Robert Rubin and Jacob Weisberg (2003) In an Uncertain World (New York: Random House: 0375505857).
Economists and historians will long debate the contrast between the economic policies of the Clinton and George W. Bush administrations. The Clinton administration took office with remarkably few and remarkably bad cards--a long-term legacy of extremely slow economic growth, the huge federal budget deficits created by the Reagan-George H.W. Bush administrations of 1980-1992, a relatively high "natural" rate of unemployment below which inflationary pressures began to build, and so on. The George W. Bush administration took office with remarkably good cards: a budget in substantial surplus, rapid trend productivity growth produced by the fact that the information-technology revolution had reached critical mass, and a remarkably low "natural" rate of unemployment.
Yet nearly everything the Clinton economic policy team touched turned to gold: deficit reduction and the largely-successful attempt to enhance the high-investment high-productivity growth recovery, initiatives to reduce trade barriers, and the largely-successful handling of the 1994 Mexican and 1997-1998 Asian financial crises. And presiding over a remarkably good record of economic policy successes was first Assistant to the President and later Secretary of the Treasury Robert Rubin.* By contrast, nearly everything the George W. Bush economic policy team has touched has turned to--well, if not to lead, at least to a state that leads observers inside and outside the administration to shake their heads and mutter about a horrible waste of opportunity--on trade policy, on fiscal policy, on entitlement reform, on you name it.
Reading Clinton Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin's memoir--In an Uncertain World--we can begin to understand where this striking difference comes from. First, note that the title page of In an Uncertain World states that its authors are "Robert Rubin and Jacob Weisberg." How often do you see that? How often does the person who crafts the prose get his or her name on the cover? And not with a mere "with" but with a full "and." This is one facet of Robert Rubin's strength: he is a classy guy, and a man who believes that credit is to be shared and not hogged for himself.
Indeed, Rubin gives a lot of credit to the team of people who worked for him. And they were indeed world class. But any Assistant to the President, any Secretary of the Treasury, can hire a team composed of the best people for the jobs in the world--if that is what is wanted, and if one is a good enough manager to identify who the best people in the world are.
The factor Rubin himself sees as most important is his habit of "probabilistic thinking": a willingness to always ask questions like "What else might happen?", "What if we're wrong?", "What could happen next?", and to look at the full range of situations that might come to pass--and at their costs and benefits--rather than to assume that things will go as planned or as the fashionable ideology or favorite administration model would have predicted. For all forecasts turn out to be wrong along at least one important dimension. Pounding the table and talking more loudly does not make unwanted facts disappear. Rubin's recognition that the world is a complicated and poorly-understood place, where lots of unexpected and surprising things happen (as opposed to a place to which John Maynard Keynes or Milton Friedman or Irving Kristol has already drawn us an accurate map we need merely to consult), seems to have been the most powerful of his secret weapons.
However, reading In an Uncertain World teaches that "probabilistic thinking" was not Rubin only secret weapon. He had a president who cared deeply about not just politics but policy--and who was willing to be convinced, at least most of the time, that what was good policy would turn out in the long run to be good politics (or, at least, that such was a not unreasonable bet). He used his extraordinary management skills: I remember sitting in the back of the White House's Roosevelt Room and watching, amazed, as Rubin guided National Economic Council meetings to the consensus he wanted by little more than raising his eyebrows and calling on people in the appropriate order.
All of these secret weapons of policymaking and public service, however, would have been of little use had they not been directed in the right direction. I think that the principal reason for Rubin's--Clinton's--the whole administration's economic policy success (extraordinary success given the weak cards it began with) was the ability to hold tight, always, to what the object of government was: to always see the big picture clearly in your mind's eye. And Rubin remembers a moment when he held tight on world trade: "protecting industries is usually appealing, because the negative consequences of free trade are so visible.... In a discussion with President Clinton... I mentioned that one sector where we needed to push for reduced trade barriers was fish. Clinton remembered... seeing some poor fisherman casting their lines.... he wasn't going to do anything to hurt those vulnerable people. 'But Mr. President,' I said, 'to help those poor fishermen, you're going to prevent the vastly greater benefit that would come to the poor... from being able to buy cheap fish.'"
