Write 99 times: Clinton did not create the 1990s boom
Paul Krugman repeats the claim heard over and over crediting Bill Clinton with the prosperity of the late 1990s. It's true that by addressing the deficit Clinton kept interest rates low and capital markets healthy. But the 1990s boom resulted, more than anything else, from the fulfillment of the computer and technology promise that was made years previously. The productivity gains from spreadsheets, cell phones, SAP inventory-control programs, electronic publishing, intranets etc etc. drove the 1990s prosperity. Clinton was lucky enough to be president at that time.
Moreover, most of whatever gains ordinary Americans achieved came during the Clinton years. President George W. Bush, who had the distinction of being the first Reaganite president to also have a fully Republican Congress, also had the distinction of presiding over the first administration since Herbert Hoover in which the typical family failed to see any significant income gains.
Comments
Exactly. In 1983-84, I edited a college newspaper. It took at least ten people do paste-up; i.e. prepare the paper to be printed. In 1992-93, editing a magazine, I was doing the same work solo on a Mac with QuarkXpress software.
Posted by: Jamie Hunt | August 24, 2009 12:59 PM
What nonsense. The productivity gains related to computer use could be cited by yourself as the reason for layoffs and high unemployment, if that had happened in the '90s. Are you relegated to merely waithing around until the mext major invention to cause some more good times? Your logic, if we even call such claptrap logic, needs to be thought through a little more carefully.
Posted by: Richard | August 24, 2009 2:12 PM
Was any of the 1990s boom attributable to the "peace dividend" from the end of the Cold War?
Posted by: Jim | August 24, 2009 2:18 PM
Richard wrote:
"What nonsense. etc."
++++++++++++++++++++
Au contraire, it makes perfect economic sense.
There _were_ layoffs, but because the economy was growing (on account of productivity increases made possible by computers, etc.) many of those laid off found work elsewhere.
Posted by: Jamie Hunt | August 24, 2009 4:24 PM
Yes, he was lucky, but he was also good.
He pushed through tax increases that lead to a decrease in the federal deficit relative to GDP. He managed to stay out of foreign wars unlike some presidents we could name.
Income disparities narrowed slightly and there was significant growth in GDP.
The incredible difference in, for instance, job growth during his eight years (about 21 million) versus about 3 million in the four years preceding his administration and 4 million in the eight years after his administration cannot be ascribed merely to luck or external factors.
Posted by: Stuart Levine | August 24, 2009 7:25 PM
Stuart, Clinton did not create the 1990s boom, the economy expanded as a result of the advent of the Information Age. Ever hear of the "Dot Com Bust"?
Clinton also didn't involve himself in foreign wars, true enough. In fact, he did little about the Taliban's terrorism, which is why we're in two foreign wars right now. Ever hear of "September 11th"?
And taxes don't expand the economy. Taxes take money out of the economy. Unrestrained wealth redistribution leads to economic collapse. Ever hear of "communism"?
Posted by: Mark Hannisberg | August 26, 2009 10:03 AM