In the 90's, the economy....

[Bread and Circus]

[Spider Jerusalem]

1. c) was a sham built largely on the unsustainable tech bubble.

also a) (deregulation of broadcast media, utilities, etc).

[bellasgrams]

4. A lot of the deregulation in the utilities happened before 1990.

I know, I worked for a utility thru the dereg stage. If customers only knew what went on. You could call 5 diff. people get 5 diff answers to the same question. We all heard the same info. but people interpreted it differently. There was nothing right or fair about the prices people were charged. It eventually got better but still a lot of wiggle room.

[Deja Q]

14. Thank you.

:thumbsup:

I'm trying to read more thoughtful posts than the usual throwaway gibberish -- and doing more on my part to be thoughtful when it's relevant to do so.

[Hoof Hearted]

2. Was a HELL of a lot better than it is now!

'effin Republicans.

[Fresh_Start]

3. the extremely low unemployment rate forced

corporations to share some small amount of wealth with their workers
minimum wage increases passed during Clinton's term were also specific to assisting low wage earners and probably shifted the wage scale for other workers close to minimum wage

[dmallind]

5. You missed the correct choice

favored all

Corporate taxes were increased, as were taxes on the wealthy, but the burgeoning spending power of all consumers and industry allowed them to prosper regardless.

Lower socioeconomic sectors got EITC and tax breaks/credits, and a heck of a lot more jobs to fill that helped lift seven million of them out of poverty which of course allowed them to spend more with the corporations and the wealthy who own them.

Boom times are not a zero sum game.

I went with the second choice simply because as there are more of them, the benefit accrued to more of the "average people", but in reality all benefitted.

Even on such an unrepresentative anti-Clinton skewed website as this one, you're not going to see many people who will whine about those times, since we have both hard data and living recent memory to gainsay any revisionist claptrap about how horrible it all was when a Clinton was president.

[TexasObserver]

11. Co-Sign this correct analysis.

"Boom times are not a zero sum game." is right.

I feel the balanced budget was an important part of laying the predicate for the strong growth. I don't credit the tech boom, exclusively. As soon as Bush took office, made Tax cuts his first priority, and got it, the 2001 decline began. It was well on its way down when Enron blew up in August, followed by Rudy Guiliani Day. The 9/11 dip was short lived. It was the disasterous Iraq war, its impact on oil prices, and the impact of the out of control deficit spending which brought on the 2003 decline, IMO.

Business generally does better under Democratic presidents, because they don't spoil big business like rich brats. Republican presidents roll over for big business, and in doing so invariably kill the goose that lays the golden eggs. They let the big boys run loose until they've trashed the credit markets, overextended themselves, and moved valuable US assets overseas.

[sandnsea]

16. EIC was signed in the 80's

It was increased in the 90's, but it was always there. There were no other tax breaks that helped low income people. The college and other tax credits helped the upper 50%.

[redqueen]

19. Good catch.

:thumbsup:

[dmallind]

20. Ermmm so an increase didn't help them? The $400 tax credit for kids

didn't help poor families? The lower tax scales at low income levels that meant a person earning the same amount in 1994 as 1993 paid less taxes (earning a low salary indeed in the early 90s I remember this well) didn't help the working poor?

[sandnsea]

25. No and I'll explain why

Low income people didn't get an increase in minimum wage so the existing tax credits already wiped out all their tax liability.

Almost ALL the tax credits in the 90's helped the upper 50%.

[dmallind]

28. Minimum wage DID go up under Clinton

And poor does not only include minimum wage earners.

[redqueen]

6. Didn't ole Bill actually RAISE taxes on the wealthy?

I'd say they didn't like that not one bit, and would consider that they weren't "favored" because of it.

Now as for corporations... that's different...

[dmallind]

7. Well yes and no

Yes he raised taxes on the welathy - and on the corporations too in the 1993 ERA/Budget reconciliation

But the businesses had such gains from the economic boom and all the customers they could handle so they prospered too, as did their rich owners.

Me? I'm not the jealous type, I don't care if the rich get richer as long as the rest of us do too. My gain does not have to come from Bill Gates' pocket.

[redqueen]

I wouldn't be so quick to call it jealousy.

I'd call it a desire for fairness.

If everyone's boat was riding at the same rate, that'd be one thing. I'm not sure that was the case.

[dmallind]

10. Speaking only for me. Fair point on differential

But we are a capitalist economy driven in large part by consumer spending. Given that, any increase in wealth from consumers is always going to "trickle up" and be concentrated/magnified by those who control the businesses which supply those needs (and the businesses that supply those businesses' needs and so on) which of course will mean more wealthy individuals.

Look at it this way. If no-one was so poor as to be hungry (which would be a good thing right), we'd have tens of millions of people who were only a little bit richer. They'd be spending that money in hundreds of thousands of food stores who would be spending their money in thousands of distributors who would be spending their money in hundreds of manufacturers. Every step up the supply chain becomes more concentrated, so the benefit becomes greater. Since the poor tend not to own stores let alone manufacturing companies, those concentrated gains will go to at least those comfortable enough to own equities, and far more so to those rich enough to own substantial interests or outright companies.

