> Opinion aside, that wonderful financial bliss you sustained > under Clinton began in 1982 with Ronald Reagan's tax cut. If > you don't believe me, go and look at the growth rate for the > Dow. From 1901 till 1982, it's a slow, steady increase. In > 1982, that growth rate takes a tremendous spike upward and > follows that same level of growth all the way through the > Clinton years. There's a graph on this page, scroll down > near the bottom:
That's actually a little myopic. The DOW is a good indicator, but not a great one when considering broad historic trends and is pretty much useless in determining cause. In general the market has enjoyed nearly constant growth since the end of the depression regardless of whose in office or which party is in control. Of course even if you claim that Clinton's economy was the result of Reagan you could also say that Reagan's was the result of Carter or Ford. But there's really no reason to: there are too many economic indicators (I think) to place direct blame on an administration. The fact is that every president blames a poor economy on their predecessor and takes credit for a good economy. The late 70's and 80's were a boon for manufacturing as we entered a rabid disposable phase of productization. Prepackaged foods took off like wildfire. New technologies (the VCR, CD-player, Cable TV, etc) created much more entertainment spending. Socially the 80's were much more materialistic than many other periods in history (a trend continuing today). One of the results of both the equal rights and the feminist movements was that more people than ever were getting educated (and paying college tuitions and aquiring debt) and entering the work force. Suburbanization continued like gangbusters resulting in more car and home purchases. Baby boomers having kids of their own meant more construction (for homes, services and schools for growing communities). The technical and computer revolution meant a need for more trained people. People that were getting paid quite well. None of this even begins to touch on the foreign situations at work either. By the same token I don't see how Jr Bush (or Clinton) could truly be blamed for the current economic downturn which is clearly a result of an unrealistic market. The point is that regardless of the administration there are an enormous number of indicators political, technological and social for economic success or failure. And you can't consider one in isolation as causal. Jim Davis ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=5 Get the mailserver that powers this list at http://www.coolfusion.com Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
