I’d expect more from an American Historian, Murph. You know as well as I do that the President and the Economy are usually unrelated. Clinton didn’t invent the internet (Gore did), but he rode the wave when everyone invested in cats.com. Bush just happened to be in office when folks realized that a cats.com website was just a stupid idea.
When is GITM going public? No business plan, nothing to sell, and financed by “advertising”…sounds like a winning investment to me!
Sorry, J-Go, but the whole “presidents don’t affect the economy” bit is a total canard. Sure, the Internet boom helped make the Clinton years something really special, but that economic uptick happened starting in 1993, when he (and the Dems, at great cost in the following midterms) embraced fiscal responsibility, tackled the budget deficits that had mounted under Reagan/Bush, made the tax system more equitable, and restored investors’ faith in the government’s handling of the economy (without, I might add, a single GOP vote.) In fact, the GOP fell all over themselves at the time to make idiot predictions that didn’t stand up, such as Phil Gramm’s “We are buying a one-way ticket to a recession,” or Newt’s declaration that this is “the Democratic machine’s recession, and each of them will be held personally responsible.”
No less an authority than Alan Greenspan (hardly a Clinton enthusiast) said of the ’90’s boom that the ’93 plan was “an unquestioned factor in contributing to the improvement in economic activity that occurred thereafter.” Or, I’ll give you another one, from Businessweek: “Clinton’s 1993 budget cuts, which reduced projected red ink by more than $400 billion over five years, sparked a major drop in interest rates that helped boost investment in all the equipment and systems that brought forth the New Age economy of technological innovation and rising productivity.” (If you want to side with the Clinton-despising National Review on this one, well, that’s your bag.)
And let’s not go the Cold War Dividend route. Saying Reagan’s trickle-down, deficit-tripling policies created the Clinton economy is a bit like saying that polio was responsible for producing the Salk vaccine. It doesn’t take a Ph.D. to figure out that there’s something wrong with a fiscal agenda in which you end up with 2 trillion dollars in debt and an economy where 99 percent of the generated wealth goes to the top 20 percent of the population. Even Reagan’s former budget director, David Stockman, admits that Reaganomics was a flawed plan that “shattered the nation’s fiscal stability.”
Now, obviously, there are countless other factors — productivity, technology, innovation, the international situation, war — that affect the national economy…anyone who argues otherwise is being disingenuous. But saying that presidents don’t affect the economy is tantamount to arguing that economic policy doesn’t matter, which is in and of itself a ridiculous statement. Do you really want to argue that the Dubya tax cuts have had zero effect on America’s economic situation over the past three and a half years?
I’d expect more from a Columbia historian, J-Go.
Yes, but economic growth or stagnation can happen regardless of the fiscal policies promoted by the White House. Tax cuts, discretionary spending, et cetera are designed to spur the economy in the “right” direction, but don’t always have the consequences intended.
The Clinton Era boom was NOT a product of Reaganonmics or of some far sighted economic stimulus program promoted by any administration. It was simply the coincidence of new technology, the brilliant marketing of that technology, and its subsequent bust.
Administrations can create consumer confidence in the economy, which in turn can increase spending, and so on…but the White House is not the sole perpetrator in creating booms or recessions.
All I am arguing is that the whole “are you better off now” determinant was irrelevant in 1980, 1992, and now in 2004. People have always, and I repeat always, voted with their wallets first, so the “it’s the economy, stupid” approach is the easiest way to appeal to voters. We can talk about Athenian “populist” politics in the 5th century over beers sometime, if you’re interested.
The numbers don’t lie, but they don’t always provide the most honest picture. That was the only real point I was trying to make.
Thanks for all cool links, though!
“Administrations can create consumer confidence in the economy, which in turn can increase spending, and so on…
All I am arguing is that the whole “are you better off now” determinant was irrelevant in 1980, 1992, and now in 2004.”
Irrelevant? Really? You’re contradicting yourself. Either economic policy matters or it doesn’t. Not sure where Athenian populism fits in either. But, ah well.
Perhaps I should have said this in hopes of clarification…”Public faith in Administrations can create consumer confidence in the economy…” For the sake of simplicity, if people believe that an administration, ANY administration, is going to benefit them economically (in the short or the long run) they’ll have more incentive to spend money. The irrelevance is that the voters, to whom the cry of “are you better off now” is directed, are the very ones who have the collective ability to impact the economy. They can, inter alia, invest in pets.com, socks.com, watch the market inflate and the deflate.
I was thinking about the Athenian building programs in the 460’s and 450’s, when an influx of tribute from the Delian League/Athenian Empire (which was then at its height) allowed Athenian popular leaders (Pericles, Kimon) to adorn the city with all those nice ruins we saw in the Olympic broadcasts. But we could also include the demagoges Cleon, Thucydides the wrestler, Alcibiades, and Demosthenes (stretching into the 4th) who all used the “are you better off now than you were then” argument to advance their agendas, and in some cases, to get elected. That’s how its relevant.
The good ole days of economic prosperity always look better in hindsight. You just have nice graphs to jusitify (or skew) the data, and don’t have to rely on the faulty memories of the voting public.
