Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 35

Thread: Why was the American economy prosperous under Clinton?

  1. #1

    Default Why was the American economy prosperous under Clinton?

    What was it about Bill Clinton that caused the prosperity of the 1990's? I keep hearing everyone claim that Obama could make this country prosperous like the Clinton times, but I want to understand was Clinton the reason why the American economy was doing well in the 90's?

    This is my hypothesis:

    Clinton was more of a moderate than a liberal and did not enact radical legislation. The 90's were also a time when the internet-boom appeared and the computer revolution took off. Clinton did not have a major war like Iraq to deal with. Perhaps the natural "boom-and-bust" cycle was in its boom stage during Clinton's presidency and then entered its bust under Bush?

    I was only a kid in the 90's, but I do remember that life felt much better.



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2

    Default

    He happened to be president when the monetary bubble was on the rise.
    Come check out our message board - Free Speech is always encouraged.
    http://speakfreeforum.com/forum/

  4. #3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mike Mitrosky View Post
    He happened to be president when the monetary bubble was on the rise.
    Yeah, and the rise of the internet. It opened a whole new market that had never been tapped. Wealth increases when people trade - the internet made that more efficient and many people started to take advantage.

    Clinton was the luckiest SOB to ever hold the office.
    "And now that the legislators and do-gooders have so futilely inflicted so many systems upon society, may they finally end where they should have begun: May they reject all systems, and try liberty; for liberty is an acknowledgment of faith in God and His works." - Bastiat

    "It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere." - Voltaire

  5. #4

    Default

    Do not think Clinton did not have a liberal agenda. He had Hillary heading up a Health Care reform task force in 1993. One of the things that made Clinton look better was a Republican congress that was fighting him every step of the way starting in 1994.
    Insanity should be defined as trusting the government to solve a problem they caused in the first place. Please do not go insane!

  6. #5

    Default

    1) credit bubble
    2) some semblance of actual fiscal discipline
    “If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.”

    - SAMUEL ADAMS

  7. #6

    Default

    Yep, the dotcom bubble and the real estate bubble began in 1997, during Clinton's second term. The dotcom bubble crashed at the end of his watch, just as the housing bubble was ramping up. Fuel for the housing bubble started a year before Clinton started his first term.

    Can anyone say Fannie, Freddie and ACORN?

    All agree that the bursting of the housing bubble caused the financial collapse of 2008. Most agree that the housing bubble started in 1997. Less well understood is that this bubble was the result of government policies that lowered mortgage-lending standards to increase home ownership. One of the key players was the controversial liberal advocacy group, Acorn (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now).

    The watershed moment was the 1992 Federal Housing Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness Act, also known as the GSE Act. To comply with that law's "affordable housing" requirements, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac would acquire more than $6 trillion of single-family loans over the next 16 years.

    Congress's goal was to force these two government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs) to purchase loans that had been originated by banks—loans that were made under the pressure of another federal law, the 1977 Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), to increase lending in low- and moderate-income communities.

    From 1977 to 1991, $9 billion in local CRA lending commitments had been announced. CRA lending by large banks increased dramatically after the affordable housing mandate was in place in 1993, growing to $6 trillion today. As Ellen Seidman, director of the federal Office of Thrift Supervision, said in a speech before the Greenlining Institute on Oct. 2, 2001, "Our record home ownership rate [increasing from 64.2% in 1994 to 68% in 2001], I'm convinced, would not have been reached without CRA and its close relative, the Fannie/Freddie requirements."

    The 1992 GSE Act was the fuse, and the trillions of dollars in subsequent CRA and GSE affordable-housing loans would fuel the greatest housing bubble our nation has ever seen. But who lit the fuse?

    MORE

  8. #7

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by thoughtomator View Post
    1) credit bubble
    2) some semblance of actual fiscal discipline

    Yeah lets not discount #2... Clinton got the deficit to its lowest.. like $17 billion one year... the democrats claim there was a budget surplus but you cant have a surplus and increase debt every year .. so we know there was no surplus
    Come check out our message board - Free Speech is always encouraged.
    http://speakfreeforum.com/forum/

  9. #8
    Master Skeptic Brian4Liberty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    23,837
    Blog Entries
    9

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CaptUSA View Post
    Yeah, and the rise of the internet. It opened a whole new market that had never been tapped. Wealth increases when people trade - the internet made that more efficient and many people started to take advantage.