But we too have to look at the big picture. What do we have to do to make it more likely in the future that people as capable and wise as Robert Rubin will find it attractive to enter public service? And, once there, find themselves with the power to make a difference?
*By contrast, those parts of the Clinton administration that Rubin did not preside over had much rockier times. The failure to use administration bargaining power to get a welfare reform bill more to the President's taste, the botch of health care reform presided over by Ira Magaziner, the botch of global warming presided over by Al Gore, and... ahem. On policy--economic policy, social policy, security policy--Bill Clinton was a very good president. Nevertheless the economic policy area was the one that went the very best.
Posted by DeLong at December 1, 2003 12:11 PM | TrackBack
While I am not in a position to disagree with your analysis, and while I certainly would not want to argue in favour of your current government, there is one other data point that makes me wonder if Mr. Rubin gets the credit you give him.
The move from government deficits to government surpluses and back again have not been confined to the US, but seem (from my recollection, I don't have hard data) pretty consistent across other industrialized nations. This suggests either that the influence of the US spills over so much to smaller economies as to determine their trends, which may be true, or that there was something else going on (the massive investment in the tech bubble perhaps?) outside Mr. Rubin's office that shaped these fluctuations.
Posted by: Tom Slee on December 1, 2003 12:44 PMThat should be "deserves the credit" not "gets the credit" at the end of the first paragraph. Sorry.
Posted by: Tom Slee on December 1, 2003 12:45 PMClearly, the goals of Clinton economic policy and Bush economic policy are different. Clinton aimed his economic policies at helping the poorest Americans. Mr. Bush has targeted his wealthy buddies for political largesse. By helping the poorest Americans, Mr. Clinton strengthened the weakness of the American economy. Those who could have been a drag on the system were a productive part of the workforce. Under Mr. Bush, we have a well connected few benefitting by increasing their income gap over the rest of us. However, his policies leave out the poorest Americans and with the loss of 3 million jobs, has turned productive workers into a drag on the economy and resources of the government.
The policies of Mr. Clinton are often criticized from both the left and the right. His policies are often misunderstood and the benefits overlooked as aptly described by Brownstein.
http://www.prospect.org/print/V13/4/brownstein-r.html
Posted by: bakho on December 1, 2003 01:28 PM"The move from government deficits to government surpluses and back again have not been confined to the US, but seem (from my recollection, I don't have hard data) pretty consistent across other industrialized nations."
So??? Please explain. We had superb economic policy during the Clinton-Rubin years, and they were surely responsible as Bush is responsible for the debt on debt we are acquiring.
Posted by: jd on December 1, 2003 01:32 PMIt's a little late now, but what do Democrats have to do to convince Rubin to run for president?
Posted by: brayden on December 1, 2003 01:46 PMIt's a little late now, but what do Democrats have to do to convince Rubin to run for president?
Posted by: brayden on December 1, 2003 01:51 PMDo you think Rubin would make a good president?
Posted by: xian on December 1, 2003 02:13 PMd'oh!
Posted by: xian on December 1, 2003 02:24 PMIt's true that Rubin/Clinton economic policies were well conceived, especially by comparison with what we have now. However, the Clinton Administration did benifit from favorable deveolpments like the internet bubble that it didn't cause.
The obversation about probabilistic thinking reminded me of Thinking In Time, a good book on that kind of thing.
Sorry, the Thinking in Time reference didn't make it. It's:
Posted by: Jonathan Goldberg on December 1, 2003 04:08 PMjd -
what I meant when I said "The move from government deficits to government surpluses and back again have not been confined to the US, but seem (from my recollection, I don't have hard data) pretty consistent across other industrialized nations."
is that it would be very odd to have had "superb economic policy" in the US, the UK, Canada and other places simultaneously followed by abysmal policy simultaneously a few years later, especially as in Canada and the UK the government is the same.
It just makes me wonder how much influence government policy, no matter how superb, has. But maybe I'm missing some things here -- this really is a question, not an argument.
Posted by: Tom Slee on December 1, 2003 04:46 PM>
True. But in the interests of charity -- and I say this as someone who longs to recapture the delight of election night '92 -- shouldn't the H.W. administration be given a little credit for signing off on the 1990 budget deal? After all, the grownup wing of the Republican party was and remains defenestrated for it. I also wonder whether the current administration would have put in the spadework for NAFTA that H.W's did.
