I have an uncle who is a head trader with Morgan Stanley. I remember talking with him in the summer of 2000 as the stock market was tanking, and he was very negative. He figured the market was just going to go down and down and down, because the hype around the Internet economy didn't pan out. And he was right. No one was making money. Eventually the investors wised up and pulled their money out of all the pretenders. Silicon Valley became the Internet Cemetary. Once the investors pulled out it was only a matter of time before there were layoffs.
Now toss in the massive fraud committed by several large companies (Enron, Worldcom, Adelphia, etc.) during the 90's. Those companies crashed in spectacular fasion during the Bush administration, but due to earlier wrongdoing. And they laid off LOTS of people. What caused this massive spike in fraud? Greed, certainly, and poor board oversight. But I believe President Clinton set a terrible ethical example during the 90's. Lots of people looked at what he did over the years and said, Hey, the President can get away with it, why not us? But this isn't about Clinton.
Look at this article:
No French or German turn on Iraq
By Jo Johnson in Paris, Betrand Benoit in Berlin and James Harding in Washington
Published: September 26 2004 21:13 | Last updated: September 26 2004 21:13
French and German government officials say they will not significantly increase military assistance in Iraq even if John Kerry, the Democratic presidential challenger, is elected on November 2.
http://news.ft.com/cms/s/36048bf8-0ff7-11d9-ba62-00000e2511c8.html
I want to hear reactions from Bush and Kerry to this story.
>The Bush people have not convinced me the job slide started with the
>Clinton Administration. I already posted this before...only one
>organization, the Nation Bureau of Economic Research officially sets the
>start and end dates of an expansion and recession. The NBER has stated the
>peak was March 2001 and the expansion began in 1991. That means that
>recession had to start during the Bush administration and the earliest
>possible date that it could have started is July 2001. I have been told
>that the NBER actually had to release a publication to denounce the Bush
>administration's claims that recession began in the Clinton
>administration. I don't actually believe this because I haven't actually
>seen the publication.
>
>http://www.nber.org/cycles/recessions.html
>
>This doesn't mean that Clinton is responsible for the economic boom and
>this doesn't mean that Bush was responsible for the recession.
>
>I personally feel that the economy, and more specifically jobs, is what
>will determine the election.
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]
