Bill Clintons Second Term the Best Economy of my Lifetime

I've been watching the economy the majority of my adult life. And in the 50 years of watching the economy Bill Clinton's second term was the only time in my lifetime the value of the dollar was worth more at the end of the 4 year period. In other words, a dollar could buy 3 slices of bread in 1996 and in 2000 before the stock market crash it could buy 4 slices of bread.

It was like everyone who was working magically got a 15% raise. It was truly an amazing economy. I had tons of money. Every other week I heard of someone paying off their house early. Everyone was happy and energetic. People loved going to work. Everyone was focused and tuned in to the pursuit of their own happiness.

During Bill Clinton's presidency, Robert Reich was his secretary of Labor. He claims the economy's success was all his doing and his "Putting People First" campaign message. He claimed his administrations marginal tax rates combined with tax policies designed to encourage growth and investment is why the economy was so good.

And even in one of those years the national budget had a surplus (although many Republicans said it was fake news at the time). There was talk about what we would do once the National Debt was paid off. It' was truly an amazing economy!

It's been over 20 years ago since we had this amazing economy. I keep waiting for it to come back but it never does. I've been thinking a lot about Bill Clinton's second term. Why was this economy so good?

Contrary to Reich's claim it was ALL his doing, I now have a different theory. My theory is based on something I read about the Great Depression. I know there's a lot of debate over what caused the Great Depression but consider the following statement just on its own possibility of being true:

"The decline in money supply between 1929 and 1933 fell 30.9 percent from its 1929 level."

So based on the idea that the money supply can cause untold amounts of misery, here is my theory on why Bill Clinton's second term was the best economy in my lifetime. Leading up to 2000 there was a HUGE concern about computers and Y2K. For the snowflakes reading this here is what the Y2K was about.

Year 2000 problem

At the time, I was working in a large financial institution that no longer exists. The entire company was mobilized to do Y2K testing and certification. There was a palpable fear by upper management the entire financial system which was built on computers was about to collapse. Huge amounts of money was thrown at Y2K certification.

So with this crazy amount of fear and threat, I think the Federal Reserve did the opposite of what they did from 1929 through 1933. They flooded the market with an excess of money supply. The wheels of commerce were well greased. Commerce was just as popular as copulation! I think the FED felt if there was going to be a Y2K hiccup, the best way to prepare is to have the best economy possible in place so it would not be some kind of 20 to 30 year period to get the economy going again.

I remember seeing graphs on the value of the dollar that supported my theory in the early 2000s. But now all the data looks like Bill Clinton's second term did not exist. Or, maybe I'm just not smart enough to find the right money supply curve. Regardless, I remember what I experienced.

To add evidence to my theory here's something else I read about President Lincoln and the civil war having to do with money supply.

"During the Civil War (1861-1865), President Lincoln needed money to finance the War from the North. The Bankers were going to charge him 24% to 36% interest. Lincoln was horrified and went away greatly distressed, for he was a man of principle and would not think of plunging his beloved country into a debt that the country would find impossible to pay back. Eventually President Lincoln was advised to get Congress to pass a law authorizing the printing of full legal tender Treasury notes to pay for the War effort. Lincoln recognized the great benefits of this issue. At one point he wrote:

'(we) gave the people of this Republic the greatest blessing they have ever had – their own paper money to pay their own debts...'

Lincoln printed 400 million dollars worth of Greenbacks (the exact amount being $449,338,902), money that he delegated to be created, a debt-free and interest-free money to finance the War. It served as legal tender for all debts, public and private. He printed it, paid it to the soldiers, to the U.S. Civil Service employees, and bought supplies for war.

Shortly after that happened, The London Times printed the following: "If that mischievous financial policy, which had its origin in the North American Republic, should become indurated down to a fixture, then that Government will furnish its own money without cost. It will pay off debts and be without a debt. It will have all the money necessary to carry on its commerce. It will become prosperous beyond precedent in the history of the civilized governments of the world. The brains and the wealth of all countries will go to North America. That government must be destroyed, or it will destroy every monarchy on the globe."

It seems to me Reich is completely wrong. Tax policy is irrelevant. To quote our World's greatest monarch:

"Give me control of a nation's money supply, and I care not who makes it’s laws". Mater Amschel Rothschild

Here is more evidence to support my theory. It is a video on the history of money in the United States. It's a 4 hour video. I've watch the whole thing at least 3 times now. Here's the video even though I doubt many people will watch it given it's longer than a tweet.



Our fiat currency and the Federal Reserve system guarantee our country will always be in debt and never get out of debt. Will will always be slaves as long as fiat currency exists. Every president that has created interest free money in this country by getting the Treasury Department to print legal tender has been assassinated.

