Could a Hillary Vote Bring Us Another Clinton Economic Boom?

[g5000]

And the derivatives bubble was global, kids. A lot of rubes somehow failed to notice that when they drank the CRA piss.

They also failed to notice their white, middle class neighbors foreclosing in droves in their own town, and not just some negroes they heard about on TV.

"Hey look, honey. That guy Biff across the street is losing his house. I had no idea he was black!"

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Hillary Clinton should thank Barack Obama for beating her in 2008. Every day.

Not only does the former first lady and U.S. Secretary of State appear as well-positioned as any candidate to capture the presidency in 2016, but her arrival in the Oval Office could well coincide with tailwinds that the U.S. economy has not seen since, well, the last time a Clinton occupied the White House.

Are we getting ahead of ourselves? Absolutely. A lot can happen in three years, but there’s one scenario for 2017 that should be staring all would-be prognosticators in the face: The very real possibility of another Clinton economic boom like the U.S. experienced in the 1990s.

Here are five key economic and political trends that should leave Camp Clinton giddy — and the GOP scared out of its mind — when it comes to the next presidential election.

Could a Hillary Vote Bring Us Another Clinton Economic Boom Fast Forward OZY

Don’t know, if it’s the right sub forum for this discussion, the article is about both economy and Hillary, so…

The author of this story tells us that we can expect another economy boom. And what’s more interesting, the manufacturing will come back to US, as well as loads of capital. And, all in all, this will help Hillary to win the game. Too bad, the last trend, about Republicans losing their influence in the White House, turned out to be not that close to the reality, but a year ago the guy just couldn’t predict the results of the Congress elections.

All in all, though the article is very encouraging, I feel like none of it can come true. And you?

Actually, while Bush deserves some of the blame for the recession, the stage was set by Bill Clinton...
Who Caused the Economic Crisis

So who is to blame? There’s plenty of blame to go around, and it doesn’t fasten only on one party or even mainly on what Washington did or didn’t do. As The Economist magazine noted recently, the problem is one of "layered irresponsibility … with hard-working homeowners and billionaire villains each playing a role." Here’s a partial list of those alleged to be at fault:

• The Federal Reserve, which slashed interest rates after the dot-com bubble burst, making credit cheap.
• Home buyers, who took advantage of easy credit to bid up the prices of homes excessively.
• Congress, which continues to support a mortgage tax deduction that gives consumers a tax incentive to buy more expensive houses.
• Real estate agents, most of whom work for the sellers rather than the buyers and who earned higher commissions from selling more expensive homes.
• The Clinton administration, which pushed for less stringent credit and downpayment requirements for working- and middle-class families.
• Mortgage brokers, who offered less-credit-worthy home buyers subprime, adjustable rate loans with low initial payments, but exploding interest rates.
• Former Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan, who in 2004, near the peak of the housing bubble, encouraged Americans to take out adjustable rate mortgages.
• Wall Street firms, who paid too little attention to the quality of the risky loans that they bundled into Mortgage Backed Securities (MBS), and issued bonds using those securities as collateral.
• The Bush administration, which failed to provide needed government oversight of the increasingly dicey mortgage-backed securities market.
• An obscure accounting rule called mark-to-market, which can have the paradoxical result of making assets be worth less on paper than they are in reality during times of panic.
• Collective delusion, or a belief on the part of all parties that home prices would keep rising forever, no matter how high or how fast they had already gone up.

So, yeah, lets let a Clinton set us up for another recession, right?

A good list. But it left out the ratings agencies. They were also responsible.

Also, Clinton's biggest failing was his deregulation of financial derivatives. The crash would not have been anywhere near as severe. This was not a housing bubble so much as a global derivatives bubble.

Global.

Derivatives were force multipliers. Derivatives were the motive. Loans were just the raw materials which were needed to power all those derivative products which brought in the profits.

Still confusing MBS with derivatives?

Nope. Not at all.

If it was just about MBS, the crash would not have been anywhere near as bad.

So what did derivatives do? What profits did derivatives bring in and why did they require loans? Which banks/firms failed because of derivatives?