Posted by: Chris Marcil on December 1, 2003 04:48 PM>>True. But in the interests of charity -- and I say this as someone who longs to recapture the delight of election night '92 -- shouldn't the H.W. administration be given a little credit for signing off on the 1990 budget deal?<<
Happy to do so anytime anyone wants to come and claim it. But George H.W. Bush repudiated it during the 1992 election.
Posted by: Brad DeLong on December 1, 2003 05:07 PMJust so you know, Robert Rubin (along with Laura Tyson) are advising Dem presidential candidate Wesley Clark, according to this article: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/16795.
Posted by: nameless on December 1, 2003 07:18 PMJohn Maynard Keynes the author of “A Treatise of Probability” was not a probabilistic thinker? Perhaps I’m missing your meaning.
And BTW Brad what is your distribution of the amount of global warming over the next 50 years, and what is the source of uncertainty? Is subjective uncertainty on the part of the GCM modelers or related to something physical like a measurement error.
"John Maynard Keynes the author of “A Treatise of Probability” was not a probabilistic thinker? Perhaps I’m missing your meaning."
You are missing his meaning. His point (as I understand it) is that you cannot simply look to some economic doctrine to tell you what needs to be done in every situation. You need to recognize that the actual outcome of events is contingent and uncertain.
“You need to recognize that the actual outcome of events is contingent and uncertain.”
I don’t Keynes and Friedman would disagree, or even Kristol.
Rubin was, and is, impressive, and it was a great first term under Clinton.
But the main story about the US economy in the 1990s is structural change and productivity revivial, neither of which was launched by fiscal policy. Some credit ought to be directed towards a decade or more of deregulation that preceded Clinton.
Posted by: Jim Harris on December 2, 2003 05:50 AMCan anyone challenge the following assertion? Bob Rubin was the best Treasury Secretary since Alexander Hamilton!
Posted by: Aaron Gurwitz on December 2, 2003 06:22 AMCan anyone challenge the following assertion? Bob Rubin was the best Treasury Secretary since Alexander Hamilton!
Posted by: Aaron Gurwitz on December 2, 2003 06:22 AMCan anyone challenge the following assertion? Bob Rubin was the best Treasury Secretary since Alexander Hamilton!
Posted by: Aaron Gurwitz on December 2, 2003 06:25 AMCan anyone challenge the following assertion? Bob Rubin was the best Treasury Secretary since Alexander Hamilton!
Posted by: Aaron Gurwitz on December 2, 2003 06:25 AMJim, Are you referring to the S&L deregulation? Airline deregulation? SEC deregulation? FCC deregulation. FEC deregulation? Were these all positive?
Posted by: bakho on December 2, 2003 07:56 AMJim Harris says, "But the main story about the US economy in the 1990s is structural change and productivity revivial, neither of which was launched by fiscal policy. Some credit ought to be directed towards a decade or more of deregulation that preceded Clinton."
Oh, it's simpler than that, Mr. Harris. Clinton was just lucky.
Apparently all Democrats are lucky. Measured by almost any criteria, the economy has done better under Democrats than under Republicans, and usually with a reduction in debt burden.
So elect Democrats because they're lucky rather than because they're good, but elect 'em.
That "decade or more of deregulation" that you mention was responsible for Enron, for media concentration that has become abominable to most Americans, and for other wonderful benefits that seem ever more elusive.
Posted by: Charles on December 2, 2003 11:08 AMA very significant development in the 1990s boom
that Rubin-Clinton can take credit for is that
the govt surplus played a very important role in
financing the 1990s cap spending boom.
Historically, strong capital spending is almost
always accompanied by rising rates that feed back to dampen or end the boom. This did not happen in the 1990. From 1995 to 2000 domestic private savings was equal to barely 50% of capital spending. Without the current account deficit and
budget surplus an inability to finance it would have severly dampened the 1990s boom.
"Apparently all Democrats are lucky. Measured by almost any criteria, the economy has done better under Democrats than under Republicans, and usually with a reduction in debt burden."
Notice how it is always after a Republican has left office. Do you really think that initiatives passed during the preceding administration have any effect prior to their exit from office? The unfortunate thing is that when policies are set in motion the incumbent is rarely in office long enough to see them implemented as planned.
