OK I stand corrected. I should not have said tech bubble or dotcom bubble I should have said tech boom. Tech did not suddenly appear in 1997, it's effects on the economy were enormous. Efficiencies were realized across the economy from retail to manufacturing. That is borne out by productivity numbers. Keep in mind I'm not claiming that tech was the single driving force behind the 90s economic performance I'm merely pointing out that trying to say the Clinton tax increases were, is wrong.You say that “The Clinton tax increases weren't large enough to have some magical massive impact on the entire economy “Better tell that to Newt, he thought differently in 1993, when he said,“ The tax increase will kill jobs and lead to a recession, and the recession will force people out of work and onto unemployment, and actually increase the deficit.“ Actually during Clinton's second term unemployment dropped from about 5% to about 4%, where’s his first term it dropped from 7.33 to 5%.
Notice where the tax cuts are on this BLS graph? The Dot Com bubble was the years of 1997 – 2000.Check out the graph and tell me how a bubble that stetted in 1997 would have an effect on the Clinton boom. I only see about a 1% kick in the employment rate. Maybe a bit more.
Clinton changed the highest rate from 36% to 39.6%. If I'm not mistaken we just did pretty much the same thing. Anyone expecting a repeat of 90s growth? If not perhaps it could be because of other factors?
In the 90s you had oil prices in the $20 range pretty much through out the entire decade. That didn't hurt. Fed spending growth was around 3%, that also didn't hurt.
There was also a large increase in private investment in the 90s, also didn't hurt. Productivity reignited in the 90s. Trying to say all these things happened because of Clintons 93 tax increases is just silly.
Household Survey Employment Smoothed for Population Controls, Seasonally Adjusted,
January 1990–December 1999 and January 2000–December 2011
1999 134,436 134,276 134,381 134,402 134,775 134,855 134,905 135,097 135,227 135,529 135,862 136,092
2000 136,560 136,601 136,705 137,276 136,637 136,949 136,541 136,674 136,906 137,103 137,338 137,632
Last edited by a351; 01-16-13 at 08:11 PM.
Edit: 2001 137,797 137,633 137,805 137,322 137,117 136,899 137,099 136,270 136,877 136,424 136,271 136,082
Surely not the catastrophic, fire and brimstone event that some would suggest.