I clearly remember during Bill Clinton's second term we began paying down the National Debt. Although many people like to dispute it because they hate Democrats. I remember it clearly happened or we were very close. I think Bill Clinton's second term needs to be studied. Maybe it was tax policy that caused the greatest economy in my lifetime. Although I doubt it was tax policy. It would be nice to know what happened. I think the money supply determines the quality of our lives.

a reply to: dfnj2015

NAFTA?

That was when he right in the middle of helping the Republican's sell out the nation to the banksters and their media cartel cronies, oh and road to nowhere ship our jobs overseas no coming back trade deals.

The repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act ?

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: dfnj2015

NAFTA?

The best economy in my lifetime occurred before NAFTA had any real effect.

originally posted by: ColeYounger
The repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act ?

The best economy in my lifetime occurred before Glass-Steagall was repealed.

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
That was when he right in the middle of helping the Republican's sell out the nation to the banksters and their media cartel cronies, oh and road to nowhere ship our jobs overseas no coming back trade deals.

Although I agree with you Bill Clinton help the Republicans sell out, I don't think those policy changes existed long enough to cause what at least I experienced.

a reply to: dfnj2015

What Bill Clinton did, was great. The budget was actually a budget.

Here is some of the Wiki, from his economy.

President Clinton oversaw a very robust economy during his tenure. The U.S. had strong economic growth (around 4% annually) and record job creation (22.7 million). He raised taxes on higher income taxpayers early in his first term and cut defense spending and welfare, which contributed to a rise in revenue and decline in spending relative to the size of the economy. These factors helped bring the federal budget into surplus from fiscal years 1998–2001, the only surplus years after 1969. Debt held by the public, a primary measure of the national debt, fell relative to GDP throughout his two terms, from 47.8% in 1993 to 31.4% in 2001.[1]

Clinton signed NAFTA into law along with many other free trade agreements. He also enacted significant welfare reform. His deregulation of finance (both tacit and overt through the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act) has been criticized as a contributing factor to the Great Recession.[2]

en.wikipedia.org...

a reply to: dfnj2015

Yeah...

It was called the .com bubble.


Now, it was all possible due to the Telecom Act Of 1996. That alone elevated the entire communications sector and Internet age.

The Telecom Act Of 1996 is the sole reason why the economy was outstanding in the 1990's


www.forbes.com...

What followed can only be described as one of the most misguided investment periods in American history. Tens of billions of dollars poured into new companies with business models aligned with, and reliant upon, the new FCC rules. These new companies were called Competitive Local Exchange Companies and Dot.com companies. Tens of billions of other dollars flowed to companies with business models that would prosper only if the FCC rules were overturned.

originally posted by: infolurker
a reply to: dfnj2015

Yeah...

It was called the .com bubble.


Now, it was all possible due to the Telecom Act Of 1996. That alone elevated the entire communications sector and Internet age.

The Telecom Act Of 1996 is the sole reason why the economy was outstanding in the 1990's

Could be. The economy is pretty big. It's hard to imagine one industry could have caused the entire economy to hum. I know millions of routers were installed. But still, it's hard to imagine. Most people did not work in the computer industry at the time. But you may be right.

a reply to: dfnj2015

You should have been there for the 00's Decade. It was a hoot. And now Lady Gaga will become the First Woman POTUS. Bill Clinton man. Bill effing Clinton.

originally posted by: dfnj2015

originally posted by: infolurker
a reply to: dfnj2015

Yeah...

It was called the .com bubble.


Now, it was all possible due to the Telecom Act Of 1996. That alone elevated the entire communications sector and Internet age.

The Telecom Act Of 1996 is the sole reason why the economy was outstanding in the 1990's

Could be.

Oh, it was. 100%

I had my 10's of thousands of stock options waiting to IPO... people were getting rich... regular people with new companies giving employees stock options like candy.

Those lucky few were able to get vested and get out before the crash... the rest of us were left holding worthless options.

The Boom / Bubble was AMAZING.

I quickly advanced from 30K base in 1996 to 85K in 1999. Telecom companies and .Coms were sprouting up everywhere. The vendors were giving new companies equipment on credit. It was an amazing boom.

We were all going to be rich.

Sobering up from drinking that kool-aid was hard...... after the crash, we realized we might actually have to work for the rest of our lives...

originally posted by: infolurker

originally posted by: dfnj2015

originally posted by: infolurker
a reply to: dfnj2015

Yeah...

It was called the .com bubble.


Now, it was all possible due to the Telecom Act Of 1996. That alone elevated the entire communications sector and Internet age.

The Telecom Act Of 1996 is the sole reason why the economy was outstanding in the 1990's

Could be.