    Clinton was the luckiest SOB to ever hold the office.
    Yep, pure luck to be sitting there during a revolution in technology and trade. And corresponding economic activities and investment caused unemployment to plummet. If you wanted a job, you could get one.
    Last edited by Brian4Liberty; 11-07-2012 at 09:51 AM.

    "Foreign aid is taking money from the poor people of a rich country, and giving it to the rich people of a poor country." - Ron Paul
    "Beware the Military-Industrial-Financial-Corporate-Media-Government Complex." - B4L update of General Dwight D. Eisenhower
    "Debt is the drug, Wall St. Banksters are the dealers, and politicians are the addicts." - B4L
    "Totally free immigration? I've never taken that position. I believe in national sovereignty." - Ron Paul


  10. #9

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mike Mitrosky View Post
    Yeah lets not discount #2... Clinton got the deficit to its lowest.. like $17 billion one year... the democrats claim there was a budget surplus but you cant have a surplus and increase debt every year .. so we know there was no surplus
    The claim of surplus is a lie based on stealing Social Security funds and using a calendar year instead of a fiscal year. But there's no denying that the deficit got very close to zero even still, during the Clinton years.
    “If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.”

    - SAMUEL ADAMS

  11. #10

    Default

    For the same reason it'll be prosperous under Obama's second term: credit expansion. We had the 1991-93 housing bust, then credit boom and conumption-driven growth fueled Clinton's economy. 2012 is 1993, get ready!

  12. #11
    Master Skeptic Brian4Liberty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    23,837
    Blog Entries
    9

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by thoughtomator View Post
    The claim of surplus is a lie based on stealing Social Security funds and using a calendar year instead of a fiscal year. But there's no denying that the deficit got very close to zero even still, during the Clinton years.
    Yeah. And the booming economy caused government revenue (taxes) at all levels to increase. They were giddy to spend every bit of it too.

    "Foreign aid is taking money from the poor people of a rich country, and giving it to the rich people of a poor country." - Ron Paul
    "Beware the Military-Industrial-Financial-Corporate-Media-Government Complex." - B4L update of General Dwight D. Eisenhower
    "Debt is the drug, Wall St. Banksters are the dealers, and politicians are the addicts." - B4L
    "Totally free immigration? I've never taken that position. I believe in national sovereignty." - Ron Paul


  13. #12
    Member Zippyjuan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Hosting FEMA Party
    Posts
    18,574

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mike Mitrosky View Post
    Yeah lets not discount #2... Clinton got the deficit to its lowest.. like $17 billion one year... the democrats claim there was a budget surplus but you cant have a surplus and increase debt every year .. so we know there was no surplus
    They were giddy to spend every bit of it too.
    The budget US grew by the smallest percent under Clinton than under any other president since WWII (Republicans controlled Congress and congress writes all spending and tax bills). Meanwhile he also benefited by large amounts of money coming in from the Dot Com led stock market bubble. They resisted spending all the extra money coming in to government coffers. And actually the spending increases under Obama are lower than those under Clinton (the first Obama budget was the 2010 fiscal year- though he took office in 2009, the 2009 budget was a Bush budget which started in October 2008).

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickunga...-barack-obama/
    Last edited by Zippyjuan; 11-07-2012 at 10:59 AM.
    I am Zippy and I approve of this message. But you don't have to.

  14. #13
    Master Skeptic Brian4Liberty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    23,837
    Blog Entries
    9

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    They resisted spending all the extra money coming in to government coffers.
    Bullshit. The California Legislature was giddy about spending the tiniest bit of surplus that we had for one year at the height of the bubble. The Feds likewise took full advantage of the excess revenue.

