Bad economy???

[Calif. Hunter]

Check out this website that seems to think the economy is great!

http://members.cox.net/macallan_the/GW/GWBush1_Start.htm

 

[Tom]

Taken care of business, whoo ...

 

[ELKCHSR]

Homeless on every corner, empty houses for miles around because no one could afford to keep them, the world is in such a tragic state....LOL

 

[BuzzH]

Wait a minute...

If Clinton cant take credit for the HUGE economic gains made during his entire administration, Bush shouldnt be allowed to take any credit for this little "bump" on the economic map. I've read countless posts on here about how the president has no power and limited control over the economy.

That being said, I dont believe the economy is on much of a recovery.

The one and only one person I listen to and believe on the economy is Greenspan. He knows more about economics than any ten presidents combined. He's very concerned about the deficit, social security, and the retirement age. Bush hasnt done anything to help or even address those concerns at all. Since the president doesnt really have anything to do with the economy, well, he should at least address issues he has some control over, but he isnt even doing that.

 

[Tom]

There are some favorable comparisons for Bush's results compared to Clinton's. Here's the quote from Greenspan included, from 3/11/04
"The economny has made impressive gains in output and real incomes."

The most impressive thing to me is that home ownership is the highest level in history!

 

[BuzzH]

Yeah Tom, and guess who is responsible for controlling interest rates, rates which are at record lows??? The very same low rates that are making it possible for more Americans to afford their own homes.

I'll give you a hint, it has NOTHING to do with Bush or anything he's done...

Oh, and one more thing, the economy saw the largest growth rates in history under the 8 years Clinton was in office. Anyone that had a retirement account, money in the stock market, etc. made an absolute killing while Clinton was in office...nobody seemed to bitch about that, me included.

 

[Oak]

Here's what Greenspan had to say a little over a week ago. Doesn't sound like wine and roses to me.

Oak

America's soaring federal budget deficits represent a major obstacle to long-term U.S. economic stability even though they have yet to put pressure on interest rates, Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan warned on Thursday.

Greenspan cautioned against being lulled into a false sense of security about the deficit, Americans' low savings rates or the nation's trade deficit just because these problems have not yet triggered rising interest rates or a steep fall in the value of the dollar.

Posing the question of whether something has fundamentally changed that would allow the country to "disregard all the time-tested criteria of imbalance and economic danger," Greenspan said, "regrettably, the answer is no. The free lunch has still to be invented."

Greenspan told a banking conference that the federal budget deficit was a bigger worry to him than the soaring trade deficit or the high level of household debt because those two problems can be corrected by market forces.

"Our fiscal prospects are, in my judgment, a significant obstacle to long-term stability because the budget deficit is not readily subject to correction by market forces that stabilize other imbalances," he said.

Greenspan noted that the federal deficit, estimated by the administration to hit a record $521 billion this year, will amount to 4.25 percent of the total economy after showing a surplus just a few years ago.

 

[Nemont]

Buzz,
Since you think Greenspan is the most brilliant master of the economy ever here is some interesting reading for you.

Let's take a step a back in time and take a little history lesson. Think back to the gravy days of the 1990s. From 1992 to 1997, the S&P 500 soared 130 percent, or roughly 27 percent annually. It was the biggest bull market that many of us who'd been in the business for years had ever seen. All the economic indicators were pointing the right direction: Unemployment was down, manufacturing hours were up. Corporate profits rose about 120 percent over that period. The trade deficit wasn't ballooning at its typical breakneck pace. The Japanese Central Bank was flooding the world with money so we had an unusually good period so far, but nothing too dangerous here. These were good days for the country and the Maestro began taking the credit.

But here's the funny thing about the stock market, something even the most educated investors seem to forget when the going gets good: the stock market and economies move in cycles. It's just the way it goes. Don't take it personally. Markets have always done it; they always will. (Alan, are you listening?) A lot of people hoped the stock market had gone to a new, special place, that cosmic zone where stocks never go down. They continue to rise and we all get rich. The New Economy, I believe it was called - somewhat reminiscent of the New Era of the 1920s.

