Bill is gonna grow the economy one more time woo hoo!

[ucrdem]

[awake]

1. The bubble of 2008 started with Bill

When he signed the bill killing Glass–Steagall

[JaneyVee]

2. No it didn't.

None of those banks that collapsed would have been effected by GlassSteagall.

[JRLeft]

4. Deregulation is good according to you.

We might as well elect Rubio or Cruz.

[JaneyVee]

15. Hillary has a Wall Street reform plan praised by Krugman and Stiglitz.

Bernie does not.

[JRLeft]

16. Hillary receives major donations from Wall Street she will do what she is told.

[MoonRiver]

41. By Krugman and Stiglitz?

I'm ok with them supporting her.

[JRLeft]

43. At the end of the day, whether Hillary wins or Trump it doesn't impact my life. I actually do

better under republicans, but the nation doesn't. Hillary is a moderate republican. Bernie is the only progressive with a legitimate chance and even that is slim.

If Hillary wins I will vote for her, but I won't give a shit if she loses either. There will be no donations or working on her behalf.

[MoonRiver]

44. Hillary is NOT a Republican. That is total BS.

My husband and I are well off also, so we don't suffer under Rethugs either. But I am extremely socially conscious, and completely believe in Hillary. And no, don't insist I give you a synopsis of why I support her. You can do all that research yourself. Or just go to her website. It outlines how progressive she is.

I WILL give a shit if a Rethuglican wins the general, because this nation will be completely screwed. I don't know how any Democrat could state s/he doesn't care about that!

[JRLeft]

45. Billions of people believe in things that are untrue.

Hillary is just that a moderate republican, a rational one. The problem is the the republican party is irrational. This is why the democratic party is a center right party now.

[MoonRiver]

53. You seem incredibly confused.

I'll just leave it at that,

[JRLeft]

57. No I'm not she's moderate republican, you're just used to getting nothing but corporatists for

national or statewide politicians, that it's tough for most to recognize actual progressives.

[MoonRiver]

59. Total baloney

and you know it.

[krispos42]

54. And I doubt it will see the light of day.

He who has the gold makes the rules.

[MFrohike]

12. Heh

Except for ones like WaMu and Wachovia, but don't let facts get in the way of a good story.

Oh, and Citi wouldn't have been need of yet another bailout if they hadn't been allowed to merge and play havoc, but we'll ignore that too.

[JaneyVee]

14. Find me one example of GS having any effect.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/aug/19/bill-clinton/bill-clinton-glass-steagall-had-nothing-do-financi/

[MFrohike]

17. From your link

We also contacted Barry Ritholtz, a wealth management expert and commentator, who said Glass-Steagall would have done nothing to stop the financial crisis, but not having it made the crisis worse. It encouraged banks to get bigger and to take on riskier investments, so the ripple effects of the crisis were bigger than they would have been otherwise, he said, adding that it wasn’t just the headline-making banks that struggled.

I suggest reading before posting, it's less embarrassing. Oh, and before you get hung up on caused, the mere fact that a lack of Glass-Steagall caused a decent sized problem on Wall Street to become a global crisis is a pretty strong endorsement for it. But, like I said earlier, don't let facts get in the way of a good story.

[awake]

19. From the Washington Post "Repeal of Glass-Steagall: Not a cause, but a multiplier"

"The repeal of Glass-Steagall may not have caused the crisis — but its repeal was a factor that made it much worse. And it was a continuum of the radical deregulation movement. This philosophy incorrectly held that banks could regulate themselves, that government had no place in overseeing finance and that the free market works best when left alone. This belief system manifested itself in damaging ways, including eliminating regulation and oversight on derivatives, allowing exemptions for excess leverage rules for a handful of players and creating dangerous legislation.

As the events of 2007 to 2009 have revealed, this erroneous belief system was a major factor leading to the credit boom and bust, as well as the financial collapse."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/repeal-of-glass-steagall-not-a-cause-but-a-multiplier/2012/08/02/gJQAuvvRXX_story.html

[Luminous Animal]

24. Yes it did. Clinton was the catalyst the crashed the economy.

[TIME TO PANIC]

52. It's the excuse Eric Holder used for not bringing them to justice.

Remember the 'collateral consequences' policy.

