Were the Ninties a Anomoly?

[Odin]

Originally posted by TCO
In the end, the dotcom boom was very wasteful.

That is why capitalism will fall in the end.

Basically the 90's was a time where the lack of a "Communist threat" took out some of the conservatives' ammo and the nation leaned left and elected Clinton. I beilive the victory of the Republicans in thie House in '94 was from gerrymandering. The 90's were basically a time of optimism at the end of the Cold War.

[TCO]

I have been directed not to call people morons. Hint, hint.

[Zkribbler]

In the 1930's under Hoover, in the 1980's under Reagan and in the 2000's under Bush, the Republicans instituted supply-side economics. The wealth these Presidents directed into the hands of the rich never trickled down. The U.S. had under Hoover, the Great Depression; under Reagan, the biggest stock market crash since the Great Depression; and under Bush, the bigget deficit in the history of humanity.

In the 1940's & 1950's, FDR & Truman instituted demand-supply economics putting money directly into the hands of consumers, creating the stunning growth of the mid-50's. Clinton re-instituted supply-side economics, and created the boom years of the 1990's.

So the 90's were not an anomoly. There were the result of the exercise of good sense.

[Imran Siddiqui]

*cough*

The 70s were the greatest demand-side economics decade. As Nixon said "We are all Keynesians now". In the 80s, we moved away from Keynes and ended up with a much, much, much more prosperous decade... which set up the building blocks for the 90s.

[Bosh]

The 80's were pretty good; certainly better then the 70's.

Actually average 70s unemployment was lower than average 80s unemployment (the early 80s were a real basket case). And the 90s weren't ALL that great, just when unemployment was getting low enough to get some real wage growth things went to hell, so we never got anything remotely comparable to the real wage growth for most of the populations that we had in the 50s, 60s and early 70s. Of course a lot of this has to do with be spiraling costs of the health insurance benefits that employers provide to employees, (or, increasily, don't provide) but still...

[el freako]

Well just looking the growth in the economy it's pretty much hobson's choice between the 1970's, 80's and 90's

GDP growth:
1970-1980: 37.0%
1980-1990: 36.9%
1990-2000: 37.0%


But the job market's growth has slowed sigificantly during the period:

Employment growth:
1970-1980: 26.2%
1980-1990: 19.6%
1990-2000: 15.2%

[TCO]

Are those US figures? Please label your stats more carefully.

[el freako]

Of course they are US figures, the GDP data comes from the Bureau of Economic Analysis and the employment data from the Bureau of Labor Statisics

[Asmodean]

Here in Denmark, we have had good, if not booming times since the late seventies. Once the shock of the oil prices in the early seventies waned off, we have had changing governments rougly every 6-8 years, and this has in fact done us good.

Our conservative/liberal governments like to have tight financial policies, conserving the economy, and our social-democrat governments have increased spending to boost the economy.

And every time the government has changed, it has done so at precisely the right time.

Not even the recession of this decade can be said to have hit us too hard.

Asmodean

[TCO]

Originally posted by Odin


That is why capitalism will fall in the end.

Basically the 90's was a time where the lack of a "Communist threat" took out some of the conservatives' ammo and the nation leaned left and elected Clinton. I beilive the victory of the Republicans in thie House in '94 was from gerrymandering. The 90's were basically a time of optimism at the end of the Cold War.

Central planning tends to be more wasteful than capitalism.

Most of the rest I agree with. Just not the gerrymandering thing. Where did you come up with that?

[TCO]

Originally posted by el freako
Of course they are US figures, the GDP data comes from the Bureau of Economic Analysis and the employment data from the Bureau of Labor Statisics

Well...they were percentage changes. I mean even a magnitude might have helped me.

Anyway, you need to drop your American-centricity. They are not the only economy that matters.

[TCO]

Originally posted by Zkribbler
In the 1930's under Hoover, in the 1980's under Reagan and in the 2000's under Bush, the Republicans instituted supply-side economics. The wealth these Presidents directed into the hands of the rich never trickled down. The U.S. had under Hoover, the Great Depression; under Reagan, the biggest stock market crash since the Great Depression; and under Bush, the bigget deficit in the history of humanity.

In the 1940's & 1950's, FDR & Truman instituted demand-supply economics putting money directly into the hands of consumers, creating the stunning growth of the mid-50's. Clinton re-instituted supply-side economics, and created the boom years of the 1990's.

So the 90's were not an anomoly. There were the result of the exercise of good sense.

So Enron, Worldcom, Tyco, and all the dotcoms were good sense?

[Az]

*points and laughs at GP*

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by TCO

So Enron, Worldcom, Tyco, and all the dotcoms were good sense?

No, they were a direct result of Republican deregulation, of the Republican mantra that govenment does not provide solutions to problems but is in fact the problem, and of the Repuiblican's PollyAnnic belief that we should place our trust in the innate virtue of corporations.

[KrazyHorse]

Stupid deregulation. I pay more for my telephone, gas and electricity here (by a factor of 2) than I ever did in wonderful, regulated Canada.