 

[Obiwan]

Please cite where Clinton deregulated financial derivatives.

Whatsa matter? You didn't get enough butt hurt when I provided a specific example of Bush causing the Wall Street firms to crash?

Did you miss the part where I asked you in turn to provide a specific example of Clinton causing the GSEs to crash?

I guess you did miss it, because you have not been forthcoming with that proof.


So now you want a cite where Clinton deregulated financial derivatives. I see someone already provided a link about the CFMA, at which you smarmily commented that does not show Clinton deregulated derivatives. Wrong!

For example, I refer you to section 117 of that Act. To wit:

This Act shall supersede and preempt the application of any State or local law that prohibits or regulates gaming or the operation of bucket shops

Now, while you are out there hunting for evidence that Clinton caused the GSEs to crash, perhaps you will take some time to explain why banks needed exemptions from state gaming laws for casinos. Why does a bank need to be exempted from laws prohibiting bucket shops?

Hmmmm...

Those in the know understand exactly why. The banks wanted fraud legalized. And later on, their apologists would ask stupid questions like, "What laws did they break when they ripped off their clients?"

Kind of like an idiot asking what laws were broken when someone murders another person after state laws against murder are federally pre-empted...

Superceding state regulatory laws is deregulation, by definition. And how come no states rights people screamed over this? Why didn't Fox News play some doom music and shout from the rooftops over this federal pre-emption? Huh? Huh? Huh?

Sorry to make your butt hurt. Again.

Maybe this (from a liberal source) will help clarify the situation for you.....

There Is No Santa Claus and Bill Clinton Was Not an Economic Savior Dean Baker

The truth is often painful but nonetheless it is important that we live in the real world. Just as little kids have to come to grips with the fact that there is no Santa Claus, it is necessary for millions of liberals, including many who think of themselves as highly knowledgeable about economic matters, to realize that President Clinton's policies sent the economy seriously off course.

In Washington it is common to tout the budget surpluses of the Clinton years as some momentous achievement, as though the point of economic policy is to run budget surpluses. Of course the point of economic policy is to produce an economy that improves the lives of the people in a sustainable way. Clinton badly flunked this test.

The Clinton economy was driven by a stock bubble. This is not a debatable point. The ratio of market-wide stock prices to corporate earnings was well over 30 to 1 at the peak of the bubble in 2000. This is more than twice the historic average.

This run-up in stock prices drove the economy in two ways. First, since any good huckster could make millions selling shares in dot.whatever, we had many hucksters starting nutball businesses that never had a prayer of making a profit. This is not much of a long-run economic strategy, but in the short-term it led to an increase in investment.

The other way that the bubble drove the economy is through the wealth effect on consumption. The run-up in stock prices generated roughly $10 trillion in bubble wealth. The wealth effect from stock is usually estimated to be 3-4 cents on the dollar. This would mean that the bubble generated between $300 billion to $400 billion annually in additional consumption. This would have been 3-4 percent of GDP at the time ($480 billion to $560 billion annually in today's economy). This is born out in the Commerce Department's data which show that the saving rate fell from close to 7 percent at the start of the 1990s to around 2.0 percent at the peak of the bubble in 2000.

This was the economy that President Clinton handed to President Bush in January of 2001. It was an economy that was being carried by an unsustainable bubble that, in fact, already was in the process of deflating at the time Bush took office. The S&P 500 was more than 10 percent below its 2000 peak and the NASDAQ was down by more than 40 percent on the day that Bush took office. This pretty much guaranteed the recession that began in March of 2001 just as the collapse of the housing bubble placed President Obama in the middle of terrible recession in January of 2009.

The 2001 recession was the main reason that the surplus vanished in the 2002 fiscal year. Directing tax cuts to the wealthy was a foolish policy response to the downturn, but it was reasonable to turn to fiscal stimulus following the collapse of the stock bubble, just as it was reasonable for President Obama to turn to fiscal stimulus following the collapse of the housing bubble. The Bush tax cuts did provide a boost to the economy, although they would have provided a larger boost if this money had been directed at moderate and middle income people or devoted to long-term investments like education and infrastructure.