    "Foreign aid is taking money from the poor people of a rich country, and giving it to the rich people of a poor country." - Ron Paul
    "Beware the Military-Industrial-Financial-Corporate-Media-Government Complex." - B4L update of General Dwight D. Eisenhower
    "Debt is the drug, Wall St. Banksters are the dealers, and politicians are the addicts." - B4L
    "Totally free immigration? I've never taken that position. I believe in national sovereignty." - Ron Paul


  15. #14

    Default

    First of all, the economy didn't boom all eight years of Clinton. The beginning and end weren't so hot. Secondly, you had a perfect storm of things coming together.

    1. Baby boomers entered their peak earning and spending years in the late 90's. People earn the most and spend the most between 50 and 60. Spending in the short term does drive the economy.

    2. These were also years that people started playing catch up with their retirement. The number 1 driver of markets isn't good earnings. Those are almost irrelevant over the short run. The number one driver (and its not even close) is fresh money flowing into the markets. You had people flowing money into the markets and there was good story. You had the internet to justify it in their minds. As crazy as it sounds a good story drives the share prices of younger companies more than fundamentals. Netflix stock was based on a story. Green Mountain Coffee stock was based on a story. Deckers Outdoors was a story. Eventually the story plays out and you get a bust and people rush to the exits.

    3. You had a Fed Chairman who would ease at any trouble. He bailed out US banks who had exposure to Mexico when itwas having a currency crisis. The last leg of the stock market was fueled by massive Fed easing after Long Term Capital Management blew up. That fueled the market from late 98 to beginning of 00. He could get away with this because people erroneously use CPI to measure inflation. CPI doesn't take into account inflation in things like stock prices.


    4. Other things that helped were gridlock in government, no major Wars on the horizon, deregulation of the banking sector and other things that I can't think of.


    AND NO OBAMA ISN'T GOING TO REFLATE THE BUBBLE. Once a bubble bursts, it takes a LONNNNNNNNNNG time to repair. Japan had a major stock and real estate bubble in the late 1980s. They did all the same things we are doing now. Huge deficits, Zero interest. Their stock market is at 1983 levels. It is 80 percent of its 1989 high. So a 30 year flat market should concern us.
    Last edited by misean; 11-07-2012 at 11:35 AM.

  16. #15
    Member Zippyjuan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Hosting FEMA Party
    Posts
    18,574

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    Bullshit. The California Legislature was giddy about spending the tiniest bit of surplus that we had for one year at the height of the bubble. The Feds likewise took full advantage of the excess revenue.
    So how would you explain that government spending grew at such a slow pace? The boom in spending happened after Clinton left and Bush took over.

    Chart:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:CB...ercent_GDP.png



    Clinton was president from January 1993 to January 2001. Note that spending is decreasing (as percent of GDP in the chart) and revenues are increasing. They are not both increasing.
    Last edited by Zippyjuan; 11-07-2012 at 11:47 AM.
    I am Zippy and I approve of this message. But you don't have to.

  17. #16
    Untimely ripped fisharmor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Location! Location!
    Posts
    6,535

    Default

    If there was a credit expansion in the 90s, how come gold and oil both went down in price?
    There are no crimes against people.
    There are only crimes against the state.
    And the state will never, ever choose to hold accountable its agents, because a thing can not commit a crime against itself.

  18. #17

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fisharmor View Post
    If there was a credit expansion in the 90s, how come gold and oil both went down in price?
    Think about it this way. There was a massive credit contraction in the late 1970's and early 1980's and gold and silver were in a mania. Fundamentals may drive stock prices or gold over the long haul, but the long run takes a lot longer than people think.

    There was a huge credit contraction after 2008 but gold went up dramatically. It was pricing in the potential negative effects of QE and Fed intervention not the actual short term. Psychology and perception has a large effect on asset prices.