The only way NOT to make it this way is for all people to become owners - and your choice there is either classical socialism or enforced retirement savings in the stock markets. Neither are all that sellable.

[redqueen]

12. It's actually called "Bubble Up" economics...

and your thing about the rich getting richer would make sense IF and only IF it wasn't as out of proportion as it is.

The only time it was was after FDR. Since the 80's it's been unaccountably out of proportion. Yes, even under Clinton's administration.

[dmallind]

17. Well there's no official name I'm aware of

so feel free to use whichever you like.


but again it would NOT make sense if it was proportional. There are more poor people. Lots more. They have a very high marginal propensity to consume, so whatever extra money they get is spent, naturally enough. Consumption spending benefits the wealthy who supply consumption needs. There are fewer wealthy people. Their individual benefit will therefore be greater.

That's just direct impact of spending. But the "wealthy" or at least the comfortable also have an easier time in taking part in more ways to increase wealth. The poor can only benefot from increased wages or transfer payments. The truly poor pay little to no income taxes. The lower middle class pay much less, even as a percentage, than the upper middle. Tax cuts then are by their nature skewed towards at least the comfortable. Stock market gains are useless to those who have no income left over to invest after necessities. Housing gains only hurt renters. Access to low interest loans can't help people who have no credit to get them and no spare income to repay them.

The only way to make it proprtionate is to put HUGE tax rates on the well to do, including some where the definition of "wealthy" would be a stretch. That's just not politically viable, and is very difficult to pull off without putting the brakes on other sectors of the economy even if it were.

Wheteher we like it or not (again personally I don't worry about that. I've never been one to worry about other kids getting bigger Christmas presents or other workers getting bigger bonuses. When I'm given a gift or a bonus or when I have a chance to improve my income through a better list of job opportunities, lower unemployment or whatever I see it as a gain for me, and spare not one
thought for those who gain more) it's reality. Gains will not be proprtionate as long as we are a capitalist economy with a moderate tax burden.

[redqueen]

18. It's as official as "trickle down"... and less nonsensical than "trickle up"... but... whatever.

It was proportional after FDR.

Guess that was some kind of miracle or something.

Your insistence on framing this as an issue of jealousy...

"again personally I don't worry about that. I've never been one to worry about other kids getting bigger Christmas presents or other workers getting bigger bonuses. When I'm given a gift or a bonus or when I have a chance to improve my income through a better list of job opportunities, lower unemployment or whatever I see it as a gain for me, and spare not one
thought for those who gain more"

indicates we have nothing further to discuss.

Good luck.

[dmallind]

21. Christ there's a reason I put it in quotes

And I'm "framing" MY response to gains made by myself compared to those made by others. I'm not allowed to express how I consider this issue personally because you don't agree with it? WHAT was proprotional after FDR exactly? Raise in income measured how? What level were the poor atarting at? Same as today? What was the tax rate on the wealthy? Same as today? If not then it's not really comparable is it.

I am obviously deeply wounded that we have nothing to discuss because this one has been the highlight of my life.

[redqueen]

22. Why get defensive?

Cause I called you out for the rightwing framing?

"I am obviously deeply wounded that we have nothing to discuss because this one has been the highlight of my life."

You're the first person I actually took off of Ignore in order to find out if the response was worth reading or more of the same.

Thanks for confirming that I was right the first time.

[gravity]

8. The economy isn't a zero sum game

The best economics policies benefit all

[Selatius]

9. The economy favored corporations over individuals. See CEO compensation growth during that time.

Then compare it to the growth of the median wage between 1990 and 2000.

To put it shortly, workers got a pittance for a raise, while the boss took home most of the gain. That's not progress at all.

[ordinaryaveragegirl]

13. I did fantastic in the 90's...

The problem is, my salary hasn't gone up in proportion to everything else. It's not a job performance issue on my part...it's a job performance issue on BushCo's.

Theoretically speaking - if you're in charge of something (like Chimp), and only the bigwigs (read: corporations) get the pay bump, then everyone else is bound to be pissed.

[sandnsea]

15. Globalization fire was lit

The internet economy and Y2k brought a lot of jobs, but the Clinton trade policies were paving the way for the economic collapse we are facing now.

[Occam Bandage]

23. Was fantastic.

[Armstead]

24. Global Big Capital

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4333840

[redqueen]

27. That guy's just jealous.

;)

[rucky]

26. A rising tide lifts all boats. n/t

[Jed Dilligan]

30. I'm sorry, but that's bullshit

The kind of wealth that was "created" in the 90s was created at the expense of others' poverty and suffering. It's harder to be poor in a rich society.

[Jed Dilligan]

29. 74% have got to be out of their minds!

The economy has never favored the average individual over the wealthy!