Well, we all know what happened to that myth. Corporate profits, we now know, peaked in 1997 and started to decline. Manufacturing hours were down. In the fall of 1997, the stock market, in turn, started to dip. Remember the other key thing about the stock market: It anticipates the future. It looks ahead. In other words, the stock market was recognizing that 1998 might not be a banner year for profits. When companies don't earn as much, their stock loses value. It's reality. Forget the Amazons: you need earnings to keep your stock price up.

But in the fall of 1997, something happened. We caught the flu, the Asian flu. Several key Asian economies, including Thailand and Malaysia, were the first to suffer when economies started heading down. Again, this was nothing unusual in economic cycles; marginal countries and companies always get caught first when declines begin. There is often an "event" which signals the normal end to bull markets, but the simple reality always is that it is time for that bull run to end for whatever reason. Schumpeter showed that instability is one of the strengths of capitalism. There is always destruction upon which the dynamic thrive and create for future growth. But it was bad news for major investment firms like Goldman Sachs and Fidelity who'd invested tons of money, through loans, bonds, and other financial instruments, in these countries. The phones started ringing in Washington. Who came to the rescue? Sir Alan. Greenspan started printing money and extending credit, pumping liquidity into the U.S. economy to make sure that the problems in the East wouldn't rock his friends in the West.

To me, this was a pivotal moment in Greenspan's career and a problematic decision. He should have let the markets correct themselves as they were already trying to do. Stocks would have fallen. Companies would have been hurt or possibly destroyed by the normal, economic decline. There would have been a bear market, panic and a selling climax. Many investors would have lost money. But that's what bear markets often do: they chasten those who get a little too greedy. As the late Fed Chairman William McChesney Martin once put it, the central bankers' job has always been to take away the punch bowl just when the party gets going. They have to step on the brakes before things get out of control. It's no wonder Martin held the position of Fed chairman from 1951-1970, longer than anyone else in history.

On Sept. 25, 2002, Greenspan told a group of economists again not to worry about his approach of sustaining the economy with a new housing and consumption base with more credit piled on top of the huge debt increase of 1997-2001. He is getting in deeper while still trying to override normal economic history and rules. He said, "These episodes suggest a marked increase over the past two or three decades in the ability of modern economies to absorb shocks." We do not need to worry he said because the world economy "has become more flexible." He is now a believer once again -- in a New Flexibility.

Among the most dangerous words in the world are: "It is different this time." The Maestro still believes once again that things are now different. History will judge him one of the worst Central Bankers ever.

Story: CLICK HERE

 

[BuzzH]

Nemont,

Can you name any one else who has been more successful in managing the economy?????

 

[ELKCHSR]

Greenspan for elpresidente....

 

[BuzzH]

Good post Elkcheese.

Oh, heres an article you may like:

Bush Backs Greenspan for Another Term as Fed Chairman


Alan Greenspan got the backing of President Bush on Tuesday for another term as chairman of the Federal Reserve, news services reported.

The Federal Reserve sets U.S. monetary policy and its decisions on interest rates and statements about the economy have major impacts on the stock market and business decisions.

Greenspan's current four-year term expires in June 2004. He turned 77 last month and underwent surgery Tuesday for an enlarged prostate, but is expected back at work by the end of the week, the Associated Press reported.

The chairman of the Federal Reserve is nominated by the president and must be confirmed by the Senate. Greenspan has been chairman since August 1987.
The White House said it did not know whether Greenspan would accept another term as chairman, Reuters reported.

At the Fed's last meeting on March 18, it left interest rates unchanged. The decision kept rates at 1.25%, the lowest in 41 years. The next meeting is scheduled for May 6.

Earlier this year, Greenspan was criticized by conservative Republicans for telling Congress that any new round of tax cuts needed to be paid for, a position that hurt the president's efforts to sell his proposed $726 billion tax-cut package, AP said.

