• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

US Median Income Lowest Since 1995

Your surrender of all grace and sense is taken as surrender overall. The so-called dot-com bust is a myth created to deflect perceptions away from patterns of corporate corruption and exploitation. As you have demonstrated, there is and was no actual substance to it.

The Lesser Bush Recession was a crisis of confidence in George W Bush and his policies that amplified natural business caution at the approach of a new administration and turned it into an overall economic decline. That decline did not end until the slap-in-the-face of 9/11 which for a time left us without the luxury of a crisis of confidence.
 
Last edited:
Your surrender of all grace and sense is taken as surrender overall. The so-called dot-com bust is a myth created to deflect perceptions away from patterns of corporate corruption and exploitation. As you have demonstrated, there is and was no actual substance to it.
Again, do I need to remind you that I have provided 5 sources who all agree with me while you are unable to find a single one?

That is because even extreme partisan economists do not buy your explanation that investors got so terrified of Bush getting elected, that they closed down their businesses and sent US into a recession.

Also, how can dot-com bust be a myth when US lost 1/5 of all high tech jobs?


The Lesser Bush Recession was a crisis of confidence in George W Bush and his policies that amplified natural business caution at the approach of a new administration and turned it into an overall economic decline. That decline did not end until the slap-in-the-face of 9/11 which for a time left us without the luxury of a crisis of confidence.
Yep, we got that is your claim of what happened. Also general consensus among economists is that 9/11 hurt growth as consumer confidence dropped and it disrupted air traffic.

  • Now how about providing some sources for your claim?
  • How about explaining why interest rates started increasing in 1999? If Bush presence was the cause, rates should have been dropping as the federal reserve would try to bring investment rate up again.
  • How about explaining why investors would be so terrified of a presidential election when the president power is limited.
  • How about explaining why Bush presence had a so much larger impact on tech jobs than other kind of jobs?
 
Last edited:
Again, do I need to remind you that I have provided 5 sources who all agree with me...
They don't agree with you. And links to hoot-n-holler sites do not count as documentation.

...while you are unable to find a single one?
I'll not need to summon any form of reinforcement until such time as you are actually able to deal with the arguments, data, and logic already posted. I'm not expecting that soon. Ever, actually.
 
They don't agree with you. And links to hoot-n-holler sites do not count as documentation.
Debunked comment is still debunked. Trying to write the excact same comment is not going to help you, especially when you chose not to answer last time.

My answer is found in the quoted comment below.

Good attempt. They all agree with me. You need to have a pretty imaginative mind if you read this as anything else that the recession being the cause of the dotcom bubble.

"By early 2000, reality started to sink in. Investors soon realized that the dot-com dream had devolved into a classic speculative bubble. Within months, the NASDAQ stock index crashed from 5,000 to 2,000. Hundreds of stocks such as Pet.com, which once had multi-billion dollar market capitalizations, were off the map as quickly as they appeared. Panic selling ensued as the stock market’s value plunged by trillions of dollars. The NASDAQ further plunged to 800 by 2002. In 2001, the U.S. economy experienced a post dot-com bubble recession, which forced the Federal Reserve to repeatedly cut interest rates to stop the bleeding. "
The Dot-com Bubble | Stock Market Crash!

Why would they talk specifically about NASDAQ, dot-com and then call it a dot-com bubble recession if they think it is irrelevant to the recession?



I'll not need to summon any form of reinforcement until such time as you are actually able to deal with the arguments, data, and logic already posted. I'm not expecting that soon. Ever, actually.
:lamo

That is one of the most pathetic excuses I have ever heard for not being able to provide sources. Why do you think you are not able to provide any data that agrees with you? Why do you think no one agrees with you? Why do you think I am able to find 5 sources who agrees with me?

Have you ever thought about the possibility of being wrong?
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom