Skip to comments.
The prosperous '90s -- a hoax? [Wall Street Succumbs to the Clinton Malady]
CNN ^
| Tuesday, July 2, 2002
| By Mark Gongloff, CNN/Money Staff Writer
Posted on 07/02/2002 11:08:15 AM PDT by JohnHuang2
Edited on 04/29/2004 2:00:47 AM PDT by Jim Robinson.
[history]
NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - U.S. investors, learning every day that some of the same companies that swept them off their feet in the 1990s were cheating on them all along, are so jaded they're even starting to wonder if the '90s economic boom, a rock-steady source of comfort, was a big lie, too.
(Excerpt) Read more at money.cnn.com ...
TOPICS: Business/Economy; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS:
To: JohnHuang2
BTTT
Fundamentals Rule! (in the long run)
Never forget the market needs to clean out the debris of the Clinton Bubble.
2
posted on
07/02/2002 11:13:38 AM PDT
by
polemikos
To: polemikos
Amen -- and the fundamentals are looking better each day.
To: JohnHuang2
good stuff
To: JohnHuang2
Well, ... Character didn't matter in the 90's.
5
posted on
07/02/2002 11:18:48 AM PDT
by
Falcon4.0
To: Falcon4.0
Well, ... Character didn't matter in the 90's. I can still remember the spin mantra of Carville, Begala, and Co. in 98.
"People care about the Dow Jones, not Paula Jones."
6
posted on
07/02/2002 11:24:23 AM PDT
by
Dane
To: JohnHuang2
Every time there is a downturn, highly levered companies get killed.It happened to regional banks and oil service companies in the '80's,S&L's and retailers in 1990, and now Telecom firms that have seen their pricing collapse while their debt loads strangled them.
What isn't said in any of these pieces is the deleterious effects of poor monetary policy from 1998-2001 that drained liquidity from the economy, and rotten regulations that turned telecom franchises into cash burning sinkholes.
7
posted on
07/02/2002 11:28:50 AM PDT
by
habs4ever
To: JohnHuang2
bump
To: JohnHuang2
Another excellent job, John. As far as the Clinton administration and its psychological impact on the workings of corporate America, I agree. Yet, I think there was probably more direct involvement in these activities by the administration in addition to setting the tone. I am reminded of the $25,000 per seat trade missions under Ron Brown at Commerce. Certainly much was said during those missions about possible ways to raise stock prices and profits. I remember ole whats-his-name, the Loral and then Lockheed/Hughes CEO, who got special changes made by Clinton to shift approval of dual use technology from State to Commerce so that Lockheed could sell important technology to China and increase his (Oh Yeah, Bernard Swartz, wasn't it?) end of the year bonus. What about the bail out of Goldman Sachs on its loan to Mexico while Robert Rubin, just recently out of Goldman Sachs, was Sec. of Treas.? What about the blatant ignoring of the campaign finance laws with Gore citing "No controlling legal authority." when caught with his hand in the cookie jar? (I guess that is leadership rather than direct involvement.) What about John Huang (heh, heh) in Commerce? What about Hillary's great good fortune in cattle futures? What about Terry MacAuliffe and Global Crossing?
I am sure you and others can think of many more examples of direct Clinton involvement in crooked business affairs.
To: Mind-numbed Robot
How about the day in 1999 or 2000 when the Dow Jones average dropped 500 points very rapidly, and then within hours bounced back, so that the price graph for the day looked like a straight line with a very sharp "V" in the middle of it? I believe mention was made of a "plunge protection team" managed by Clinton's buddies.
To: JohnHuang2
bump
11
posted on
07/02/2002 12:57:36 PM PDT
by
timestax
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson