Squawker

Why are they protecting Clinton?

Source

__________________
http://users.igl.net/jdsquawker/squawkereagle.gifhttp://users.igl.net/jdsquawker/squawkername.gif

Political Word W/RSS Feed

Fantasea

My guess is that they would prefer to avoid the embarrassment of letting the world know how stupid the US electorate was for having put this person in the White House twice.

anomaly

Clinton was simply, during the 90s, the lesser of the two evils. The Americans had no choice over how their economy would be run, as both the GOP and Clinton pushed the 'free market' agenda i.e. the pro-business agenda. Clinton's handling of foreign policy was indeed terrible at best, but he still looks like a Godsend compared to Bush in this area. I was very young during the Clinton years, and really all I know of him is that he ran a terrible foreign policy and a bad economy...his handling of the economy increased inequality all throughout the 90s and have led, combined with the lunacy of Bush, to the rough economy we see now. But why was he elected twice? I suppose because the people were fed up with Bush I, and saw no hope in Dole, so they chose the only remaining candidate, Clinton.

RightinNYC

Now, I'm no fan of Bill Clinton, but to say both he and the GOP ran a "bad economy?" Then what do you attribute one of the biggest periods of economics growth in our countries history to? Much of it was technological, but a lot is due to the actions of both sides in allowing business to run its path.

The "shaky" economy we have right now is growing at 3.4% per year and has one of the lowest unemployment rates in our history. Household income has increased staggeringly over the past 20 years, while inflation was held at bay.

Clinton was a poor president in many, many ways, but to say that he and Bush contributed to a bad economy during the 90's is not arguable.

anomaly

The economy you speak of as 'growing' is doing so only for businesses...workers continue to see their salaries remain stagnant. Also, we saw such an economy during the 1920's, with it appearing, on the outside atleast, to be doing very well. The rise of inequality is not good for the economy, and the rise of business will inevitably lead to a surplus of goods created, overspeculation in the stock market, and thus the inevitability of the economy turning, as it does under capitalism. We are currently seeing a path eerily similar to that of the 1920's...and we all know how that ended. Also, may I note that the national debt rises continually, so we can easily see that those neat numbers you post do not tell the whole story. Clinton ran a conservative economy, lowering taxes and repealing parts of the New Deal, but Bush's economy, well, I don't know what you call it, as he cuts taxes and then spends in huge amounts. Hardly conservative, and certainly not liberal, the only term that describes his economic practices is lunacy! Clinton's problem is that he chose a pro-business route, lowering taxes, deregulating etc. etc. Just like the twenties, when this New Economy fails, it will do so in a big way. To check out some other neat numbers of the 'marvels' of the New Economy, check out my thread in economics: New Economy and its discontents.

RightinNYC

How is the salaries for workers remaining stagnant? The average household income over the past 20 years rose dramatically. Whether you look at the mean or the median, it has risen between 12 and 40%.

http://www.census.gov/hhes/income/histinc/h11.html

Actually, the reasons for the Great Depression are far more complex than the ones you mention.

During the 1920's, the Fed increased the money supply by 60%, allowing massive speculation, contributing to a national devaluation.

The Smoot Hawley Tariff Act, although it was passed after the initial crash, prevented a quick recovery. "In 1988, the Council of Economic Advisors proclaimed that the Smoot Hawley Tariff Act was 'probably one of the most damaging pieces of legislation ever signed in the United States.' "

The economic conditions now are nothing like they were then, and if you're planning on waiting for the next Great Depression, you'll have a while longer to wait.

While capitalism has the faults inherent to every natural business cycle, it is a lasting and successful system, as opposed to any other alternative.

anomaly

These figures, do they account for inflation? And the 'average' household income could be affected by extremely high salaries, plenty of which existed. In 1990, the worker salary to CEO slary ratio was 1:90, in 2000 it was 1:425. Relative to their employers, workers' salaries have not increased in the least. But, yes, as for those figures, you have to account for inflation, which rises steadily, and also the outliers if you're measuring an average, since CEO's salaries grew throughout the 90's. The median is much more accurate as far as actual workers' salary growth, and these numbers (this is the rise by 12%, I assume) haven't increased much beyond the inflation rate over the decade.



Also, we cannot forget the massive success of business throughout the twenties, as a result of the much coveted laissez-faire policies. This in itself lead to mass speculation in the market. It would not be entirely inaccurate to say that the crash of '29 was a direct result of laissez-faire economic policy throughout the decade. I agree that economic conditions are different today, as we see a new form of capitalism emerging: transnational or global capitalism. The danger, of couse, of this is the very little regulation involved in international trade and labor, making cheap labor easily attainable for nearly every large corporation, thus endangering US workers and placing cheap laborers under a system of slave labor. Now, whether capitalism is superior to every other economic system, I very much doubt that. I have often cited that the good living standards we enjoy in the USA are largely thanks to government regulation such as the New Deal, and that countries with laissez-faire plocies today, such as China, more and more, and Argentina, have very poor labor conditions. To think that capitalism can sustain itself without government regulation is quite dangerous, and devoid of any knowledge of history. But is capitalism the best that man can possibly do? I highly doubt it. Democratic socialism has never really been seriously attempted. It would involve the people actually democratically owning their own economy, rather than very few fortunate individuals, as is what we see with capitalism. Perhaps you should open your mind a bit and look into other possibilities, as the global anti-capitalist movement has given new hope to anti-capitalists everywhere and has shown the ills of capitalism as well as the promise of some alternative systems. Socialism is how, I believe, we must begin to overcome capitalism.

RightinNYC

Did you even read the numbers I posted a link to? It lists the figures in real dollars, as well as 2002 dollars, which means that inflation WAS counted for.

You're right that the median is a better system than the mean to look at average family income. How are you going to tell me that increasing the average families median wealth by 12% BEYOND inflation is not a booming economy?

And you're right, the capitalist system failed in 1920. For one year. 85 years ago. And it hasn't happened again since.

You're right that capitalism can't survive without government intervention. The amount we have right now is more than enough. There needs to be some basic intervention, but socialism is NOT the answer.

Much of Europe currently practices a form of socialism, and enjoys a robust 1% GDP yearly increase, as compared to our 3.5%, China's 10%, and India's 20%.

There's no point trying to prove any of this to you though. I deal daily with anarchists, anti-capitalists, socialists and communists, and despite a failure rate of 100% and no economic data to back up their theories, they keep on plugging along, not acknowledging pesky things like facts.

anomaly

If you are unwilling to debate, I'm fine with that, I suppose, but to go out of your way and say 'there is no debate' is quite arrogant on your part. The crudeness of the capitalist system as a whole cannot be doubted, and it also cannot be doubted that the US economy currently runs on cheap labor. The market today, since surpluses continually are developed, must be constantly expanded, and this, obviously, cannot go on forever. We see that capitalist countries that do 'well' by some standards like China and India have an extremely poor lower class, and very little gov't regulation, all just to put money into the hands of the fortunate. You seem quite obliged not to acknowledge pesky little facts about the system you so admire. Do not be so quick to put down the anti-capitalist movement as meaningless or inevitably unsuccessful. As a socialist, I today see more anti-capitalist feelings in the world than have existed in quite some time. The very fact that capitalism runs for and of the few at the expense of the many is reason enough for me to not support it. It seems rather odd to me that the very countries you point to as 'economically successful' (China, India) are the same ones with lower living standards, and the GDP seems quite proportional to the regulation in each country, with less regulation having a greater GDP. But, for a very pro-capitalist individual such as yourself, with an obviously closed off mind when it comes to alternative systems that, I don't know, would help the majority of people rather than the minority, perhaps anti-capitalist literature isn't a good read. I would, however, offer to you to read any book by Thomas Frank, as he offers a wonderful critique of the modern New Economy system in America.

You have claimed throughout this little debate that working class families are seeing a golden age. Apparently you missed my 1:90 ratio in '90 compared with the 1:425 in '00. In the UK, part of the EU, which you say is quite inefficient, that ratio is 1:24, and in Japan it is 1:11. I'd appreciate it is you simply acknowledged these facts.

As for you having apparent problems with anti-capitalists, and I agree, many are quite ignorant, but I have the same problems with many a capitalist. It seems that you use the facts you deem important to support your case, just as I do, but there are so many capitalists out there who have no evidence for capitalism being beneficial, and a few times in this very forum I have come across arguments for capitalism that go like this: 'Capitalism is beneficial to the worker, and it is beneficial to the majority of society'. Coming from a United States perspective, most of them, this obvious ignorance of the system as a whole is somewhat expected. Although the facts you list can be countered easily by others, which I have previously listed, atleast you make a more logical attempt to defend your cherished economic system.

RightinNYC

I'm sorry, I didn't mean to imply that there was no debate, but only that it's not one that I think would be productive. There is no way I will change your mind about the economic systems, so there's not really a point to staying up past 2 to argue it.

The fact of that matter is that that capitalist system that you decry is the reason you have your job, the reason that you live in a house, the reason why you can enjoy all the pleasures of life that we as Americans have.

You can say that capitalism hurts the majority of the people, but tell that to the 95% of our country which is currently employed because of that capitalism.

The bottom line is this:

The United States, a capitalist society, has the highest standard of living and best living conditions in the history of the modern world. The only evidence I need for capitalism being successful is all around us.

You can talk about the pitfalls of the system all you want, but point out to me even ONE place where socialism has worked? There is no successful socialist utopia out there, and there never will be.

China WAS communist, and had massive human rights violations and a stagnant economy. It became more capitalist, it retained its human rights violations, and the economy boomed.

They had abuse problems long before they were a capitalist nation, so to blame their condition on their current economic policies is like saying America is a rich nation because of the internet.