Julio Huato wrote: > I imagine that, under Clinton, the inertia of union decay (as well as > income, etc. variation within the class) continued, but improvements > in other areas compensated somehow. > > Taking all that into account, it's still not entirely clear that the > union's insistence in supporting the DP in presidential elections is a > foolish waste of their resources.
the main thing that Clinton gets credit for is the economic boom at the end of the 1990s, which lowered unemployment rates and allowed temporary moderation of the upward trend in inequality. But that wasn't Clinton's doing. He ran a budget surplus, which should have restrained demand-side growth and/or caused a recession. But relatively high interest rates attracted foreign funds, which financed the "tech" bubble and rising private-sector indebtedness. In turn, these encouraged spending and a demand-side boom. Eventually, the bubble popped, with the negative effects pushed off into the future (2006-8) by monetary policy and low interest rates. maybe Clinton deserves credit for the earned income credit, but that's trumped by his welfare reform. -- Jim Devine / "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante. _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