I’d expect more from an American Historian, Murph. You know as well as I do that the President and the Economy are usually unrelated. Clinton didn’t invent the internet (Gore did), but he rode the wave when everyone invested in cats.com. Bush just happened to be in office when folks realized that a cats.com website was just a stupid idea.
When is GITM going public? No business plan, nothing to sell, and financed by “advertising”…sounds like a winning investment to me!
Sorry, J-Go, but the whole “presidents don’t affect the economy” bit is a total canard. Sure, the Internet boom helped make the Clinton years something really special, but that economic uptick happened starting in 1993, when he (and the Dems, at great cost in the following midterms) embraced fiscal responsibility, tackled the budget deficits that had mounted under Reagan/Bush, made the tax system more equitable, and restored investors’ faith in the government’s handling of the economy (without, I might add, a single GOP vote.) In fact, the GOP fell all over themselves at the time to make idiot predictions that didn’t stand up, such as Phil Gramm’s “We are buying a one-way ticket to a recession,” or Newt’s declaration that this is “the Democratic machine’s recession, and each of them will be held personally responsible.”
No less an authority than Alan Greenspan (hardly a Clinton enthusiast) said of the ’90’s boom that the ’93 plan was “an unquestioned factor in contributing to the improvement in economic activity that occurred thereafter.” Or, I’ll give you another one, from Businessweek: “Clinton’s 1993 budget cuts, which reduced projected red ink by more than $400 billion over five years, sparked a major drop in interest rates that helped boost investment in all the equipment and systems that brought forth the New Age economy of technological innovation and rising productivity.” (If you want to side with the Clinton-despising National Review on this one, well, that’s your bag.)
And let’s not go the Cold War Dividend route. Saying Reagan’s trickle-down, deficit-tripling policies created the Clinton economy is a bit like saying that polio was responsible for producing the Salk vaccine. It doesn’t take a Ph.D. to figure out that there’s something wrong with a fiscal agenda in which you end up with 2 trillion dollars in debt and an economy where 99 percent of the generated wealth goes to the top 20 percent of the population. Even Reagan’s former budget director, David Stockman, admits that Reaganomics was a flawed plan that “shattered the nation’s fiscal stability.”
Now, obviously, there are countless other factors — productivity, technology, innovation, the international situation, war — that affect the national economy…anyone who argues otherwise is being disingenuous. But saying that presidents don’t affect the economy is tantamount to arguing that economic policy doesn’t matter, which is in and of itself a ridiculous statement. Do you really want to argue that the Dubya tax cuts have had zero effect on America’s economic situation over the past three and a half years?
I’d expect more from a Columbia historian, J-Go.
Yes, but economic growth or stagnation can happen regardless of the fiscal policies promoted by the White House. Tax cuts, discretionary spending, et cetera are designed to spur the economy in the “right” direction, but don’t always have the consequences intended.
The Clinton Era boom was NOT a product of Reaganonmics or of some far sighted economic stimulus program promoted by any administration. It was simply the coincidence of new technology, the brilliant marketing of that technology, and its subsequent bust.
Administrations can create consumer confidence in the economy, which in turn can increase spending, and so on…but the White House is not the sole perpetrator in creating booms or recessions.
All I am arguing is that the whole “are you better off now” determinant was irrelevant in 1980, 1992, and now in 2004. People have always, and I repeat always, voted with their wallets first, so the “it’s the economy, stupid” approach is the easiest way to appeal to voters. We can talk about Athenian “populist” politics in the 5th century over beers sometime, if you’re interested.
The numbers don’t lie, but they don’t always provide the most honest picture. That was the only real point I was trying to make.
Thanks for all cool links, though!
“Administrations can create consumer confidence in the economy, which in turn can increase spending, and so on…
All I am arguing is that the whole “are you better off now” determinant was irrelevant in 1980, 1992, and now in 2004.”
Irrelevant? Really? You’re contradicting yourself. Either economic policy matters or it doesn’t. Not sure where Athenian populism fits in either. But, ah well.
Perhaps I should have said this in hopes of clarification…”Public faith in Administrations can create consumer confidence in the economy…” For the sake of simplicity, if people believe that an administration, ANY administration, is going to benefit them economically (in the short or the long run) they’ll have more incentive to spend money. The irrelevance is that the voters, to whom the cry of “are you better off now” is directed, are the very ones who have the collective ability to impact the economy. They can, inter alia, invest in pets.com, socks.com, watch the market inflate and the deflate.
I was thinking about the Athenian building programs in the 460’s and 450’s, when an influx of tribute from the Delian League/Athenian Empire (which was then at its height) allowed Athenian popular leaders (Pericles, Kimon) to adorn the city with all those nice ruins we saw in the Olympic broadcasts. But we could also include the demagoges Cleon, Thucydides the wrestler, Alcibiades, and Demosthenes (stretching into the 4th) who all used the “are you better off now than you were then” argument to advance their agendas, and in some cases, to get elected. That’s how its relevant.
The good ole days of economic prosperity always look better in hindsight. You just have nice graphs to jusitify (or skew) the data, and don’t have to rely on the faulty memories of the voting public.