T Nation

Bush and The Economy

From somone who follows the market, and has for years, like some follow the ball scores:

A very intelligent black dude was on CNBC market report last week with an interesting Clinton v. Bush comparison on economic performance. Note: I only mentioned his ethnic makeup to demonstrate that not all AAs are Bush haters:

  1. Bush inherited an ecomomy cleared headed for recession. The NASDAQ in particular fell ~50% during Clinton’s last year in office. If anyody doubts this, it’s very easy to demonstrate. Check back and I’ll walk you through the process.

  2. Clinton never faced such things as a hugely falling market and 9/11.

  3. The main cause of debt was an astounding fall in tax revenues from a declining economy and 9/11 during his first year. Bush would have faced this problem no matter what he did.

  4. The Bush tax cuts softened the landing and permitted us to recover faster than normal. We now are experiencing all time highs in the markets and a tremendous upsurge in tax $ revenues.

Look up the tax revenues question for yourself: Google - historic $ US tax revenues and read to your delight. The “tax cuts for the rich” rhetoric is mainly an emotional political issue for the naive or misinformed or hypocrite “limousine liberals”.

There are two things that Bush has done very right IMO. Handling of the economy and supreme court appointees. And yes, I have some problems with Bush (namely letting our foreign policy be dictated by some Israeli double-agents).

But he has done a great job with the economy and supreme court. And hopefully he will veto that bullshit piece of hate-crime legislation making its way through Congress.

Obviously, you’ve never heard of keynesian economics.

Go wiki it please.

The economies rise and fall out of recession and peak periods is a natural economic process.

9/11 hardly effected the stock market the way people had previously thought an attack like that might, and the Iraq war certainly helped give are economy a bit of a booster shot.

Oh, and read freakenomics as well. Nothing to do with the argument, I just started reading it and it’s awesome.

Missed the end.

Tax cuts for the rich can be a good thing at times. Now? No.

Tax cuts for ordinary people can be good as well. Now? No.

Time of war should mean increased taxes ion the modern world.

And about the hate crime legislation;

if they’re gonna veto the gay addition, they need to come out and say they don’t support the whole concept, and they want to scrap it completely. Saying racial hate crime laws are good, but laws protecting gays are bad is bigoted and stupid. Either they don’t support hate crime laws as a whole, or they do support them, and sure let this bill protecting a group that is in obvious danger pass.

From the IRS:

[quote]Beowolf wrote:
The economies rise and fall out of recession and peak periods is a natural economic process.

Oh, and read freakenomics as well. Nothing to do with the argument, I just started reading it and it’s awesome.

[/quote]
How can we be sure that market fluctuations are always “natural”? I am not nit-picking I just don’t think economics is completely organic as it requires process–i.e. production, consumption–which isn’t always natural but contrived.

I am just wondering what you think “real” economic measurements are and are they completely independent of process? By that I mean do they exist in essence of the market or because of the market? I am trying to answer the question of whether economies exist independently of each other (i.e, the US economy is its own economy, etc) or is it the notion of “one world–one economy”? I am more inclined towards the latter.

I second your mark for Freakenomics; it was a terribly entertaining read for someone who delights in the use of statistics for lying.

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
The economies rise and fall out of recession and peak periods is a natural economic process.

Oh, and read freakenomics as well. Nothing to do with the argument, I just started reading it and it’s awesome.

How can we be sure that market fluctuations are always “natural”? I am not nit-picking I just don’t think economics is completely organic as it requires process–i.e. production, consumption–which isn’t always natural but contrived.

I am just wondering what you think “real” economic measurements are and are they completely independent of process? By that I mean do they exist in essence of the market or because of the market? I am trying to answer the question of whether economies exist independently of each other (i.e, the US economy is its own economy, etc) or is it the notion of “one world–one economy”? I am more inclined towards the latter.

I second your mark for Freakenomics; it was a terribly entertaining read for someone who delights in the use of statistics for lying.[/quote]

I’m inclining towards the one-world-one-economy thing right now, but I haven’t completed an eco course yet. I’ve read stuff from both Smith and Keynes, and they both make good points.

