Can anyone explain how come US economy is in great shape amidst war in Iraq

Not that I complaint, on the contrary, but what is the explanation?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

kiwi

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

what is this, sock puppet #5?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

This is a totally incomplete answer to a pretty vague question but one could probably argue that part of the reason the US has seen good growth over the last few years is that the gov't has been using textbook expansionist fiscal policy. Lower taxes and more gov't expenditures generally means higher GDP all else equal.

 

Number 41

 

Wonder why they lost the elections? The People must not agree.

Dubstyle?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

THAT is a sign of a true fool! DUBSTYLE! You like his jeans? His walk!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Again, you don't read around much.

If all you're ever going to do is exist within your personal comfort zone you're never going to see the world as it really is.

I think you're afraid to leave the house and experience things that don't reinforce the definition of the boundries of your comfort zone.

You resist doing so with every post.

Talk about the experiential inbreeding of conservative ways...

 

This is clearly the case because average Americans pay more attention to American fiscal policy than to, say, a few really bad scandals and Democrat whining about the war in Iraq.

 

1) 70 % OF THE PRESENT AMERICAN ECONOMY IS BASED ON consumerism.

2) the records.. show... the us populations is saving -1%...
thats right............ negative one %...

we are spending more than we have.

3) the us economy is backed by make believe money... and the us government can literally lend it self all the money it ever needs.

4) inflation.... is not a problem.. due to the massive influx of cheap goods from china and etc....

5) we are in debt up to our eyeballs... literally... so much so.... most of the public has become blind to the danger... they cant see it.

-MT

 

http://www.safehaven.com/article-4273.htm

 

Let's see. As to the OP question: In the go-go 90's, under Clinton, the economy was in better shape than it had been since the 1960's, when whites enjoyed an unprecedented increase in their standard of living, a milestone in US history. This economic success was able to even erase our massive federal debt accumulated by another irresponsible republican, Rotting Reagan.
The righties always insisted through the 90's that thje economic upturn was the result of two terms of Reagan and a Bush 1 term! So, to explain the current healthy economy we mustfollow the same playbook and credit Clinton.

 

Sure, no worries. I think that this is fair. But also remember that oil prices were incredibly low during Clintons tenure in office (I remember paying less than a dollar a gallon in the late nineties), which probably drove several sectors of the economy. The prices of comodities, I think economists would argue, have an immediate effect on the economy because that market can be so volitile. There are other short term disruptions, for example 9-11, which will cause temporary downturns or upturns.

So, in that sense, the current economy would be much stronger if oil prices were at Clinton-era levels. That would REALLY piss liberals off.

 

The low price of oil in the 90's was a result of the world's last truly great oil discovery, the North Sea fields between Norway and the UK. They were found in the '60s, got into production in the late '70s, and were pumping at full blast in the early '90s. Then, around 1999, they peaked and are now in extremely steep decline—up to 50 percent a year in the case of some UK fields.

 

And Clinton's failure to take an active role in monitoring anti-American sentiment and failure at brokering peace between the Palistinians and the Jews lead to terror attacks on American soil. It works both ways

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Reagan ended the Cold War and Clinton sent a few Tomohawk cruise missiles into Afghanistan. Do you want a large debt and a safe America, or do you want no national debt?

 

Clinton's efforts to broker peace were laudable. It was not his fault that they couldn't agree. Reagan didn't end the Cold War, the USSR collapsed economically, just like we will.

 

Just blowing out more hot air is ....laudable? I think we do lot's of that here on the sciforums ...do you think that's also ...laudable? If you consider that laudable, I wonder what you might consider as UN-laudable?!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Then his efforts were a total failure. Brokering something means that you actually accomplish something, you "broker" a deal of some kind ....not failing at it.

No, Reagan poured money into the military and into weapons research ...which the Soviets tried to match. That's exactly what caused the Soviet economic collapse. So, yes, Reagan ended the Cold War by bringing the might of the US military to the forefront.

Baron Max

 

If that's the case, we can say the same thing about every President of the US. What did Bush Sr do about the massacre of Shiites and Sunnis AFTER the US thwarted the invasion of Kuwait? Nothing. Just a bunch of talk and hot air, but no substance.

What did our current President do for Darfur? In fact, what is he doing at all? Nothing. He keeps mentioning that Darfur is important, blah blah blah. Just a bunch of hot air, honestly.

Every President does it. It's what makes our Presidency great. All talk and nothing to back it up

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Failure? Wait till you see how Iraq ends up.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

LOL! You give communism too much credit, Baron Max. With or without Reagan, communism cannot sustain itself. Communism is inefficient and highly idealistic only. Even if we had 50 years of a pacifist democratic government in America, the USSR would've collapsed internally.

Of course, that's not to say Reagan didn't aid the collapse externally. He most certainly did. But communism is prone to failure no matter what.

 

Chinese, Koreans, Saudis and Japanese are lending the USA the money for this war. They are not lending because they like the war. They are lending because they don'y know what to do with their excess money. Also the Chinese, Koreans and Japanese (not Saudis) need to suppress the value of their own currencies and maitain the value of the dollar. The USA's economy would be very different without the foreign investment. Having the foreigners buying up our assets lets us Americans live well now; but we will have to pay later.

 

Don't forget about the steep recession in Asia caused by liberal George Soro's manipulation of Asian currencies. Use of oil in Asia was very low doe to the recession. This created a glut and we benefited.