People seem to forget all the scandals that happened while he was in office. Vince Foster? Travelgate? The last minute pardons that were sold? How about their dealings with the Chinese? Whitewater? Almost getting his ass impeached for lying to a grand jury?

Oh well.

Excellent post, and if I wasn't so tired, I'd have a better reply. But kudos for talking about Tulipomania and the Dutch. Ah, the Future's Market, what a beautiful and horrendus thing it can be all at the same time.

traderonwallst, in Oil Smoke and Mirrors, a guy by the name of Campbell, says that when the oil crunch, "peak oil" and all that starts to hit, Wall St. will have to wipe out "mountains of capital". He believes that it could be the start of a second "great depression". How do you see that scenario playing out? Are you finance guys packing your parachutes yet? Apparently sometime between 2010 and 2015 the dwindling oil supply situation will begin to be felt in earnest, against a backround of ever increasing demand, of course. I'd like to hear your thoughts on that subject.

Sorry if this is a thread derailer. I don't think it really is unless the Clinton focus is paramount. I was cured of Cintonism after viewing the Clinton Chronicles, personally.

[edit on 13-10-2007 by ipsedixit]

I got a bunker. I'm safe.

[edit on 13-10-2007 by Observer_PR]

reply to post by ipsedixit


Not really a commodity trader, but do follow the oil markets a bit. Not a big believer in the whole peak oil thing. From what I hear on the street, there is plenty of oil, both drilled, stock piled and in the ground. I am already hearing stories of the OPEC cartel leaking like a sieve. Like I have said in other threads, Greed is good. This time its good for the consumer. At the current price level, OPEC is cheating. Just about every country is producing and selling more than their alotted share. Can ya blame them? They are afraid of the peak oil theory. They are afraid of ethanol, bio-fuels, solar power and wind. OPEC countries are some of the biggest (quietest) players in the solar arena today. Some of the biggest backers are coming from this part of the world.

I have read research reports of large quantities of untapped resources, oil and natural gas in all kinds of places. Places some people just won't let you dig. I am a big backer of drilling ANWAR. OK, everyone scream now! I am sorry, 540 years worth of oil and natural gas and we are not allowed to dig. There is a reserve of the East coast of Florida. Out in the Atlantic Ocean. This is easily accessible with today's technology but we are not allowed to drill. I am no environmentalist, as you can see. BUT I do not believe there is anything wrong with drilling in these places. Caribou in Alaska being displaced? Please......drilling companies have already figured ways to move entire herds the necessary 2 miles away. Drilling companies have submitted plans that would not damage the fragile ocean ecosystems, in fact they have submitted plans where they would create artificial reefs outside the drilling zones. One company has gone as far as submitting plans that would include a wind farm south of the drilling at their cost. I am sorry, but there comes a time when we need to rid ourselves of Middle Eastern oil. Until there is a time when we do not need oil, lets concentrate on a time when we do not need THEIR oil.

Sorry for offending everyone here with my views, but they are just that...MY VIEWS. Now that I have gonna away from the original thread, you can all throw your darts now.

I will enlighten you and the otheres here at ATS, but I am sure you will all have something negative to say about the truth, as it is coming from wall street (the source of the problem) and a republican (am I allowed to say that?).

OK. let the zingers fly. Everyone say your peace. Chew me up and spit me out. I can take it!

Those pathetic and immature comments, as well as the assumption that we're all close-minded left-wing demagogues ruined what was otherwise a stellar posting (one which I agree with much of).

But I'll take the high road and address the post itself. In all fairness to Clinton, I feel he responded to the economy far better than many presidents in the past. I felt his many legislations aimed at balancing the budget and reducing deficit were the 100% right decisions at the time and the end result was well-worth it. Not to mention the defense cutbacks greatly helped us improve the civilian sector considerably. The question is, did the market respond properly to it? To me, that answer was no and as you implied, the market is very much responsible for the success and failure of the economy.