    Read about Long Term Capital Management. The Fed went into overdrive to stop the market plunge.


    http://www.investopedia.com/terms/l/...#axzz2BZ7Fr5Sb
    Last edited by misean; 11-07-2012 at 12:07 PM. Reason: added link

  19. #18
    Member Zippyjuan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Hosting FEMA Party
    Posts
    18,574

    Default

    Gold started to decline after hitting a peak during its bubble in 1980. That continued until roughly 2004. It was following a decline in the price inflation rate. It is true that the Fed severely contracted the money supply at that time and that caused the spike in gold prices.
    Last edited by Zippyjuan; 11-07-2012 at 12:08 PM.
    I am Zippy and I approve of this message. But you don't have to.

  20. #19
    Master Skeptic Brian4Liberty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    23,837
    Blog Entries
    9

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    So how would you explain that government spending grew at such a slow pace? The boom in spending happened after Clinton left and Bush took over.

    ...

    Clinton was president from January 1993 to January 2001. Note that spending is decreasing (as percent of GDP in the chart) and revenues are increasing. They are not both increasing.
    First of all, I don't put any faith in government statistics, or the vast majority of statistics.

    Now, the reason for any amount of reduced government spending during that boom is due to people voluntarily leaving government employment and joining the booming private sector. It was not a choice by the government. It was the result of the booming economy.

    "Foreign aid is taking money from the poor people of a rich country, and giving it to the rich people of a poor country." - Ron Paul
    "Beware the Military-Industrial-Financial-Corporate-Media-Government Complex." - B4L update of General Dwight D. Eisenhower
    "Debt is the drug, Wall St. Banksters are the dealers, and politicians are the addicts." - B4L
    "Totally free immigration? I've never taken that position. I believe in national sovereignty." - Ron Paul


  21. #20

  22. #21
    Master Skeptic Brian4Liberty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    23,837
    Blog Entries
    9

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    Gold started to decline after hitting a peak during its bubble in 1980. That continued until roughly 2004. It was following a decline in the price inflation rate. It is true that the Fed severely contracted the money supply at that time and that caused the spike in gold prices.
    Gold went from ~$250 to ~$425 from 2000 to 2004. Get your facts straight.

    "Foreign aid is taking money from the poor people of a rich country, and giving it to the rich people of a poor country." - Ron Paul
    "Beware the Military-Industrial-Financial-Corporate-Media-Government Complex." - B4L update of General Dwight D. Eisenhower
    "Debt is the drug, Wall St. Banksters are the dealers, and politicians are the addicts." - B4L
    "Totally free immigration? I've never taken that position. I believe in national sovereignty." - Ron Paul


  23. #22
    Member Zippyjuan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Hosting FEMA Party
    Posts
    18,574

    Default

    Sorry I was off by a couple of years. It was still a decline in price for 20 years with some ups and downs in between. I did say roughly. 2001 was the bottom.

    http://goldprice.org/30-year-gold-price-history.html
    I am Zippy and I approve of this message. But you don't have to.

  24. #23
    Member Zippyjuan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Hosting FEMA Party
    Posts
    18,574

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    First of all, I don't put any faith in government statistics, or the vast majority of statistics.

    Now, the reason for any amount of reduced government spending during that boom is due to people voluntarily leaving government employment and joining the booming private sector. It was not a choice by the government. It was the result of the booming economy.
    So people quit government jobs and the government didn't fill them? Sorry- that was not the case. Some did leave but they were replaced by others. In dollars, spending did increase- but by a small amount- as said, the smallest amount of any president since WWII. The chart shows it decreasing as a percent of GDP because the GDP was rising. The big thing is that revenues were rising faster and that is why the deficit shrank.

    But it is interresting to see that we have gone from the government giddily spending all the higher revenues under Clinton
    Bullshit. The California Legislature was giddy about spending the tiniest bit of surplus that we had for one year at the height of the bubble. The Feds likewise took full advantage of the excess revenue.
    to government spending being lower because people were leaving the government for the private sector:
    Now, the reason for any amount of reduced government spending during that boom is due to people voluntarily leaving government employment and joining the booming private sector. It was not a choice by the government. It was the result of the booming economy.
    He certainly did benefit hugely by the dot com bubble and the tax revenues that generated. But Clinton and the Repubican Congress also did not allow spending to rise along with the increased revenues which has not happened very often. Then Bush came along and said the "surplus" should go to "the people" so he cut taxes and increased spending and entered two wars and the budget deficit exploded to where we are today.
    Last edited by Zippyjuan; 11-07-2012 at 01:45 PM.
    I am Zippy and I approve of this message. But you don't have to.

  25. #24

    Default

    1. it was a bubble, remember dot com?
    2. he stole (borrowed) money from social security to pretend to balance the budget so the debt wasn't as visible leading to the current problems with that program.
    3. There WAS real truth to dot.com, the internet was new, and an entirely new economy was born. That was like invention of the printing press, and Clinton had nothing to do with its causation.
    Last edited by sailingaway; 11-07-2012 at 01:08 PM.
    "Integrity means having to say things that people don't want to hear & especially to say things that the regime doesn't want to hear.” -Ron Paul

    "Bathtub falls and police officers kill more Americans than terrorism, yet we've been asked to sacrifice our most sacred rights for fear of falling victim to it." -Edward Snowden

  26. #25
    Master Skeptic Brian4Liberty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    23,837
    Blog Entries
    9

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    So people quit government jobs and the government didn't fill them? Sorry- that was not the case. Some did leave but they were replaced by others.
    ...
    Either you work for the government or are their biggest cheerleader. So you should know that government hiring takes place at a glacial pace. And when there is a booming economy, people leave government for higher pay. The government doesn't have the flexibility to bump up pay on a moments notice. When people can make more money in the private sector, it is hard for government to hire people. They certainly don't get replaced overnight as you are inferring.

    And just because the government has a cost pulled out from under their feet doesn't mean that they will not spend like drunken sailors to try to make up for it.

    And it was all crashing down before Clinton even left office. The next President was going to inherit a bad economy no matter what.
    Last edited by Brian4Liberty; 11-07-2012 at 02:00 PM.

    "Foreign aid is taking money from the poor people of a rich country, and giving it to the rich people of a poor country." - Ron Paul
    "Beware the Military-Industrial-Financial-Corporate-Media-Government Complex." - B4L update of General Dwight D. Eisenhower
    "Debt is the drug, Wall St. Banksters are the dealers, and politicians are the addicts." - B4L
    "Totally free immigration? I've never taken that position. I believe in national sovereignty." - Ron Paul


  27. #26

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sailingaway View Post
    1. it was a bubble, remember dot com?
    2. he stole (borrowed) money from social security to pretend to balance the budget so the debt wasn't as visible leading to the current problems with that program.
    3. There WAS real truth to dot.com, the internet was new, and an entirely new economy was born. That was like invention of the printing press, and Clinton had nothing to do with its causation.
    That sums it up.

    I want to strangle anyone who thinks "higher tax rates made the economy boom".

  28. #27

    Default

    How it works:

    The Social Security Administration is legally required to take all its surpluses and buy U.S. Government securities, and the U.S. Government readily sells those securities--which automatically and immediately becomes intragovernmental holdings. The economy was doing well due to the dot-com bubble and people were earning a lot of money and paying a lot into Social Security. Since Social Security had more money coming in than it had to pay in benefits to retired persons, all that extra money was immediately used to buy U.S. Government securities. The government was still running deficits, but since there was so much money coming from excess Social Security contributions there was no need to borrow more money directly from the public. As such, the public debt went down while intragovernmental holdings continued to skyrocket.
    Example:

    Of the $142 billion surplus projected by the end of 2000, $137 billion will come from excess Social Security taxes.
    From the US Treasury:


    FY1993 09/30/1993 $4.411488 trillion
    FY1994 09/30/1994 $4.692749 trillion $281.26 billion
    FY1995 09/29/1995 $4.973982 trillion $281.23 billion
    FY1996 09/30/1996 $5.224810 trillion $250.83 billion
    FY1997 09/30/1997 $5.413146 trillion $188.34 billion
    FY1998 09/30/1998 $5.526193 trillion $113.05 billion
    FY1999 09/30/1999 $5.656270 trillion $130.08 billion
    FY2000 09/29/2000 $5.674178 trillion $17.91 billion
    FY2001 09/28/2001 $5.807463 trillion $133.29 billion
    Despite the windfall from the Bush Sr (largest increase ever) and Clinton (2nd largest ever, by a nose hair) tax increases and SS slush fund, anyone see a reduction in public debt? The PD under Clinton grew by $1.5 Trillion when he easily should have been able to actually do what he claimed and pay down some of that debt.

