Replies

I agree with you. The apparent “prosperity” of the Baby Bush years was mostly false, fueled with a flood of cheap credit awash after 9/11. It wasn’t based on savings and investment, but on consumption and debt.

I agree with you. The apparent “prosperity” of the Baby Bush years was mostly false, fueled with a flood of cheap credit awash after 9/11. It wasn’t based on savings and investment, but on consumption and debt.

Although the government stats did not reflect it, I and many of my friends with small businesses noticed a distinct softening of the job market in the late 1990's accompanied by creeping inflation.

We were beginning to reap the 'benefits' of off-shoring our manufacturing and jobs, along with flooding the country with cheap guest workers to do jobs Americans couldn't/wouldn't do. This was hidden by access to cheap credit and the availability of cheap electronic toys made by neo-slaves in the third world.

'Experts' on the MSM chanted 'debt is good'. We were informed that the value of our homes and our income would always increase. The experts at the Fed claimed down turns were a thing of the past.

Reality has bit.

I never believed things were as great as the government claimed under Bush but things were FAR better than now. There were millions more people producing and millions fewer living on government handouts. It is amazing how some people can persist in the insane folly that consumption drives economies. Those of us who grew up working our tails off on a little family farm know that the only thing that keeps things going is PRODUCTION. Any fool can consume but when consumption exceeds production then you have modern day America and if this ain’t a depression then sugar ain’t sweet and skunks don’t stink.