I liked the following statement:

In the 1990's the stock market was a beautiful thing. It made alot of people rich and made the rich even richer. It turned the average housewife into a stock jockey and allowed people to add 4 rooms to their house, put swimming pools in the back yard and send kids to college. BUT, it was the how and the why that is whats wrong. First off.....Greed is good, it allows people to take risk and be rewarded for it. Now, Greed is bad too. It was the greed of Wall Street in the 1990's that created this "problem" and we are still paying for it today.

From a historical standpoint, the 1990s were an EXCEPTION. It was a ten-year span from 1991 to 2001 in which America experienced some of what people like Ronald Reagan said this country would become. It was a ten-year break from all the troubles of reality. Now looking at it from retrospect, its clear, like you say, that we probably won't ever experience a time like that again.

If the government said its time to upgrade, people listened....so Government and big business jumped on the ship and let it go. Washington pushed San Fransisco and silicon valley and they jumped at the chance. The whole Y2K bug was born. By the mid to late 1990's just about every fortune 500 company had set up a Y2K committee. They were reviewing their own systems and making all "necessary" upgrades. They also reviewed the systems of vendors and suppliers and made sure they too were complient...forcing smaller companies to upgrade their systems and spend money they really could not afford. This created hundreds of thousands of jobs. actually more than a million jobs were created including the private secotr and "consultants". This was huge for the Clinton administration. BUT, nothing was produced by these people. An economy is measured by production. This was the beginning of the US economy changing to a services economy.

This is very much the essence of how the market responded poorly to the government's actions. Now, at the time, the Internet and all the advances in Information Technology were very glittery, so its tough to blame them for expecting things to be different. At the same time, the high-tech sector is the highest-risk sector as well. Companies like eToys and pets.com, like you mentioned, got by on advertising, and were also very poorly-managed by young Generation Xers who had no idea of how go conduct business. You are 110% correct when you say there was no production. Unlike YouTube, which actually offers a service that is both of use to the public as a whole and actually generates massive profits, all those dot-com companies did was generate one grand idea after another. The companies that did survive (and they BARELY survived) actually offered something that people could buy and/or use.

I do challenge your implication that a service economy is "bad." I'm not 100% sure if that's what you were saying, but if you were, I am very much a forward-oriented person and I believe that a transition to a post-industrial stage of existence is inevitable. In that case, the economic downturn in the early 2000s was a necessity for us to continue our transition into a post-industrial society.

As a free-market capitalist, I also want to use this as an opportunity to advocate such an economic policy. I know that free markets are very much a pipedream for a country like the U.S., but I do point to the success of countries like the United Arab Emirates. Countries like that show the overwhelming advantages of having the laypeople drive the economy. As the USSR and even the U.S. sometimes show, nothing stagnates an economy more than government spending. This is very much off-topic, but its an important point to bring up in regards to what it takes to look after a country.

Good post.

First, excessive greed is not good, it should be contained and used, but should never be an end for itself. I agree that the greedy get wealthier, but they also become more corrupt, and in government that is devastating for the people who the government serves rather than the market.
Second point, before Bush became president he offered double tax cuts to McCain, mainly to the rich and turned a budget surplus into a deficit. You cannot blame Clinton for that.

reply to post by sweatmonicaIdo


Thank you for your response, and NO I was not saying that a service economy is a bad thing. Services re important, and us laid back lazy Americans rely more and more on services than we ever did before. We all want things done for us. Fast food is no longer a night out, its the norm for a lot of families. The only thing is even the move to services had become a problem for big corporations. They even want that cheaper, hence the shift of computer services to outsourcing. Why have Dell or Compaq techs answering phones when you can train people in India (companies like Wipro) to do the same at 1/10 the cost. Despite the individual lash back by the consumers, outsourcing is not going any where. Its here to stay and there is not much consumers can do. Any job is a good job and I would never down play any sector where there is growth for the American economy.

On your comment about things that Clinton got through congress to steer the Economy, it was the republican led congress that actually demanded the balanced budget by Newt Gingrich and the Contract with America. But that is for another thread. I really am trying to stay on the stock market vs. the economy. Was actually surprised this went to the Politics board.