I believe the government can have an effect on the economic cycle, but I also believe that the cycle will occur, regardless of what the government does. The government can simply interfere to lessen the extremes. The problem is, governments don’t like backing off once they’ve softened an extreme.

Production/Consumption can be contrived in micro-situations, but as a whole, the world runs on natural laws of macroeconomics, at least that’s what I believe right now.

I’m very open to criticism, as I don’t think I know very much about this kind of stuff at all. I’d very much like to learn though. I’m still trying to get an actual copy (instead of an analysis of) Adam Smith’s work, and Keynes’s work as well.

I’ll recommend Thomas Sowell’s Basic Economics - A Citizen’s Guide to the Economy

again

Good book.

[quote]Beowolf wrote:
Production/Consumption can be contrived in micro-situations, but as a whole, the world runs on natural laws of macroeconomics, at least that’s what I believe right now.

I’m very open to criticism, as I don’t think I know very much about this kind of stuff at all. I’d very much like to learn though. I’m still trying to get an actual copy (instead of an analysis of) Adam Smith’s work, and Keynes’s work as well. [/quote]

Apparently some capitalists think we should be able to download it for free on the internet. I presume you were refering to Adam Smith, “Wealth of Nations”? I’ve been working my way thru it for the last year but think I might switch to a hard copy for more ease of reading.

I think you are mixing micro and macro economics. I think microeconomics follows a more “natural” law than macroeconomics. Since microeconomics deals with systems that utilize the economy it seems to me that that is where natural precedent is set.

For example, my village has one well with a limited amount of water and when that well dries up we have to move (microeconomics) vs. the state of the economy that drives consumption of water in general (macroeconomics) which can inclued contrived demand.

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
Production/Consumption can be contrived in micro-situations, but as a whole, the world runs on natural laws of macroeconomics, at least that’s what I believe right now.

I’m very open to criticism, as I don’t think I know very much about this kind of stuff at all. I’d very much like to learn though. I’m still trying to get an actual copy (instead of an analysis of) Adam Smith’s work, and Keynes’s work as well.

Apparently some capitalists think we should be able to download it for free on the internet. I presume you were refering to Adam Smith, “Wealth of Nations”? I’ve been working my way thru it for the last year but think I might switch to a hard copy for more ease of reading.

I think you are mixing micro and macro economics. I think microeconomics follows a more “natural” law than macroeconomics. Since microeconomics deals with systems that utilize the economy it seems to me that that is where natural precedent is set.

For example, my village has one well with a limited amount of water and when that well dries up we have to move (microeconomics) vs. the state of the economy that drives consumption of water in general (macroeconomics) which can inclued contrived demand.[/quote]

Thanks a lot for the link! I’m smacking myself for not checking the internet sooner. I just assumed it wouldn’t be free released, and my library hasn’t gotten a copy yet (surprising right?).

Did you feel the same about the economy when President Clinton was being hailed for balancing the budget?

[quote]Beowolf wrote:
Thanks a lot for the link! I’m smacking myself for not checking the internet sooner. I just assumed it wouldn’t be free released[/quote]

If you made that assumption, it shows how much Sonny Bono has achieved in his lifetime.

[quote]snipeout wrote:
Did you feel the same about the economy when President Clinton was being hailed for balancing the budget?[/quote]

The budget isn’t the economy, so I don’t know how the hell your making this leap.

I wasn’t exactly politically active when Clinton was president, but if the stock market had gotten a boost around that time I would have called it part of the cycle just the same. The government can soften the cycle with higher taxes, or more spending, depending on the statue of the economy (and oppositely, not spending and cutting taxes).

[quote]Beowolf wrote:
Obviously, you’ve never heard of keynesian economics.

[/quote]

I have.

It`s dead since the 70s.

Stagflation anyone? Not supposed to happen…

No wonder there was a “neoliberal”, i.e. neoclassic backlash when it comes to economics.

You are right, my mistake I was reading something budget based as well as this post and got my thoughts crossed up. Sorry for the post confusion.