28 Jan 08
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton_Recession
The Clinton Recession is a term used to associate the Early 2000s recession in the United States to the end of the presidential term of Bill Clinton, instead of the beginning of the term of George W. Bush. Supporters of Clinton are apt to call the same downturn the "Bush Recession."[1]
The recession was dated from March 2001 to November 2001 by the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER),[2] the nonpartisan body that has determined the date of recessions for 75 years. President Bush's Council of Economic Advisors, led by N. Gregory Mankiw, issued a report on February 9, 2004 which moved the date of the start of the recession from March 2001 to the fourth quarter of 2000.[3]
The move gained considerable criticism; because the decision was made in the lead-up to the 2004 election, it was seen as politically motivated. Robert Hall, an economist at Stanford University and the Hoover Institution who has chaired the NBER since 1978, said "For the first time, the federal government is intervening in the process."[3] Media Matters argued that three and a half years of Bush rhetoric had prepared Americans for the move, citing one poll that indicated that 62% of Americans believed the recession began under Clinton.[4]
However, conservative reporters stand by the association of the recession with Clinton, citing changes in the unemployment rate, federal funds rate, and gross domestic product which had begun to fall in late 2000.[5] They attribute the 62% poll figure to the observations of Americans, denying that it was a consequence of political rhetoric.[5]
28 Jan 08
Originally posted by zeeblebotagreed, 2001 was clintons, so what about the 2 bush recessions?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton_Recession
The Clinton Recession is a term used to associate the Early 2000s recession in the United States to the end of the presidential term of Bill Clinton, instead of the beginning of the term of George W. Bush. Supporters of Clinton are apt to call the same downturn the "Bush Recession."[1]
The recession was ...[text shortened]... the observations of Americans, denying that it was a consequence of political rhetoric.[5]
28 Jan 08
1 edit
Originally posted by zeeblebotYou know its funny that the President always gets blamed for everything including economic declines. It seems that he gets blamed from everything from whether or not my kid gets a good education to whether or not I have a job. It seems to me that this line of reasoning is flawed to say the least. Hey, here is a thought. Why not include Congress in the mix? Why not include the mortgage companies in the mix for the problems? Why not include yourself if you don't have a job and have not taken steps to try and better yourself via education etc. You know I am tired of people thinking the President is going to fly in and rescue us all. Guess what, the people after Katrina thought that the President was going to do exactly that so they waited on a bridge in New Orleans for days/weeks for him to rescue them and guess what, they NEVER came. It reminds me of a little old lady who was with some of the people on the bridge who walked with a walker. Instead of waiting with them she walked all the way out of the city and into an area where she could get some help on her own!!!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton_Recession
The Clinton Recession is a term used to associate the Early 2000s recession in the United States to the end of the presidential term of Bill Clinton, instead of the beginning of the term of George W. Bush. Supporters of Clinton are apt to call the same downturn the "Bush Recession."[1]
The recession was the observations of Americans, denying that it was a consequence of political rhetoric.[5]
28 Jan 08
Originally posted by whodeyWell...she DID have a walker. Not everyone is that fortunate to be able to rest without having to sit down...
You know its funny that the President always gets blamed for everything including economic declines. It seems that he gets blamed from everything from whether or not my kid gets a good education to whether or not I have a job. It seems to me that this line of reasoning is flawed to say the least. Hey, here is a thought. Why not include Congress in the mi ...[text shortened]... walked all the way out of the city and into an area where she could get some help on her own!!!
28 Jan 08
Originally posted by zeeblebotHow is the president to blame for a crash in an over-priced sector?
hey, the graph says it all:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Nasdaq_Composite_dot-com_bubble.svg
More importantly, who was in charge when the Federal Reserve decided to not let the markets revalue themselves realistically, and chose to cut the interest base rate to 1%, prompting the sub-prime recession?
D
29 Jan 08
Originally posted by Ragnorakhttp://60minutes.yahoo.com/segment/134/subprime_meltdown
How is the president to blame for a crash in an over-priced sector?
More importantly, who was in charge when the Federal Reserve decided to not let the markets revalue themselves realistically, and chose to cut the interest base rate to 1%, prompting the sub-prime recession?
D
Poll:
Who is to blame for the subprime meltdown?
The mortgage lenders
The Wall Street security brokers
The borrowers
All of the above
29 Jan 08
Originally posted by zeeblebotYou seem to be missing the point.
http://60minutes.yahoo.com/segment/134/subprime_meltdown
Poll:
Who is to blame for the subprime meltdown?
The mortgage lenders
The Wall Street security brokers
The borrowers
All of the above
By slashing the interest rate so much to unrealistic levels in 2001 (after the bursting of the dot-com bubble), the government promoted heavy borrowing (because it was so cheap). As soon as interest rates reached realistic levels again, people couldn't afford repayments. The cut promoted mortgage lenders to borrow low, and loan out high.
So everybody was buying post cut, house prices were going up. Then, when interest rates returned to a normal level, the market got flooded and the sector collapsed.
I find it a bit ridiculous that you assign blame on such a complex thing to sub-prime borrowers while washing the Fed reserve clean of blame.
D
29 Jan 08
Originally posted by zeeblebotNo conjection. "C" (while all must be present in the economy for any loan to occur) it's always the borrower who has the responsibility to practice Caveat Emptor.
Poll:
Who is to blame for the subprime meltdown?
a- The mortgage lenders
b- The Wall Street security brokers
c- The borrowers
d- All of the above
a- Cannot force a loan on you.
b- Has no power to force you into a loan.
End of story - chapter and verse.
30 Jan 08
Originally posted by duecerFeel free to drop us some numbers on those two recessions.
agreed, 2001 was clintons, so what about the 2 bush recessions?
If you do find yourself trying to be honest enough to search for facts to back up your statement, you'll find the last recession was at the end of Clintons second term.
30 Jan 08
Originally posted by RagnorakI like that you recognize the role too much liquidity played in the subprime crater, but you shouldn't let the borrowers off the hook.
You seem to be missing the point.
By slashing the interest rate so much to unrealistic levels in 2001 (after the bursting of the dot-com bubble), the government promoted heavy borrowing (because it was so cheap). As soon as interest rates reached realistic levels again, people couldn't afford repayments. The cut promoted mortgage lenders to borrow low, ...[text shortened]... such a complex thing to sub-prime borrowers while washing the Fed reserve clean of blame.
D
30 Jan 08
Originally posted by Ragnorakmore likely the mortgage brokers were scraping the bottom of the barrel as far as borrowers go.
You seem to be missing the point.
By slashing the interest rate so much to unrealistic levels in 2001 (after the bursting of the dot-com bubble), the government promoted heavy borrowing (because it was so cheap). As soon as interest rates reached realistic levels again, people couldn't afford repayments. The cut promoted mortgage lenders to borrow low, ...[text shortened]... such a complex thing to sub-prime borrowers while washing the Fed reserve clean of blame.
D
30 Jan 08
Originally posted by MacSwainNice and simple, eh?
No conjection. "C" (while all must be present in the economy for any loan to occur) it's always the borrower who has the responsibility to practice [b]Caveat Emptor.
a- Cannot force a loan on you.
b- Has no power to force you into a loan.
End of story - chapter and verse.[/b]
D
30 Jan 08
Originally posted by MerkWhy are the sub-prime borrowers low-income if we can honestly ascribe economics expertise upon them? Surely, low-income normally equals low education in the U.S?
I like that you recognize the role too much liquidity played in the subprime crater, but you shouldn't let the borrowers off the hook.
If we can't assign economics expertise upon them and we know that the borrowers were poor, then we'd have to assume that any financial advice they received came from a salesman.
The Federal Reserves decision to cut base interest rates so low resulted in a scenario whereby big loans became affordable over the short term to a lot of people. Obviously, and any economics expert should have foreseen this, if you set base interest rates artificially low, then when they return to a realistic level, there are going to be a lot of borrowers in trouble.
If, as it seems some are doing in this thread, we place 100% blame on the borrowers(poorly educated in the main), why is it that the Federal Reserve (highly paid, highly trained people with the supposed expertise) aren't getting any portion of blame considering they failed to foresee exactly the same thing that the borrowers failed to foresee?
D