[Winona Online Democracy]
-----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Robert P Kaldunski Sent: Saturday, February 15, 2003 7:24 AM To: Anne; Roy Nasstrom; Paul Double; Online Democracy Subject: Re: [Winona] Savings Information Request to local public bodies [Winona Online Democracy] Perhaps someone could explain to me in simple terms why, while Mr. Clinton(personal life excluded) had a good economy and within 2 years of taking office Mr. Bush has us going the other way like a downhill speed skier? Bob Kaldunski Glen responds: This question makes multiple invalid assumptions: 1) That the President is primarily responsible, or has a large impact on the economy (in either direction). There is a tendency to give any president both too much credit for a good economy and too much blame for a bad one. 2) That the economy only turned down after Bush took office. The economy had started to slow well within the Clinton administration. The growth rate of GDP had slowed during 2000 and the stock market had stalled by early 2000. The February 2001 Federal Reserve Board Monetary Policy report to Congress included this: "The combination of exceptionally strong growth in the first half of 2000 and subdued growth in the second half resulted in a rise in real GDP of about 3-1/2 percent for the year overall. Domestic demand started out the year with incredible vigor but decelerated thereafter and was sluggish by year-end. Exports surged for three quarters and then faltered. In the labor market, growth of employment slowed over the year but was sufficient to keep the unemployment rate around the lowest sustained level in more than thirty years.: Read more: http://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/hh/2001/February/ReportSection2.htm 3) That the economy is currently in a downturn. Here is a quote from the Feb 2003 Federal Reserve Board Monetary Policy report to Congress: "In 2002, the United States economy extended the upturn in activity that began in late 2001. Real GDP increased 2-3/4 percent over the four quarters of last year, according to the advance estimate from the Commerce Department. However, the pace of activity was uneven over the course of the year, as concerns about emerging economic and political developments at times weighed heavily on an economy already adjusting to a succession of shocks from previous years." Read more at: http://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/hh/2003/February/ReportSection2.htm If one were to make the assumption that presidents have control of the economy that BK made (which I do not) the correct question might be: Explain to me why, when Clinton had dramatically slowed the US economy just prior to leaving office, Bush was able to so quickly generate a return to growth? In reality, either question is bogus. Glen Schumann Winona, MN [EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> H: 507.454.3056 W: 507.453.3567 W FAX: 507.454.1440 Visit my Family Home Page: <http://www.hbci.com/~gschuman/home.htm> _______________________________________________ This message was posted to Winona Online Democracy All messages must be signed by the senders actual name. No commercial solicitations are allowed on this list. To manage your subscription or view the message archives, please visit http://mapnp.mnforum.org/mailman/listinfo/winona Any problems or suggestions can be directed to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
