I am a graduate student in economics at the University of North Carolina and recently read this article
you seem to be credited with the being the “intellect” behind the conclusions in this article.
1) yes household debt increased but so did disposable income.. I think just looking at household debt alone isn’t meaningful without also taking into account disposable income. Yes.. household debt increased under Bill Clinton, but so did disposable income.. The real metric you should be looking at is (Household debt) / (disposable income) –which was relatively flat under Clinton. Would you not agree?
2) I also don’t think the policies of Bill Clinton are the cause of a rise in the late 90’s trade deficit. The reason we had a trade deficit surge in the late 90’s was simply because we had a booming economy. The U.S. economy was growing faster than the economies of America’s major trading partners, and Americans consequently were buying foreign goods at a faster pace than people in other countries were buying American goods. Even Milton Friedman was unconcerned with trade deficits believing that the naturally correct over time. So you are saying that the trade surpluses, specifically under Bill Clinton where A) a result of his surplus(honestly makes no sense) and B) later went on the cause the crash of 2008?
I very interested to hear your responses to these questions
Steve, there was no “Clinton Surplus”
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *
You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
Notify me of follow-up comments by email.
Notify me of new posts by email.