Reply #36: It's not abstract theory -- and it's not "hate" [View All]

[Armstead]

Gosh you Clintonistas love that word "hate."

I've been reading Greider for a long time. Yes his assesments are often downbeat -- but that is because he is analyzing a situation that is downbeat. BUT I don't believe is is simply a pessimist. He does acknowledge the positive side of things. But he is not a Pollyanna.

Your claim that the Clintons fostered one of the greatest economic eras is only partially true. First of all, the Clintons coincided with the emergence of new technology, which would have resulted in an explosion of economic activity no matter who was in charge.

And much of that boom was a bubble, as we learned as Clinton was leaving office. And the aftermath was bad because the boom itself was based on a lot of illusion. Remember all of the happy talk about how "the days of economic cycles are over" and that the economy would be on a continued upward path from then on....Gimme a break.

The Clintons presided over a period of unprecidented consolidation of the economy into the hands of a few monopolistic corporations. They also supported the system that was deliberatly designed to weaken or eliminate the ability of nations to establish their own laws and policies. The whole purpose of "free trade" was to assert complete domionance of "markets" (i.e. big global capital) over civil laws.

As for the right claiming that Clinton wrecked free enterprise, that's not quite true. In all of the Clinton bashing by conservatives over the years, the focus has mostly been on NON ECONOMIC issues. The right wing has claimed that Clinton is a womanizer, personally corrupt, a supporter of gays....etc. But they have seldom criticized him economically, except on the occasions when they lump him with all Democrats as a "socialist" in a meaningless way.