BS Detector

Comment Stream » DXD

Comment Stream
Filter comments by:
Highest rated Latest comments
Or filter by symbol:
  • The American Crisis and the Case for an Inflationary Depression
    "Alan Greenspan's artificially cheap credit policies caused an internal economic crisis, which coupled with President Bill Clinton's strong encouragement of globalization and foreign trade led to a dependence on debt that will deepen the current recession into a possible depression and cause rampant inflation.. look at our external debt under clinton and our trade deficit under clinton... he financed the strong economic growth of the 90s through foreign debt, the issuance of which has caused a debt bubble whose collapse could spell a devalution of the USD."

    I just love it when ideologues try to twist economic history to support their views. Here are some facts:

    The government, under Clinton or other, does not finance economic growth. It helps to create the environment under which economic agents make the decisions that drive the economy.

    Since at least Volcker, the Fed's most important responsibility has been to moderate inflation. With inflation low, there was no reason for the Fed to keep rates "artificially&quo... high.

    By the way, the lowest interest rates of the Clinton years were higher than during almost all of the 1945-1965 period. Why didn't the low interest rates of the mid-century cause bad things to happen?

    If you think the growth of the 1990's was financed by foreign debt, well, so what? If the decision to borrow to invest makes sense, does it matter to the borrower where the money comes from? Economically, does it make any difference whatsoever whether the lender is around the corner or around the world?

    But perhaps you're talking about the national debt. Have you forgotten that the ONLY budget surpluses the government had in the last 35 years were under Clinton? Does it matter to you that the part of the debt held by the public (which includes the foreign-held debt you fear) DECREASED by 16.6% in real terms under Clinton? Compare this to the 103.4% real increase that happened under Reagan, or the incalculable final total under Bush II. [source EROP tables B-73, 78]
    Dec 08 09:25 am |Rating: +1 0 |Link to Comment |View article
  • US Economy Still Has a Ways to Go
    Nova also wrote: "Even American agriculture is in trouble."

    Wait a second, your whole post was in jest, right? You're not actually serious about this assertion, are you?
    Jul 14 04:40 am |Rating: 0 0 |Link to Comment |View article
  • US Economy Still Has a Ways to Go
    Nova wrote: "Clinton and GW Bush killed US industrial base. Just look at auto, high-tech, appliances, electronics, etc.,"

    Take a few minutes to actually look into this. You'll find that you're wildly off-base. In fact, manufacturing output grew twice as fast during the 1992-2005 period as it did during the 1979-1992 period. Since 1992, motor vehicles and parts production has increased by two-thirds (roughly twice that of GDP growth), and computers and electronics manufacturing have increased something more than 1500%. As for appliances, well, I don't know. But why should they be assembled here instead of in Mexico?

    At least, that's a quick and dirty early in the morning take on it.
    Jul 14 04:39 am |Rating: 0 0 |Link to Comment |View article

BS Detector's Comments Stream Stats

  • 299 Comments, 65 , 54
  • Total Comment Stream rating - = 11