I do not believe that the Clinton administration deserves the credit Mr. Delong is giving them. In fact, it is highly short sighted given the fact that there is no mention of the fallout from 9/11. To ignore this event as an effect on our economy is liberal bias. The Clinton years enjoyed relative calm with the exception of the Monica syndrome. The economy experienced an artificial rise brought on by a technological boom that no one, including Mr. Rubin could anticipate. In essence, Mr. Delong is giving credit where it isn’t due.
Putting aside bias and taking an objective view toward the 90’s it doesn’t take a PhD in economics to understand the dynamics involved today. The real test for Bush is whether his tax cuts take hold and from current indicators the economy is in the upswing again. It’s actually quite remarkable given the events over the past 4 years. Lest not forget the economy was headed for a meteoric slide in 1999 prior to 9/11/2000. Seems to me, Clinton got out while the getttin’ was good.
"Apparently all Democrats are lucky. Measured by almost any criteria, the economy has done better under Democrats than under Republicans, and usually with a reduction in debt burden."
Notice how it is always after a Republican has left office. Do you really think that initiatives passed during the preceding administration have any effect prior to their exit from office? The unfortunate thing is that when policies are set in motion the incumbent is rarely in office long enough to see them implemented as planned.
I do not believe that the Clinton administration deserves the credit Mr. Delong is giving them. In fact, it is highly short sighted given the fact that there is no mention of the fallout from 9/11. To ignore this event as an effect on our economy is liberal bias. The Clinton years enjoyed relative calm with the exception of the Monica syndrome. The economy experienced an artificial rise brought on by a technological boom that no one, including Mr. Rubin could anticipate. In essence, Mr. Delong is giving credit where it isn’t due.
Putting aside bias and taking an objective view toward the 90’s it doesn’t take a PhD in economics to understand the dynamics involved today. The real test for Bush is whether his tax cuts take hold and from current indicators the economy is in the upswing again. It’s actually quite remarkable given the events over the past 4 years. Lest not forget the economy was headed for a meteoric slide in 1999 prior to 9/11/2000. Seems to me, Clinton got out while the getttin’ was good.
"Apparently all Democrats are lucky. Measured by almost any criteria, the economy has done better under Democrats than under Republicans, and usually with a reduction in debt burden."
Notice how it is always after a Republican has left office. Do you really think that initiatives passed during the preceding administration have any effect prior to their exit from office? The unfortunate thing is that when policies are set in motion the incumbent is rarely in office long enough to see them implemented as planned.
I do not believe that the Clinton administration deserves the credit Mr. Delong is giving them. In fact, it is highly short sighted given the fact that there is no mention of the fallout from 9/11. To ignore this event as an effect on our economy is liberal bias. The Clinton years enjoyed relative calm with the exception of the Monica syndrome. The economy experienced an artificial rise brought on by a technological boom that no one, including Mr. Rubin could anticipate. In essence, Mr. Delong is giving credit where it isn’t due.
Putting aside bias and taking an objective view toward the 90’s it doesn’t take a PhD in economics to understand the dynamics involved today. The real test for Bush is whether his tax cuts take hold and from current indicators the economy is in the upswing again. It’s actually quite remarkable given the events over the past 4 years. Lest not forget the economy was headed for a meteoric slide in 1999 prior to 9/11/2000. Seems to me, Clinton got out while the getttin’ was good.
"Apparently all Democrats are lucky. Measured by almost any criteria, the economy has done better under Democrats than under Republicans, and usually with a reduction in debt burden."
Notice how it is always after a Republican has left office. Do you really think that initiatives passed during the preceding administration have any effect prior to their exit from office? The unfortunate thing is that when policies are set in motion the incumbent is rarely in office long enough to see them implemented as planned.
I do not believe that the Clinton administration deserves the credit Mr. Delong is giving them. In fact, it is highly short sighted given the fact that there is no mention of the fallout from 9/11. To ignore this event as an effect on our economy is liberal bias. The Clinton years enjoyed relative calm with the exception of the Monica syndrome. The economy experienced an artificial rise brought on by a technological boom that no one, including Mr. Rubin could anticipate. In essence, Mr. Delong is giving credit where it isn’t due.
