Economics?

I keep reading about the Clinton years as the high point in our economic history. Of course, this is always contrasted with the dreaded Bush years, where apparently (all statistics aside) we're screwed. I'm NOT an economist. I'm just a guy with a memory, and my memory gives me problems when I hear politicians in particular, but also "economists" (usually with political leanings) talking.

Here's the thing that bugs me when the current economy is being run down by this or that politician or pundit: In the 1990's an extraordinary thing happened--something that is incredibly rare. An entire industry was born. From zero, the personal computer, and particularly the Internet, exploded onto the scene. Suddenly the cute boxes that some of us had purchased for word processing and spreadsheets, or that we were increasingly using at work, became MUST HAVE items for the home because, VIOLA', there was this incredibly cool thing called "The World Wide Web". Creativity abounded! Some people started pumping out hardware, but the real key to riches was creating ways to make money on "The Web." Thus, we had "the Internet bubble." Incredible amounts of jobs were created, investment capital poured in, and the future looked robust. This was an incredible boon to the economy. Also involved with this was the "tech bubble" which was related, but not necessarily identical.

All of this in the mid to late '90s. The "go-go '90s" as they're often called. What did Clinton have to do with all this? Well, he didn't totally screw it up, but for the most part he just REALLY benefitted by it. He looked great, as presidents do, because the economy was cookin'! The other thing to keep in mind is that it was during this "go-go '90s" period that companies like Enron and Worldcom were living high.

Then, 2000 came and the bubbles were about to burst. Oddly, then candidate Bush warned that a recession was coming. The bubbles did burst. Clinton/Gore had looked great because they just happened to be in office when a whole industry was born, and they got out just as the real players got separated from the pretenders (remember the Internet stocks where the business plans never showed how they were going to make a profit, yet their IPOs were HUGE?). Shortly after that process began, the other high fliers like Enron and Worldcom started crashing down. Then, speaking of crashing down, 9/11 happened. Then the real dishonesty (99% of which took place while Clinton was president) of Enron and others got exposed for what it was. All of this before Bush was in the White House for a full year.

So now we are in a good economy. Perhaps not to judge by the whimsical musings of Democrat politicians and left leaning pundits, who ignore the root causes of the growth in the '90s (the creation of an entire industry almost overnight, and, some have argued, the Reagan tax cuts), the inevitability of it's bubble-like bursting when the markets corrected themselves and companies discovered, lo and behold, you can't make money just because you have a cool web site. They also ignore the fact that Enron and Worldcom did most of their shady dealings prior to George Bush being sworn in as president. And, they don't seem to remember the catastrophe that 9/11 was for our economy (in addition to the loss of life and property).

It seems to me that the fact that we recovered from all of that is little short of a miracle. It is certainly a testimony to the tenacity and creativity of the American entrepreneur, worker, and investor, and it is also a testimony to the the effectiveness of the Bush tax cuts.

Can you imagine what would've happened if, instead of having President Bush saying, "Let's get money back in the pockets of Americans to spend and invest and to create with, because we know the people will make this work!" we had, say, a Jimmy Carter, who simply told us things were bad and our best days were behind us and we were going to have to muddle through?

It's important that we have memories. There were reasons for the "go-go '90s" and they had little to do with Clinton's actions. It was great that a whole new industry, a new technology that changed all of our lives was born in that time, and he didn't screw it up. But, the end WAS inevitable. A correction WAS going to happen. Now, what we have seems more real. It's more rooted in reality, where that new industry and technology has matured. And, statistically (unemployment, GDP, etc.), that more mature economy is very good.

Oh... one more thing... Why do people keep saying we HAD a surplus? Like it was money in the bank? I hear the same politicians and pundits that seem to forget the unreality of much of the "tech bubble" and "Internet bubble" talk about the "surplus" like it was cash on hand. And, now it's gone. My recollection is that it was a projected number that would've come into being IF one could project all that was happening in "the go-go '90s" into the future (some 5 years or so). Well... you CAN'T project that time period into the future, because that future projection didn't take into account the bursting of the bubbles, which was inevitable given the overexhuberance that created the bubbles, and, hence, that created the projection. Is that not obvious on it's face? That projection also didn't take into account that 8 months after Bush took office (get that? a mere 8 MONTHS... the friggin' STAFF wasn't even all in place) we'd suffer a terror attack the likes of which the world had never imagined, and that pretty much shut us down for a while, and damaged us deeply. These people still think that there should've, would've, could've been a surplus? That's just so far from reality that it is almost too bizzarre to comment on. Yet, there are people who want to ignore everything real and remind us that at one time in our recent history there was (a projection that there would be) a surplus. Basically the statement when talking about the so-called surplus should have been, "If reality doesn't intrude at all, and nothing negative happens, we COULD have a surplus." Well, we don't. Reality intervened. Sorry.