The growth of the housing bubble eventually provided the boost needed to recover from the 2001 recession, just as the stock bubble propelled growth in the 1990s. As the economy got back near full employment in 2006 and 2007, the deficits shrank to sustainable levels.

However, while the deficits were sustainable in the later years of the Bush presidency, the housing bubble was not. Its collapse gave us the most predictable economic disaster in human history, even if all our top economists somehow didn't see it.

To have a sustainable growth path we have to reverse one of the other central policies of the Clinton years, the over-valued dollar. This policy, which was put in place when Robert Rubin became Treasury Secretary, ensured that we would have large trade deficits. The trade deficits were good news for Wall Street with its obsession over inflation. It was also good news for companies looking to move operations overseas to take advantage of cheap labor.

However, the high dollar was terrible news for the country's workers, who were placed at an enormous competitive disadvantage. It resulted in the loss of more than 4 million manufacturing jobs. It was also bad news for anyone who doesn't think that bubbles are a clever way to drive the economy.

Rubin and his allies control the Democratic Party with their money at the moment. Their financial power will not be easily overcome. However, it is important that people understand that the Rubin-Clinton team is every bit as much about redistributing money from the rest of us to the very rich as the Republicans.

The big difference is that, unlike the Republicans, the Rubin-Clinton crew believes that the rich should have to pay their taxes. That's something, but until there is someone in this debate who isn't pushing policies that redistribute before-tax income upward, the vast majority in this country can only lose.

 

[g5000]

So what did derivatives do? What profits did derivatives bring in and why did they require loans? Which banks/firms failed because of derivatives?

Derivatives are a vehicle for moving risk around. That is what they do.

Derivatives bring huge profits for those who build and sell them.

Every famous financial firm implosion that you heard about in the news during the crash did so because of derivatives. Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers, AIG, RBS, Allied Irish Bank, Iceland, etc.

 

[The Rabbi]

And the derivatives bubble was global, kids. A lot of rubes somehow failed to notice that when they drank the CRA piss.

They also failed to notice their white, middle class neighbors foreclosing in droves in their own town, and not just some negroes they heard about on TV.

"Hey look, honey. That guy Biff across the street is losing his house. I had no idea he was black!"

Thanks for confirming there was no deregulation.
People didnt get foreclosed on so much. Instead they sent the keys to their mortgage company in lieu of foreclosure and rented the near identical house across the street for about 70% of what their mortgage payment had been. In many states there isnt even the possibility of going after the deficiency.
What was your point here?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

So what did derivatives do? What profits did derivatives bring in and why did they require loans? Which banks/firms failed because of derivatives?

Derivatives are a vehicle for moving risk around. That is what they do.

Derivatives bring huge profits for those who build and sell them.

Every famous financial firm implosion that you heard about in the news during the crash did so because of derivatives. Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers, AIG, RBS, Allied Irish Bank, Iceland, etc.

Bear and Lehman failed because they financed a huge bond portfolio with short term loans. Nothing to do with derivatives. As far as huge profits, you're talking out of your ass. AIG "built and sold" plenty of derivatives and didn't bring themselves huge profits.

Iceland? LOL!

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Clinton gave us the economic collapse of Fannie Mae.

And Bush gave us the economic collapse of Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch, Citigroup, AIG, et al.

The answer to all things ....... Boooooooossssssshhhhhhhh.

And btw, one more time, you are dead wrong, as usual. But you know that... you just like saying Boooooooooossssssshhhhh.

 

[boilermaker55]

Isn't it funny that you can reach back to Clinton administration and how the economy worked. And then when we had the fall of the economy in bush/cheney its was Clinton that caused it. But when you try to explain when factoring in the debt for the 2 wars with bush/cheney that has the debt so high, that is Obama fault.
HYPOCRITES! Or more like 3rd graders, the rw.

Clinton gave us the economic collapse of Fannie Mae. During his first term democrats decided that every American should be able to achieve the "American dream" of owning his own home regardless of his ability to pay. Under the democrat plan banks were forced to make bad loans or risk civil rights litigation. The bad loans were bundled with good loans and sold back to mortgage brokers by Fannie Mae as good loans. The scheme worked until Clinton was out of office. During the Clinton administration the economy rested on a fake "dot-com" bubble and crooked companies like Enron operated without scrutiny from the Clinton administration. On his last day in office Clinton pardoned the most notorious corporate pirate in history at that time in exchange for a couple of bucks donated to the Clinton library by his wife. In the mean time Hillary presided over a malicious group of angry democrat operatives threatening to ruin any woman who admitted that she was molested by the pervert-in-chief. Anybody want to see the sleazebags from Arkansas back in power?


"Tell your momma, tell your pa, gonna send her back to Arkansaw" .....Ray Charles

 

[xdangerousxdavex]

And then when we had the fall of the economy in bush/cheney its was Clinton that caused it.

Well and Bush/Cheney couldn't do anything to prevent it? Poor boys... Maybe Clinton caused their second term too?

 

[Andylusion]

No. Hillary will not benefit from the invention of the internet, like Slick.

And she doesn't have Al Gore to invent it all over again, or inspire another Love Story.

 

[Andylusion]

And then when we had the fall of the economy in bush/cheney its was Clinton that caused it.

Well and Bush/Cheney couldn't do anything to prevent it? Poor boys... Maybe Clinton caused their second term too?

Once an economic bubble is created, the only possible outcome is a crash. There is absolutely nothing anyone, let alone Bush/Cheney could have done to stop it.

That said, I would rather have another great depression, than Hillary in the office.

I'd rather have anything, than Hillary.... I'd vote for Smurfette and Derpy Hooves, over Hillary.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Hillary Clinton should thank Barack Obama for beating her in 2008. Every day.

Not only does the former first lady and U.S. Secretary of State appear as well-positioned as any candidate to capture the presidency in 2016, but her arrival in the Oval Office could well coincide with tailwinds that the U.S. economy has not seen since, well, the last time a Clinton occupied the White House.

Are we getting ahead of ourselves? Absolutely. A lot can happen in three years, but there’s one scenario for 2017 that should be staring all would-be prognosticators in the face: The very real possibility of another Clinton economic boom like the U.S. experienced in the 1990s.

Here are five key economic and political trends that should leave Camp Clinton giddy — and the GOP scared out of its mind — when it comes to the next presidential election.

Could a Hillary Vote Bring Us Another Clinton Economic Boom Fast Forward OZY

Don’t know, if it’s the right sub forum for this discussion, the article is about both economy and Hillary, so…

The author of this story tells us that we can expect another economy boom. And what’s more interesting, the manufacturing will come back to US, as well as loads of capital. And, all in all, this will help Hillary to win the game. Too bad, the last trend, about Republicans losing their influence in the White House, turned out to be not that close to the reality, but a year ago the guy just couldn’t predict the results of the Congress elections.

All in all, though the article is very encouraging, I feel like none of it can come true. And you?

That author is clearly a buffoon. Manufacturing come back? Lol really?
High corporate taxes and the absurd push for 15.00 per hour guarantees the author is COMPLETELY clueless.

Loads of capital? I have to ask, wtf is this moron smoking?

The author is a TERRIBLE Democratic operative

 

[Rozman]

I thought food stamps and unemployment drove the Democrat economy?

We only get one Dot Com bubble in a lifetime maybe...

 

[boilermaker55]

It seems like you might get a chance. Vote 'the donald" LOL

And then when we had the fall of the economy in bush/cheney its was Clinton that caused it.

Well and Bush/Cheney couldn't do anything to prevent it? Poor boys... Maybe Clinton caused their second term too?

Once an economic bubble is created, the only possible outcome is a crash. There is absolutely nothing anyone, let alone Bush/Cheney could have done to stop it.

That said, I would rather have another great depression, than Hillary in the office.

I'd rather have anything, than Hillary.... I'd vote for Smurfette and Derpy Hooves, over Hillary.