Replies

I was there in 1992 and saw what I think ACTUALLY happened. If you remember, there was an economic downturn near the end of the Bush presidency. Much of middle and lower upper management was let go. At the time 'entrepreneur' was the buzz word (remembering now?) Concurrently, interests rate were falling, before, I might add, Clinton was anywhere near the White House. Rates continued to fall as a result of the Fed defeating inflation. You then had a combination of things going on: 1. Skilled middle management, flushed out of the system, created many new small companies, creating new products and services, and jobs; 2. Falling rates made it easier to borrow to grow business, and therefore the economy to expand; 3. Lower rates made it possible for what seemed like everybody to refinance their homes, lowering their mortgage payments, and releasing more cash into the system, to buy more products. The economy took off. It had NOTHING to do with Clinton. NOTHING! As the internet became pervasive, the Web economy was sold to the market, which was all know meant they through out the normal ways of determining a company's value. All the extra cash this economy had was ripe for the taking. Once all the tech stocks became obviously overvalued, the market then focused on quarterly earnings reports, which were manipulated to keep the stock values up.
The long term ramifications of the tech bubble are just beginning to be known. As well, the possibility of a real estate valuations bubble can't be denied. The bottom line is, Clinton had nothing to do with the economy, other than staying out of its way. The economy was already on the way back up when Bush left office. Clinton got into office by way of a lie, and he didn't stop there.

I'm going to re-read with your comments in mind.

On the strictly economic issues I don't expect any resolution and I do expect people to adopt positions along party/ideological lines. Good, strong arguments are the best that can be expected.

What disturbed me on first reading was something that Capitalist Eric also noticed; the author politely, but harshly, criticizes Robert Rubin for blatantly favoring friends on Wall Street and in the international banking community (on more than one occasion). Later he gives credit to Rubin for some policies he likes. And he leaves it at that! I don't think that's right.