Reply With Quote
I see no reason why this should be true. What about the Austrians?
The theory of credit cycles does seem to explain the biggest busts of the last century. Isn't there a danger that keynesian spending just inflates the next bubble?
Naturally, when Clinton was in the White House, the GOP controlled Congress actually cared about fiscal discipline.
I see no reason why this should be true. What about the Austrians?
The theory of credit cycles does seem to explain the biggest busts of the last century. Isn't there a danger that keynesian spending just inflates the next bubble?
And Keynes' prescription was for an economy that had been mired in depression for years. Nowadays it's used as justification for various policies even when the economy is actually growing.
Lest we bother to think about the asymmetric monetary policy prescriptions used by our central bank.
You were the one who brought up inflation in 1980. I don't really take issue with your take on the Clinton surplus, except that, if it were possible to return to the *phony* situation of surplus under him, I would do it in a heartbeat.
Changing the argument now, are we?Are those numbers adjusted for inflation? Because here's a graph with the adjustment applied:
I can readily tell where the Clinton period was.
From here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt
The reason the percentage decreased is because we had a growing economy. Had democrats been in charge of congress, I'm sure they would have found ways to keep the percentages high as well!
You should ask, with a growing economy, why did we still have deficit spending? We were not at war either. Congress and the president should have paid down the debt. Not increase it farther.
Back to our original argument.
Did the debt ever decrease under president Clinton?
Debt and deficit, though related, are not the same thing. You're derailing the conversation, WC.
Please focus.
The Clinton administration of 1995-2001 was more conservative than the Bush one of, oh, 2001-2009.
I too, share your nostalgia for that time period, for at least then Republican conservatism did include a concern for fiscal discipline and avoiding foreign entanglements.
I only brought that up for a short response to Marcus' posting the quadrupling of debt over 12 years during the Reagan/Bush years, in case he didn't know the truth. It has nothing to do with the current administration, or the argument concerning president Clinton. It responded to show what can happen of we get high inflation again.
If not, it'll go down the collective memory hole as we try it again.
1) President Clinton had republicans in control of congress for six of his eight years.
2) We were at peace and had a growing economy as everyone prepared for Y2K.
3) 9/11 occured during president Bush's first year. It stalled the economy momentarily, we prepared for war, and we went to war.
I would say we can safely assume president Clinton was in the right place at the right time. President Bush was unlucky.
You blame the growth of debt on Carter and high inflation, rather than the growth of spending, government and debt under Reagan. How telling.
He was a Keynesian until the 50's, when he then changed his mind and proposed the word you used earlier (stagflation) to depict the use of the Keynes consumption function. He claimed the Great Depression could have been avoided entirely by applying monetary policy.
He was against government regulation of pretty much any kind.
The reason it declined is because you had a Congress who cared enough about fiscal discipline as well as an opportunistic president ready to sell out his own party.
Of course, it was derailed once you had a new 'conservative' president who was ready to sell out his own party and force the Congress to forget about fiscal discipline.
He said the Great Depression could have been avoided had the Fed actually acted as the lender of last resort. Sure, he opposed regulation in most other areas, but he certainly did not approve of excessive monetary growth and deficit spending as you so attached to him.
Not true. There is no one thing. Are you single minded? Cannot see there are generally multiple causes?
This deserves it's own thread. I'm done talking about president Reagan here. Besides, I'm getting off for now. Have to wait for any farther responses later today, or tomorrow.
But... I will ignore it if it's in this thread!
Back to my question:
Did the debt ever decrease under president Clinton?
What part of the graph you don't understand? I see it clearly shaping down during the Clinton years. That effectively means he did paid down debt, otherwise it wouldn't go down.
By all means, suit yourself, WC.But... I will ignore it if it's in this thread!
Where did I claim that? I pointed that his unregulated free market policies is what brought us here in the first place. That's all.
Yeah. Actual Republicans who wanted to reduce the scale and scope of the federal government and who weren't for preventative wars.
Yet the GOP found time to oppose Clinton's Balkan adventure.2) We were at peace and had a growing economy as everyone prepared for Y2K.
ROFL. Bush doubled down on his unlucky hand and now conservatives will be paying the price for a while. Not to mention that Bush not just diverged from conservatism, he doused it with gasoline and lit it.3) 9/11 occured during president Bush's first year. It stalled the economy momentarily, we prepared for war, and we went to war.
I would say we can safely assume president Clinton was in the right place at the right time. President Bush was unlucky.
Rove decided that economic and fiscal conservatism did not sell. He though the path to a permanent GOP majority was to roll with the social conservatives and the neo-progressive militarist 'national security conservatives'. That permanent majority lasted all of about 3 years.
WTF...
I never said it didn't decrease as a percentage.
I would go into more detail about how ing stupid you are becoming, but I don't have time.
My argument was about the increasing debt, period. Real dollars. That even though a budget said we had a surplus we didn't.
Did the debt, in dollars, ever decrease under president Clinton?
If that answer is NO, then there was no real surplus! Get it?
I'm talking about raw millions of dollars adjusted for inflation. There's no percentage there. Again, can you read a graph?
The problem is, that's not what caused the current problem.
Who cares? Did it grow at a rate anywhere close to what it did from 2001-2006?
Let's see your revisionist history of what caused this recession. I'm all ears.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