[JRLeft]

3. It's easier to remain ignorant on the facts.

[Ferd Berfel]

47. NAFTA - GATT - WTO - Allowing Glass-Stegal to go down - and Turning the

Democratic party over to Corporations. Yea great

[PowerToThePeople]

5. He is going to be a civilian consumer for the next decade?

eom

[ucrdem]

6. Radditz asked a gotcha about what Hillary would do with Bill

and Hillary said, I'll probably keep picking the china and let Bill work on what he's good at like the economy. Or words to that effect.



p.s. will post a transcript once I find one . . .

[PowerToThePeople]

8. An unelected 3rd term President?

[ucrdem]

11. Advisor

and O'Malley and Sanders said the same thing about their wives...

[Snotcicles]

7. Hillary gets the first word, the last word

and most of the words in between.

[ucrdem]

10. She's the only one who can play the grandma card

Who is going to tell a grandmother to zip it?

[SwampG8r]

60. I will im a great grandpa so i out rank her zip it hillary

It worked so well on wallstreet dontcha know

[ucrdem]

9. Good night and may the force be with you.

[MFrohike]

13. Comedy

Perhaps you could lay out exactly which policies he put into place that grew the economy while you simultaneously control for Greenspan's massive flow of free money? In short, why was the 90s different from any other time credit was cheap?

[ucrdem]

18. Let's look at some of the effects of those policies, starting with employment:

US employment,1990-2014: Notice anything about the Clinton years, 1992-2000?



source: http://www.statista.com/statistics/192398/employment-rate-in-the-us-since-1990/

[MFrohike]

22. So, that's a no?

Again, how was what he did any different from any other time when cheap credit was quickly expanding?

[ucrdem]

20. And now let's look at unemployment, same time span:

US unemployment,1990-2014:



source: http://www.statista.com/statistics/193290/unemployment-rate-in-the-usa-since-1990/

Notice the Clinton years, 1992-2000? Employment up, unemployment down, so let's give credit where credit is due.

[MFrohike]

23. Yes, let's

You should give the credit to one Mr. Alan Greenspan. You might also want to knock him for the recession that resulted from the inevitable collapse of the 90s equity bubble while you're at it.

Protip: if there's a gigantic elephant in the room, like easy Fed monetary policy, it'd be wiser to deal with that rather than deflect and hope nobody notices.

[ucrdem]

25. He downsized the military, invested in research and education, reduced tariffs,

maintained low interest rates and encouraged investment in new industries. Clintonomics looked a lot like Obamanomics and there's no single policy or appointee that carried the day. Bill really focused on it and was very good at it so the prospect of his return to the WH should be music to every Dem's ears.

[MFrohike]

27. Heh

Clinton maintained low interest rates? I wasn't aware that the president was the head of the central bank. I must have missed that.

You should try harder next time. You still have yet to answer the simple question: what was different from every, and I do mean every, era with a quick expansion of cheap credit?

You are right about one thing. Clintonomics looks EXACTLY like Obamanomics and that's a troubling thing. Bill's broad-based tax hike gave Greenspan some needed help when it came to creating the turn of the century recession. Bill made the classic mistake of neo-classical economics (which was quite directly contradicted by Keynes with the aggregate demand equation): he drained necessary money out of the economy, while simultaneously cutting the government spending that would help expand the economy, and starved that economy of life. The sequester and the ending of the FICA cut look remarkably similar.

[ucrdem]

29. Greenspan chaired the Federal Reserve board from 1987-2006.

If he was the master of the universe you claim he was the graphs I posted wouldn't look like Magic Mountain thrill rides. Whatever whacko website or podcast you're getting this stuff from is for the birds. The president CAN regulate the economy to serve the interests of the electorate or s/he can make his/her friends at KBR rich. Bill did the former and did it well. Barack is no slouch but Bill is a freakin' genius so I say again,

[MFrohike]

32. Ok

I've been polite. That was a mistake.

