If they start with the green idiot deal, stop oil & gas, & socialism, it will tank the economy.
Green New Deal = borrowing and Big spending on research and infrastructure, business incentives.
In other words a $$$ bonanza. Same as “infrastructure” and “rebuild the military” except the specific activity the money buys is different.
The opposition to green initiates vs the others is mainly ideological or self interest.
There are valid reasons to oppose it, as well as these other federal injections of cash into the economy, but on the whole the economy seems to love it.
1 Like
Yeah…& the $15 minimum wage will start inflation, cause a lot of layoffs. The worst will be socialism. It will completely destroy the country. Maybe result in war.
We’ve been through periods of democratic rule and higher levels of social initiatives in the past. I’m
Not as pessimistic as you are.
I’m not thrilled with where we have arrived at for federal policy and spending. But on the critically fatal elements— borrowing, catering spending to paid-for interests, ignoring large scale problems until the last moments, evaporations individual freedoms and privacy— the difference in the parties At this moment is relatively small. And I’m speaking of actual actions not the chum that they they throw out on the airwaves.
1 Like
That Politico piece is surprisingly balanced, and points out several potential scenarios with pros and cons. But the predominant theme in all of those articles is that Blue Wave cheerleaders are banking an an open Federal checkbook and restoration of globalization, which isn’t exactly a perk for the average American worker. No specifics on job creation, with scant consideration given to the millions of losses in the energy sector should Democrats achieve their climate policy goals. Ultimately, it’s all just speculation anyway.
There will be nothing until after the new House and Senate are sworn in on Jan 3rd. Perhaps not until after Jan 20th either. That Pelosi, what a wanker.
I watch a lot of financial analysts and I do think that Payne lost quite a few of his market contacts when the SEC went after him. And this week not one analyst outside of Fox was talking about the election as having a impact on the markets this week. Most agree that it is a combination of the Covid spikes here and in Europe and not getting a stimulus bill even close at this time.
If Biden “wins” I will sell my stocks immediately.
1 Like
And fire all the employees with a Biden bumper sticker!!! Never change guys. Please
Learn nothing, forget nothing.
1 Like
Based on what?
Exactly.
Military spending is a way of shoveling money into the economy.
Everyone is Keynesian.
1 Like
Campaigning slogans do not an action make. Certainly differences, but relative to the critical concerns in my original posting (budget, dysfunctional government) not so much.
Remember, the post I responded to claimed the choice literally involved the destruction of America.
1 Like
Strange that we needed to increase military spending to pull out of wars and make the rest of the world pay their share.
You would think that would have led to less defense spending.
1 Like
yes he did, when he acted against their advice and restricted travel. good thing too.
The Obamassiah tried it, all it means is cash funneled to democrat donors to start up businesses half to 3 quarters of which will squander the money and declare bankruptcy within 2 years. 100’s new Solyndra’s every year.
First, as I stated before I am not saying that government policies have no impact on an economy. Absolutely cases can be made that such and such polices helped or hurt the economy. Second, if the Clinton policies are the be all end all to substantial economic growth why doesn’t (or hasn’t) every country in the world simply plop those policies into their countries and create the same economic growth that America had in the 1990’s? Third, you can find varying opinions on how much to credit a president and/or their policies on how much they helped an economy. Here’s a different take:
“Bill Clinton deserves, at most, a small sliver of the blame for the financial crisis. But he probably doesn’t deserve much credit for the late-’90s boom, either. The reality is, presidents have at best limited influence over the economy. Clinton’s economic policy was determinedly centrist: modest tax increases, free trade (including the signing of the North American Free Trade Agreement) and limited government regulation and spending (the latter due in part to the Republican Congress). Those policies no doubt affected the economy, for good or bad. But their impact pales in comparison to that of forces beyond Clinton’s control: the rise of the internet, the entrance of the baby boomers into their peak earning years, the “peace dividend” that came from the fall of the Soviet Union.”
Some more analysis in particularly regarding when the specific rise in the Market took place (1995):
“Some of those worries sound quite familiar: 1) A fear of the national takeover of healthcare via “Hillary Care” in 1994, vs. the coming implementation of Obamacare in 2014; 2) sovereign debt crises, like the bankruptcy of Orange County (California) and the Mexican peso crisis - both striking in December 1994 - vs. today’s fears over Greece; and 3) fears of job losses to foreign workers - based on NAFTA in 1994, and China now.”
In Late 1994, Two External Events Jump-Started Stocks
“On November 8, 1994, a seismic event took place in Washington, DC, when Republicans won the House of Representatives for the first time in 40 years. This “Republican Revolution” split the reins of government between Democratic President Clinton and an opposing but remarkably activist Congress, which passed its self-styled “Contract with America” within 100 days of taking office in early 1995.”
“Stocks tend to rise the most when one party runs the White House and the other runs Congress (call it “Gridlock”), so the market liked this political turn of events. From a low of 3674.63 in November 1994, the Dow soared 36% in the next year, closing above 5000 for the first time on November 21, 1995. The second big event didn’t seem so big at the time: On Tuesday, December 13, 1994 (when the Dow was still mired at 3715), the first World Wide Web consortium took place at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology [MIT]. This ad-hoc gathering was called to promote protocols for the World Wide Web.”
From Factcheck.org:
"But many other factors, having little or nothing to do with government, also were at work during the Clinton years. Personal computers and the Internet came of age, bringing a revolution in the efficiency of processing information and making workers more productive. Manufacturing companies embraced more efficient production methods. A massive reduction in military spending, begun during the George H.W. Bush administration following the collapse of the former Soviet Union, allowed capital to be deployed to more economically productive ends. No major war disrupted the world’s rapidly growing trade.
Good luck also played a role. Oil prices declined during much of Clinton’s presidency, partly because of squabbling and cheating among the OPEC oil-producing nations. As late as 1999 crude oil was selling for less than $10 per barrel and gasoline hit a low of 95 cents per gallon at the pump, a price that included the 4.3-cent-per-gallon tax increase that Clinton had supported and Republicans had denounced."
The last point I’ll note is something I wholeheartedly agree with:
"Real credit for the expansion does not belong to either the Clinton administration or a Democrat or Republican Congress, but to American workers, managers and investors. The current record expansion is not the result of government‐lead industrial policy, managed trade or Keynesian pump‐priming, but of stunning advancements in private sector productivity, innovation, reorganization, risk taking and hard work–all driven by the invisible hand of the marketplace."
https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/who-gets-credit-americas-great-economy
Here’s how I’ll conclude. Can government policies be helpful, sure. How much is always a matter of debate and proving direct causation is even more difficult. Luck both good and bad absolutely plays a role.
You misunderstood my argument.
I didn’t say Bil Clinton was the sole reason.
But you stated anyone could have been President and it would have happened.
I disagree.
If Bush was relected best case the expansion would have happened slower (companies would have taken less risk since they were not incentives to push technology forward unless there was a solid ROI) and the deficts would have never gone away because the tax rates would have stayed ton low"
Could it have happened with out Bill Clinton? Probably. Most likely
Would it have happened under Bush and Regan economics?
No
what a silly premise. Clinton with a democrat congress was running the country into a ditch. he did not save the economy and he was not the reason we did so well. Newt was, and Clinton fought him tooth and nail the whole way even shutting down the government three times. Each time, after gaining as much political benefit as he could blaming Newt, he than signed wht the gop congress gave him and took credit for it.