    The Cost Of Doing War:

    The on the sheet cost of the Balkans intervention was under $20 Billion. Both Bushes plus Obanana have spent 200 times that. Relative peace saves money... scads of it.


    And Zipster, WTF is with your 'gold is shit' fixation? Even conservatively playing the ups and downs of gold since 1971 bests the DOW by 10 times, especially in the years you cited.

  29. #28

    Default

    The first is how much government spending fell during President Bill Clinton's eight years in office and how low it was when he left office. When he became president in 1992, government spending was 23.5% of GDP, and when he left in 2001 it was 19.5% of GDP. President Clinton, in conjunction with a solid Republican Congress, cut government spending by more than any other president in modern times, and oversaw one of the greatest periods of economic growth and prosperity in U.S. history.
    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...257188398.html
    Last edited by robert68; 11-07-2012 at 02:19 PM.

  30. #29
    Member Zippyjuan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Hosting FEMA Party
    Posts
    18,574

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bossobass View Post

    And Zipster, WTF is with your 'gold is shit' fixation? Even conservatively playing the ups and downs of gold since 1971 bests the DOW by 10 times, especially in the years you cited.
    Check the dates when such comparisons are made. Most start in 2001 when gold hit its low price. During the years of 1980 to 2001 the price of gold went from $800 an ounce to about $265 an ounce by 2001. Did stocks go down by a bigger amount during that period? Yes, this comparison uses the opposite extreme- picking the highest price for gold and the least favorable period for its price. The comparison is just as bad. We can both find times when one did better and times when the other did better. Neither is always the best investment.

    This article uses the same point selection bias for his long-term data but you did say it would apply even to the years I cited:

    http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505123_1...-stock-market/
    As gold hits $1,500 an ounce, the buzz is ramping up and the gold bugs are going strong. Predictions of gold at $3,500 per ounce are once again common place. The University of Texas has turned into a gold bug taking possession of a billion dollars worth of the shiny metal. But how has gold performed versus the US stock market? The answer is that it has kept up with the stock market in the short-run but badly lagged in the long-run.

    Gold over the last two years
    Two years ago, gold was trading for the bargain price of $877.00 an ounce according to Kitco.com. At yesterday's closing price of $1,501 an ounce, that represents a 71 percent gain. While there's no denying this great gain, a broad US index fund like the Vanguard Total Stock Market Index ETF (VTI), clocked in an almost identical 71 percent gain. And because the long-term capital gains tax rate is not available on gold, the index fund actually outperformed gold on an after-tax basis.

    Gold since 1980 - The long-run
    It's somewhat arbitrary to pick a date to measure the long-run. I use the beginning of 1980 since that happens to be when I bought gold coins at $664 an ounce with the absolute certainty that it wou7ld hit $2,000 in a year or two. Despite the fact that gold has more than doubled, my return still amounts to a very unspectacular 2.6 percent annual return. It also lagged inflation, which means that I can buy less today than when I made my investment, even before Uncle Sam takes his cut of my nominal gain.

    While my $3,320 college graduation money investing in gold in 1980 is worth $7,500 today, I probably would have been far better off if I had invested in American capitalism. Because with the US stock market racking up an 11.6% annual return, my $3,320 would have been worth $102,853. A $95 thousand greater return than my gold, how depressing is that?
    (Sorry for getting off- topic)

    Clinton- higher revenues from dot com bubble combined with Republican Congress not spending more money.
    Last edited by Zippyjuan; 11-07-2012 at 03:15 PM.
    I am Zippy and I approve of this message. But you don't have to.

  31. #30

    Default

    Prosperous is a very broad and misleading term.

    How was Clinton years prosperous? Or how was Bush years prosperous?

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast




« Previous Thread | Next Thread »


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •