MyDD :: Bad Research on the REC LIST

Bad Research on the REC LIST

by RisingTide, Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 09:57:47 AM EST

I'm sorry, this ain't no pissing contest, and even if it was, I don't got a dick, so it is irrelevant. I'm going to post this, and then I'm going to walk away. I'm sure Lakrosse made some wonderful points, that I probably agree with. I haven't read them yet, and may not, at all.

Right now, I want to talk about what the scholarship has to say about why Bill Clinton's economy was fundamentally strong (note: looking at my last diary, you might be asking -- wtf? Just because I can't trust the gov't statistics doesn't mean that there aren't statistics out there, and it doesn't mean that scholarly research can't be done with the CORRECT statistics).

So, what am I trying to say here? TEN YEARS AGO, the idea was that reducing the federal deficit would save the economy. That was conventional economic wisdom, you know by the eggheads, not just the cocktail parties.

That isn't what they're giving credit for, today. Today, the credit for Clinton's boom (which, it should be noted, is widely accepted to have been artificially extended by the dotcom bubble, but was in fact a true boom) goes to infrastructure investments.

O-man has a lot of Chicago School economics people on his team. Let's just say that there's a reason he's not running on the balanced budget, and that reason is that the science doesn't show that balanced budgets save the economy. Come to think of it, none of the Democratic candidates were running on balanced budgets.

End of Rant. I go read rest of rec list now.

Tags: Clinton, Economics (all tags)

Permalink :: 21 Comments :: Post a Comment

A lot of people stuck in the anger... (2.00 / 1)

part of grieving.

by IowaMike on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 09:58:59 AM EST

GOOD GRIEF! (2.00 / 2)

LET IT GO!

What are you, a PUMA in reverse?

Hell's bells, even the GOP didn't have to crucify Eisenhower's record in order to make Reagan their 'saint'. We can have two great ones, you know?

by emsprater on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 10:03:09 AM EST

nope. (none / 0)

next diary will be a "yay Bill Clinton I love you" diary (re: afghanistan). I tend to think in fragments, and that's how I'm going today.

His head is bowed. He thinks of men and kings. Yea, when the sick world cries, how can he sleep?

by RisingTide on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 10:05:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: GOOD GRIEF! (2.00 / 5)

That would be an AMUP.

by MeganLocke on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 10:24:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

actually (2.00 / 1)

Hillary ran on balancing the budget...

Your research is wrong.

vote blue in 2008

by sepulvedaj3 on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 11:14:18 AM EST

*blink* can you cite me a source on that? (none / 0)

I ... am abashed.

His head is bowed. He thinks of men and kings. Yea, when the sick world cries, how can he sleep?

by RisingTide on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 11:15:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: *blink* can you cite me a source on that? (none / 0)

http://209.85.141.104/search?q=cache:w-o oXZPxHJ4J:www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/ middleclass/+hillary+clinton+%22balanced +budget%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd= 1&gl=us

by markjay on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 11:26:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]

spectre != reality (none / 0)

moving "back towards" balanced budgets isn't hard, when you're looking at GWB's tenure as your starting point!

;-)

Thanks for the citokate!

His head is bowed. He thinks of men and kings. Yea, when the sick world cries, how can he sleep?

by RisingTide on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 11:29:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: actually (2.00 / 1)

Your research is wrong.

If this diary is to be considered "research," then your comment is a PhD dissertation!

by markjay on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 11:28:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: actually (none / 0)

well i like to think all my comments can be phd dissertation material jk lol

vote blue in 2008

by sepulvedaj3 on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 01:28:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: actually (none / 0)

And Lost.

by venician on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 12:21:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Here is the error in your logic (2.00 / 1)

"Today, the credit for Clinton's boom (which, it should be noted, is widely accepted to have been artificially extended by the dotcom bubble, but was in fact a true boom) goes to infrastructure investments."

This is a false statement.

The reason the boom existed was because the world wide business community had faith that the US government and monetary policy was in wise hands. It started with the later years of Bush Sr when he raised taxes and cut military spending.

That confidence allowed America to have cheap access to capital. that cheap access to capital allowed us to refinance our debt. One of the early critics of Clinton Namely Rush was moaning on how Clinton moved the debt to short term to get better rates but that this could have a down side if money didn't stay cheap.

Clinton did what investment in infrastructure that he did during a regime of very tight fiscal discipline. Because he didn't spend his money when oil prices were up he publicly threatened that the us would leave oil if the prices didn't get in line and the prices did as a partial result to a valid threat. Why? Because he had the access to capital consistent with saying the US will now move 400 billion into solar or 400 billion into coal or whatever Bush can't do this without collapsing our economy but Clinton could have.