 

[ELKCHSR]

Yea!!! So??? Here ya go...-
I would say to you, you have the where with all and apperently have walked on water your whole life....Why don't you run for these offices that you seem to think are never run right...?
The possitions seem to come open every four or so years!

Of course I would immagine that since you can't seem to hold your tounge on the name calling, you would be sent packing. But then again what do I know since the rules aren't written down any where

 

[Tom]

http://www.youdebate.com/DEBATES/REAGANOMICS.HTM

Remember that, its what did Clinton years so good. Well known fact, right? The cold war ended.

We've got a new war now, against the jihaders.

 

[BuzzH]

Tom,

I hate to burst your Reaganomics/ supply side economics bubble, but it doesnt work. Lots of top economists agree. In fact, I bet if you ask some economics experts where you work, they'd agree.

Do you honestly think an economic policy should take over 12 years to work?

I dont, neither do most economists. If Reagan worked 8 years on supply side theory, and Bush SR. did another 4 years wouldnt you think it would have worked well before Clinton took office 12 years later????

I question any economic policy when it takes 12-20 years to see any improvement....but thats just me.

Elkcheese, I never said I wanted Greenspans job, I said he did a good job, so did your President...

[ 05-18-2004, 17:36: Message edited by: BuzzH ]

 

[Tom]

You're funny Buzz, you're not bursting any bubbles I know of. Check this out, my friend.

Its from a policy research and analysis report by people who study this economic stuff.

"President Ronald Reagan's record includes sweeping economic reforms and deep across-the-board tax cuts, market deregulation, and sound monetary policies to contain inflation. His policies resulted in the largest peacetime economic boom in American history and nearly 35 million more jobs. As the Joint Economic Committee reported in April 2000:2

In 1981, newly elected President Ronald Reagan refocused fiscal policy on the long run. He proposed, and Congress passed, sharp cuts in marginal tax rates. The cuts increased incentives to work and stimulated growth. These were funda-mental policy changes that provided the foundation for the Great Expansion that began in December 1982.

As Exhibit 1 shows, the economic record of the last 17 years is remarkable, particularly when viewed against the backdrop of the 1970s. The United States has experienced two of the longest and strongest expansions in our history back to back. They have been interrupted only by a shallow eight-month downturn in 1990-91."

Lots of benefits from Reagan documented there. Here's a link for you.
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/BG1414.cfm

 

[Nemont]

Buzz,
Paul Volker was more successful. You should do a little reading by NON governmental (read Non Federal Reserve economist) economist. Many believe that the so called "irrational exuberance" that Greenspan spoke about during the hayday of the stock market was created by him.

The economy of the the late 1990's, at least after 1998, was built upon smoke and mirrors and mainly sustained by the trillions of dollars of liquidity pumped into it by the Fed. There were and continue to be some deep structural problems in the economy and the Fed. created many of them.

Jim Rogers, the guy from whom I quoted, has written two interesting books 1. Investment Biker 2. Adventure Capitalist. I think you would find it interesting reading.

Of course the President couldn't appoint a new Fed. Chairman at this point in the election. that would have had Carl Rove fit to be tied.

Nemont

 

[Tom]

What's your take on that Reagan stuff Nemont? You sound like you know something about this.

 

[ELKCHSR]

I never said I wanted Greenspans job, I said he did a good job, so did your President...

I never said you needed Greenspans job, the one you need to go for is President of the United States....
Why not shoot for the top, with your credentials and upstanding stature in the world, the American populas should vote for you with an overwhelming majority...

 

[BuzzH]

Elkchsr,

No thanks, I'm not corrupt or crooked enough for that job.

Nemont,

I'll have to look into those books, I'll report back.

Tom, Reaganomics is a joke.

 

[danr55]

Buzz, you really have to get over this "I want it now" mentallity.. Sometimes good stuff takes many years to fix what stuipidity screwed up in a few.

Believe me, 12 years is not a long time....