To what extent have the economic problems of 2000's been business cycle?

[Ignacio Upton]

We all know that Bush (and the Congressional Republicans) has done damage to certain aspects of the economy and the welfare of the working class, and will continue to do so. But I also think that the economic cycle is SOMEWHAT independent of who's in office...but only somewhat. The tech bubble and the mini-recession that it created were already happening or beginning to happen when Bush took office. When an index like the Nasdaq goes from the 2,900+ in November of 1999, to 5,000+ in March of 2000, it is a given that it will crash. A lot of those dot com companies had little real value. Unfortunately, the business cycle is cruel. The economy also hasn't been as bad in some aspects. The housing bubble has kept the overall economy from going completely flat or negative. Consumers, despite ratcheting up their debt (this will cause future economic problems nationally) are still spending at decent levels. Even though this decade has sucked economically, people are still buying ipods, flat screen tv's, and new cars. However, I do believe that if Al Gore had won, he would have only had to deal with the 2001 recession and the effects of 9/11 and Katrina (assuming 9/11 would have happened under his watch, or if not 9/11, then some other Al Qaida terrorist attack in 2002 or after.) However, he would have kept the budget balanced and initiated targeted middle class tax cuts like he promised to do in 2000. He also would have spent the surplus on the SS lockbox, Medicare, Medicaid, and other government spending that will maintain our economy and citizens. Real wages and income would be going up higher, as we would probably have a minimum wage increase, and the income gap would be smaller.

[madrchsod]

1. the economy started going south

in 1999-2000 but the problem was that bush cut taxes , 9/11 which really killed investments,cut taxes,spent all of the projected 350 billion surplus, started a war that has cost close to a trillion by the end of the year,cut more taxes,send thousands upon thousands of jobs overseas,business refuses to give wage increases,to gain cash people borrowed against assets,tax cuts,sell off currency to overseas investors, so there`s no money,there`s no way to raise money,and there is no leadership to find a way out of the countries economic crisis...all in all, it`s been a great business cycle brought to us by a man who failed in every business he was handed to him.

[AnnieBW]

2. Part of the Tech Downturn Was Post-Y2K

Part of the reason for the tech downturn in 2000-01 was the post-Y2K letdown. A lot of companies went on spending binges to solve the Y2K problem, as well as to get on the 'Net. That can explain some of it.

I think a lot more harm was caused by the meltdowns of Enron, Worldcom, etc. than 9/11. 9/11 certainly hurt a lot of industries, especially travel, tourism, hotels, etc. But it also helped to expose the flat-out greed of a lot of these companies.

[Ignacio Upton]

3. The lack of regulation of companies like Enron contributed

Didn't then-Texas Senator Phil Gramm nad other Congressional Republicans block Democratic efforts in the '90s to do something about regulating companies against this? I remember reading an article about something like this, but I can't remember what source.

[Yupster]

5. Part of the tech boom never really happened

so it was bound to drop a lot.

With Enron and Worldcom happening, hundreds of other companies announced that their earnings were overblown too, and the profits they had been reporting through the late 90's were not real.

So the stock market and economy were going to get a jolt.

However, Bush has done everything he could to make the problem as bad as it possibly could be.

[sendero]

4. Bush..

... inherited this problem to an extent, that is undeniable.

But, had he targeted his massive tax cuts to the poor and middle class, that money would have quickly infused into the economy, benefitting everyone.

By giving it to the rich, who just sit on it or "invest" (here's an aside - no rich person "invests" in a business when there is no consumer demand for the business products or services, so forget the bullshit about how giving money to the rich creates jobs, that's utter nonsense, an improving economy creates jobs) instead of the poor/middle class who would have spent most of it immediately, we're stuck in a consumer-driver slowdown that, coupled with high energy prices, there is no end in sight to IMHO.

That was quite a paragraph. Congratulations if you understood it, I'm too lazy to fix it :)