Bush on the other hand has no discipline, spends what he doesn't have, caused others to doubt our nations economy and our cost of capital is going to skyrocket. Since we are a net borrower this will utterly change our standard of living and weaken our nation.

Clinton inspired business types in a way that carter did not and Obama will not unless Obama goes out of his way to become a Bill Clinton clone after preaching how evil Bill Clinton was.

by dtaylor2 on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 12:17:02 PM EST

Here is the flaw in your logic... (2.00 / 1)

Obama is already being fiscally supported by Wall Street. They know that the best way to get back to making money again is to have a democrat in office. Not that that will stop the inevitable crash when he gets into office (there are microeconomic reasons for that -- realignment on that scale is bound to cause problems. watch for it to rebound quickly, though, if the fundamentals look good. which they won't -- am I a bear today or what?)

His head is bowed. He thinks of men and kings. Yea, when the sick world cries, how can he sleep?

by RisingTide on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 12:51:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Here is the flaw in your logic... (2.00 / 1)

The best way to get back to making money is to be energy independent and or massively increase exports.

If McCain has a stronger program in that direction than Obama he will be a stronger president economically.

So far McCain with Nuke is holding an ace regarding energy that Obama hasn't countered with solar/wind etc.

If Obama wants to be the school and healthcare president then he will sink the reputation Bill Clinton made for us.

We need a massive increase in exports and reduction in imports. The president must make all other matters hobbies with very small funding in order to have the kind of economy Bill Clinton was able to create.

Unless it is truly revenue neutral or positive America just doesn't have the money to be blunt.

If we are at peak oil our civilization will depend on alternate energy and eduction and healthcare are less important than that.

by dtaylor2 on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 01:40:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Past Peak Oil... (none / 0)

peak oil hit sometime in the past five years or so.

And I do agree, the economy is first priority!

But we can save America without dramatically increasing exports... If we only put enough money towards infrastructure (that includes fixing our powergrid, making green jobs, etc.). If all that money (billions) goes towards making American jobs, then we stand a chance, even without huge exports.

I also expect imports to dramatically decrease, as the price of oil goes up. Bananas will no longer be the cheapest fruit at the store (ever wonder why they're the cheapest?)

Nuclear energy is finite, just like everything else, except solar and wind and geothermal. I find myself rather skeptical about nuclear energy being a "cure all" -- although I do support the program to create a fusion reactor (we have blueprints! now we need prototype!)

I do not think McCain can be better economically than Obama -- in a society where a secretary is taxed more percentage-wise than her stockbroker boss, something is dramatically wrong. That, plus reregulating the financial sector (twenty times leverage? doesn't that sound like the roaring twenties to you?), will go a long way.

I'm sure that a good healthcare plan will be revenue neutral, in terms of overall spending of GDP, and it will also make our companies competitive again.

Shames me to say it, but I'm not sure that the education benefits Obama proposes are quite the same.

America is broke because no one paid for Bush's War.

His head is bowed. He thinks of men and kings. Yea, when the sick world cries, how can he sleep?

by RisingTide on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 02:05:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Clinton bashing is not condonable (none / 0)

and that is why people here will not stand for it.

by Lakrosse on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 12:59:46 PM EST

so why in the good lord's name (none / 0)

did you troll rate me saying the same goddamn thing?

His head is bowed. He thinks of men and kings. Yea, when the sick world cries, how can he sleep?

by RisingTide on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 01:07:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Bad Research on the REC LIST (2.00 / 1)

I get the ranting part. I just didn't see a point to your post. Do you have one?

Purity! Or else!

by ChitownDenny on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 02:02:21 PM EST

I don't like bad research (none / 0)

and I'd rather not see untruths bandied about without any rebuttal.

His head is bowed. He thinks of men and kings. Yea, when the sick world cries, how can he sleep?

by RisingTide on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 04:09:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Bad Research on the REC LIST (2.00 / 2)

The Chicago School of Economics is a conservative thought, assuming one's actions are based on rational decision-making. Milton Friedman didn't understand that many economic decisions aren't rational.

Purity! Or else!

by ChitownDenny on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 02:05:38 PM EST

Dude! you made an intelligent, coherent point! (none / 0)

mojoed with prejudice!

Yeah, I do realize that. But assuming that they haven't adjusted to the idea of irrational decision-making is kinda silly. There was an entire article comparing Obama's team to the type of incrementalist approach that the departure from rational decision making was. It was a good article.

His head is bowed. He thinks of men and kings. Yea, when the sick world cries, how can he sleep?

by RisingTide on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 03:10:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.