Oh, it was. 100%

I had my 10's of thousands of stock options waiting to IPO... people were getting rich... regular people with new companies giving employees stock options like candy.

Those lucky few were able to get vested and get out before the crash... the rest of us were left holding worthless options.

The economy is pretty big. It's hard to imagine one industry could have caused the entire economy to hum. I know millions of routers were installed. But still, it's hard to imagine. Most people did not work in the computer industry at the time. But you may be right.

It's probably measurable if we had accurate data.

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
a reply to: dfnj2015

You should have been there for the 00's Decade. It was a hoot. And now Lady Gaga will become the First Woman POTUS. Bill Clinton man. Bill effing Clinton.

I was there. Well, except when I was on drugs.

a reply to: dfnj2015


Clinton wasn't to bad of a president. He ran as a lefty and led from the middle.

He benefited greatly from the dot com boom.
People that didn't really understand the Internet and how it worked invested loads of money into companies that did nothing. Eventually that bubble burst.

well under clinton congress was mostly republican and the state government's were also dominated by republicans, but back then both parties were far more moderate and centrist in their policy, everything has shifted to the extreme on both ends and it's just become a circus of ideology.

Clinton presided over the dotcom boom. Bush got to enjoy it's spectacular collapse when the bubble popped.

I was in business school in the late 90s. The economy was bonkers. Firms giving out $100k signing bonuses, cars, etc A lot of my classmates dropped out to run out to silicon valley searching for IPO riches.

By summer of 2000, it started collapsing and was in full on implosion by mid 2001. I recall classmates getting their job offers rescinded or delayed. Then 9/11 happened and it was a sh*t storm form there on out. The fed then lowered the fed funds rate and mortgage rates begin to fall dramatically which then created the housing bubble which then started to implode in 2007.

It is debatable how much Presidents truly affect the economy. I think they do to some degree in that they can create confidence (or take it away). For business, certainty is what drives investment and optimism. Much like evolution, free markets tend to find a way, so it comes down to if the economy is really living up to its true potential. Economy recovered under Obama, but it never really lived up to its potential because it was hamstrung with additional regulations and lack of confidence. Trump provides that confidence which is why you are seeing a boom under his leadership.

a reply to: dfnj2015

This will explain it. It was a wonderful time though. I wish it had just lasted a few more years. Regular employees had the opportunity to work their butts off for a few years and cash out with millions. Stocks would IPO and shoot to 100 bucks and split. It was AWESOME.

It was just a matter of waiting for your IPO and stock to vest. If not here, it will be the next company.....

www.princeton.edu...

The dimensions of the collapse in the telecommunications industry during the past two years have been staggering. Half a million people have lost their jobs. In that time, the Dow Jones communication technology index has dropped 86 percent; the wireless communications index, 89 percent. These are declines in value worthy of comparison to the great crash of 1929. Out of the $7 trillion decline in the stock market since its peak, about $2 trillion have disappeared in the capitalization of telecom companies. Twenty-three telecom companies have gone bankrupt in a wave capped off by the July 21 collapse of WorldCom, the single largest bankruptcy in American history.

And the storm is not over. Many other firms, including some of the biggest, are teetering under a heavy load of debt. Altogether, the industry owes a trillion dollars, "much of which will never be repaid and will have to be written off by investors," Federal Communications Commission Chairman Michael Powell told the Senate Commerce Committee on July 30.

To be sure, some of the vanished stock-market wealth consists of -- quaint expression -- "paper" profits. But a trillion here, a trillion there and soon you're talking about real money. Long-term growth depends on capital flowing to productive purposes; when it is dissipated in such vast quantities, the costs affect the economy as a whole -- not just those unlucky enough to see their investments and jobs vanish.

Almost as staggering as the economic losses, however, is the general unwillingness to acknowledge that something has gone wrong with the policies adopted in recent years to reform telecommunications. "There has yet to be a serious acceptance of the idea that recent events compel us to do anything different," says Andrew Schwartzman, director of the Media Access Group, a public-interest law firm.

originally posted by: Bluntone22
a reply to: dfnj2015


Clinton wasn't to bad of a president. He ran as a lefty and led from the middle.

He benefited greatly from the dot com boom.
People that didn't really understand the Internet and how it worked invested loads of money into companies that did nothing. Eventually that bubble burst.

Even though I lean right, I actually though Clinton was a good President. He governed fairly moderately imho IIRC.

Bill Clintons Second Term the Best Economy of my Lifetime

Sure if you ignore the world trade center attack,the Cole,the Repeal of Glass Stegall, the 3 card monte with the budget 'surplus', and the dot com bubble.

Best economy of my lifetime, I guess between cheating on his wife and running this country in to the ground.

LOOOOL.

What a load of horse snip with a double shot of bullsnip.