You still can't answer the basic question: why was the 90s so different from every other era of easy money? Now, the reason you can't answer it is because you don't understand. If you did, you wouldn't be spouting off unemployment figures and vague bullshit about "investments" in research and the like. You'd understand that every, yes every single one, era of easy money has extremely low unemployment and looks like the greatest show on earth right until it collapses because of the mountain of debt it builds. The 1830s? Check. The 1850s? Check. The 1890s? Check. The 1920s? Check. Starting to see a pattern or is it still too hard for you to grasp?

It's got nothing to do with Greenspan being the master of the universe and everything to do with the easy access to resources that occurs as a result of easy, cheap credit. You think the railroads or the massive expansion of internet connectivity were built by saving? Please. They were built on the back of cheap, easy credit that eventually came to an end when the lenders got cold feet because they took a look at the actual revenues of their debtors rather than continuing to buy their line of bullshit. Don't believe me? That's cool, man. There was thing about 15 years ago called the dot com bubble. You should look into it. You might find it reminiscent of what I've said.

"Whacko website or podcast." Now, that's some rich shit right there. I find that hilarious. Why? Only because it's clear that you don't know jack shit about the economic history of your own country. I quote you Keynes' aggregate demand equation and it sails right on by because you've never heard of it. I could cite Hyman Minsky for his financial instability theory, but you'd be like "wut?" You're busy yammering on about vague "investment" bullshit and waving around graphs, with no clue they have twins in every era I cited above, and thinking you know something about the subject. Allow what I've written to disabuse you of that conceit.

Oh, while it's cool that you can tell me Greenspan's title, I'd be more impressed if you could describe the Greenspan put. It was, you know, just a teensy bit important in the 90s. If you want some help with that description, cheap credit to prop up equity markets comes to mind. Wait, forgive me. You knew that, right?

[ucrdem]

33. What insidious "pattern" am I supposed to be noticing?

I've already answered your question several times. What your objection is to Clintonomics I can't begin to fathom, sorry.

[MFrohike]

34. Color me unsurprised

I've repeated the question in every post. I'll give you one last shot. I'll even reformulate it to make it easier to understand.

What did Clinton do in the 90s that made it any different from every other era with a quick expansion of cheap credit?

The pattern you should notice, from the eras I mentioned, is that every last one of them had fast economic growth and low unemployment. They all also ended in a crash. Not to be rude, but if you knew the first thing about American economic history, I wouldn't have to explain this. The dates would have been sufficient to make the connection.

The 90s boom rode on a wave of cheap credit made possible by the Greenspan put and low financial regulation. Clinton raised taxes in 93 and then proceeded to work with Gingrich and co. to slow the growth of federal spending. That caused his famed surplus. The surplus, if we assume that Keynes wasn't an idiot, meant that Clinton's policies had the effect of taking money out of the economy and playing a big role in the resulting crash. Since I know I have to explain it, look at Keynes' equation for aggregate demand and work out what happens when net government spending is negative. It makes the total smaller. When that happens, in the context of a credit boom, I'll give you one guess what happens next.

[ucrdem]

35. I thought you might be going there but hoped you had something better.

Seriously, how were the 1830s different from the 1990s? How about in every way possible? Half the country relied on a slave economy, there was no safety net, little regulation, certainly no SEC or other regulatory agency installed by FDR or subsequently. The Bush-Cheney catastrophe was the product of criminality and not some economic inevitability. And if we elect another criminal gang in 2024 and the economy tanks yet again, that won't be the Clintons' fault either.

p.s. and if you think they can't pull the same trick off twice look what Jerry Brown has accomplished in California.

[MFrohike]

36. Cute, but at least you tried

Of course, there's the teensy problem of all the other eras, except the late 1850s, that didn't rely on slavery and look just like the 1990s. But hey, man, you gave it a shot.

The crash I referred to should have been obvious. I meant the dot com crash. I do believe I referenced it a few times in the posts above just to make the point. I guess stating things outright was too subtle.

I wouldn't compare a state-level economy to the country as a whole. They're radically different entities. Plus, there's the whole issue that the state's fiscal policy is inherently neutral because it's required to balance its budget. I'd suggest looking toward the cheap credit provided over the last decade for insight into California. It sure doesn't hurt investment, and speculative, activities to be able to borrow money for nothing. Of course, on the speculative side, it sure doesn't help the cost of housing in places like San Francisco, which I believe is sporting a median house price of $1M these days.

Oh yeah, as for regulation and the safety net, so what? Sure, we had nominal regulation and a mediocre safety net, but how did they contribute to economic growth in the 90s? Let's be honest, the Rubin Treasury department was pretty free-wheeling when it came to financial regulation. Long before Glass-Steagall was formally repealed, Rubin and co. had effectively gutted it by granting waivers for commercial banks to engage in particular investment activities. It was likely the size of the Travelers-Citi merger that drove the legislation.

Regulation doesn't really promote growth so much as make it last. Safety nets make recessions not as bad. You can see the former in the fact that we had no financial crises or crashes for 40 years. You can see the latter by the fact the 2008 crash didn't become the Great Depression. That's quite different from making an implicit claim that they somehow aided economic growth in the same way that a credit expansion does.

[ucrdem]

37. So we should skip the Clintons and go straight to crash?

That's what Trump has on offer, I can guarantee it. And if you think Bernie has a better idea I'd like to hear it.

[MFrohike]

38. I weep

I can't tell if you're trying or if this is all tongue in cheek.

I didn't know the only choices were Trump or Clinton. As for Trump's economic policies, from what I've seen, which isn't a whole lot, they appear to be standard right-wing populist fare with a bit of movement conservatism tossed in the mix. George Wallace probably could have on the same platform, or close enough, though his economics were probably further to the left. All that being said, even if Donnie was the greatest economic wizard of all time, I wouldn't piss on him if he was on fire.

You sound like Larry Summers these days. He thinks the only way to have economic growth is to inflate bubbles and suck up the crashes. That's such a sad way to think. It's as though you guys think history started in the late 70s or something. It makes me weep.

Sanders' proposals aren't remotely as radical as a return to pre-deregulation America. He still operates under the silly "how do you pay for it" conservative budget logic, which tends to make central bankers laugh. Hell, even Greenspan understood how ridiculous that is and he's not the sharpest tool when it came to understanding human nature (witness the massive fraud of his tenure). That being said, his proposal to break up the banks, though ill-defined, has more potential in it than Clinton's sure to be ill-fated proposals to create a Rube Goldberg-style of regulation. Even if breaking up the banks meant a loss of efficiency (it really won't compared to today), it would reduce their influence in Washington if only because it's harder to get 100 people to agree than 5 or 6. That alone would be a worthy achievement because it'd make it possible to whittle down the privileges they've bribed Congress and the state legislatures to give them.

If you'll permit, there is a funny contrast between Sanders and Clinton on the question of large banks that makes me laugh. Clinton has taken the Progressive, as in the original Progressives, stance on the banks (and business generally), while Sanders has taken the traditional Democratic, particularly southern, stance on them. It's sort of a Teddy Roosevelt vs. Louis Brandeis for the new century. It opens up questions of the proper balance of antitrust and regulation, which are always interesting.

[ucrdem]

39. That's your answer? Sanders' über-lame Too Big to Fail proposal?

After all that zerohedge arglebargle, LOL. Well I guess called that one right. By the way have you read this brilliant document? Here, I'll paste in the ACTUAL TEXT OF Sanders' Proposal to Restore Justice to the Universe and Make the 99% Rich:

A BILL To address the concept of Too Big To Fail with respect to certain financial entities.

1. Short title: This Act may be cited as the Too Big to Fail, Too Big to Exist Act .

2. Report to Congress on institutions that are too big to fail - Notwithstanding any other provision of law, not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Treasury shall submit to Congress a list of all commercial banks, investment banks, hedge funds, and insurance companies that the Secretary believes are too big to fail, which shall include, but is not limited to, any United States bank holding companies that have been identified as systemically important banks by the Financial Stability Board (in this Act referred to as the Too Big to Fail List).

3. Breaking-up too big to fail institutions - Notwithstanding any other provision of law, beginning 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Treasury shall break up entities included on the Too Big To Fail List, so that their failure would no longer cause a catastrophic effect on the United States or global economy without a taxpayer bailout.

4. Definition - For purposes of this Act, the term Too Big to Fail means any entity that has grown so large that its failure would have a catastrophic effect on the stability of either the financial system or the United States economy without substantial Government assistance.

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/s685/text

That's it. That's the legislation. Not a summary. And hunting it up made me realize all over again the bogusness of his campaign.

[MFrohike]

40. Slow your roll, champ

We'll do this in bullet points, so you can keep up.

1. Zerohedge arglebargle. You really don't get anything I've said, do you? You're trying hard to sound smart, but you keep missing the mark when you write patently ignorant stuff like that. If you don't understand what I've written, and it's pretty clear that you don't, you shouldn't respond as though you do. It might fool the rubes, but it doesn't fool anyone else.

2. I didn't know that badly written bill is written in stone. If that's too subtle, which I'm sure it is, let me be blunt: bills can be rewritten quite easily.

That idea simply has more merit that Clinton's proposals, nothing more. Her policy proposals rely on a regulatory structure that hasn't been ideologically captured. If you believe in that, I've got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.

3. While this has been a hoot, it's run its course. Have a nice day.

[Snotcicles]

46. Tech was his lucky bubble. nt

[ucrdem]

21. From the annotated WaPo transcript, now complete:

And with respect to my own husband, I am probably still going to pick the flowers and the china for state dinners and stuff like that. But I will certainly turn to him as prior presidents have for special missions, for advice, and in particular, how we're going to get the economy working again for everybody, which he knows a little bit about.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/12/19/3rd-democratic-debate-transcript-annotated-who-said-what-and-what-it-meant/

[oasis]

28. Over 22 million new jobs created. Bill is tops in my book. nt

[ucrdem]

30. Yep. And converted the then-largest budget deficit in US history to the largest surplus,

achieved the lowest poverty rate in 20 years, lowest unemployment in 30 years, lowest income tax burden in 35 years, lowest infant mortality rate in US history . . . it's an impressive list.

[oasis]

31. Yup, impressive and undeniable. nt

[mmonk]

26. The saddest comment I've read all night.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

42. One Clinton was too many, woo-hoo!

[Vinca]

48. I've just been reading a chapter about Alan Greenspan in Matt Taibbi's book "Griftopia."

Between Greenspan and financial advisors from the Clinton administration, they made all the wrong decisions during that time and those decisions led directly to the 2008 meltdown. It's worth the read. Taibbi has managed to decipher the tangled web that is our financial market and almost makes it understandable for the average person like me. If Hillary is elected, I hope she keeps Bill far, far away from monetary policy.

[ucrdem]

49. LOL, nothing personal but Taibbi is a libertarian assclown.

I'd take his reporting on the Clintons about as seriously as medical advice from the Home Shopping Network.

[Vinca]

50. He knows finances inside and out.

The book is not partisan. It takes both sides to task. Did you know Alan Greenspan was an Ayn Rand fanatic? That explains a lot of what went on. Don't deride Taibbi just because a Bernie supporter mentioned him.

[Armstead]

55. if you don't like him then read some William Greider....

Same kind of information but more serious

Shooting the messenger doesn't change the truth

[Agnosticsherbet]

51. In accordance with the Constitution, Bill isn't going to dick.

He is an kitchen table advisor.

[moondust]

56. The tech sector grew the 90s economy.

Building/shipping/supporting PCs for millions of desktops and laptops for millions of laps created lots of jobs.

All Bill Clinton had to do was stay out of the way. And smile when he was given credit for it.

While all that was happening, many U.S. factories were being closed and moved offshore.

[Warren DeMontague]

58. I think Obama's presidency will age better, personally.

I supported Bill Clinton at the time, but a lot of his decisions have not held up so well in hindsight.

If his wife wants to grow the economy, telling silicon valley to break the encryption US businesses depend on, and demanding broad powers to censor the internet when free communication has created unprecedented growth...

I remain skeptical. If last night was any indication, she plans to "grow" the DEA gravy train and create surveillance jobs, thats about it.