Putting aside bias and taking an objective view toward the 90’s it doesn’t take a PhD in economics to understand the dynamics involved today. The real test for Bush is whether his tax cuts take hold and from current indicators the economy is in the upswing again. It’s actually quite remarkable given the events over the past 4 years. Lest not forget the economy was headed for a meteoric slide in 1999 prior to 9/11/2000. Seems to me, Clinton got out while the getttin’ was good.
"Apparently all Democrats are lucky. Measured by almost any criteria, the economy has done better under Democrats than under Republicans, and usually with a reduction in debt burden."
Notice how it is always after a Republican has left office. Do you really think that initiatives passed during the preceding administration have any effect prior to their exit from office? The unfortunate thing is that when policies are set in motion the incumbent is rarely in office long enough to see them implemented as planned.
I do not believe that the Clinton administration deserves the credit Mr. Delong is giving them. In fact, it is highly short sighted given the fact that there is no mention of the fallout from 9/11. To ignore this event as an effect on our economy is liberal bias. The Clinton years enjoyed relative calm with the exception of the Monica syndrome. The economy experienced an artificial rise brought on by a technological boom that no one, including Mr. Rubin could anticipate. In essence, Mr. Delong is giving credit where it isn’t due.
Putting aside bias and taking an objective view toward the 90’s it doesn’t take a PhD in economics to understand the dynamics involved today. The real test for Bush is whether his tax cuts take hold and from current indicators the economy is in the upswing again. It’s actually quite remarkable given the events over the past 4 years. Lest not forget the economy was headed for a meteoric slide in 1999 prior to 9/11/2000. Seems to me, Clinton got out while the getttin’ was good.
"Apparently all Democrats are lucky. Measured by almost any criteria, the economy has done better under Democrats than under Republicans, and usually with a reduction in debt burden."
Notice how it is always after a Republican has left office. Do you really think that initiatives passed during the preceding administration have any effect prior to their exit from office? The unfortunate thing is that when policies are set in motion the incumbent is rarely in office long enough to see them implemented as planned.
I do not believe that the Clinton administration deserves the credit Mr. Delong is giving them. In fact, it is highly short sighted given the fact that there is no mention of the fallout from 9/11. To ignore this event as an effect on our economy is liberal bias. The Clinton years enjoyed relative calm with the exception of the Monica syndrome. The economy experienced an artificial rise brought on by a technological boom that no one, including Mr. Rubin could anticipate. In essence, Mr. Delong is giving credit where it isn’t due.
Putting aside bias and taking an objective view toward the 90’s it doesn’t take a PhD in economics to understand the dynamics involved today. The real test for Bush is whether his tax cuts take hold and from current indicators the economy is in the upswing again. It’s actually quite remarkable given the events over the past 4 years. Lest not forget the economy was headed for a meteoric slide in 1999 prior to 9/11/2000. Seems to me, Clinton got out while the getttin’ was good.
"Apparently all Democrats are lucky. Measured by almost any criteria, the economy has done better under Democrats than under Republicans, and usually with a reduction in debt burden."
Notice how it is always after a Republican has left office. Do you really think that initiatives passed during the preceding administration have any effect prior to their exit from office? The unfortunate thing is that when policies are set in motion the incumbent is rarely in office long enough to see them implemented as planned.
I do not believe that the Clinton administration deserves the credit Mr. Delong is giving them. In fact, it is highly short sighted given the fact that there is no mention of the fallout from 9/11. To ignore this event as an effect on our economy is liberal bias. The Clinton years enjoyed relative calm with the exception of the Monica syndrome. The economy experienced an artificial rise brought on by a technological boom that no one, including Mr. Rubin could anticipate. In essence, Mr. Delong is giving credit where it isn’t due.
Putting aside bias and taking an objective view toward the 90’s it doesn’t take a PhD in economics to understand the dynamics involved today. The real test for Bush is whether his tax cuts take hold and from current indicators the economy is in the upswing again. It’s actually quite remarkable given the events over the past 4 years. Lest not forget the economy was headed for a meteoric slide in 1999 prior to 9/11/2000. Seems to me, Clinton got out while the getttin’ was good.
"Apparently all Democrats are lucky. Measured by almost any criteria, the economy has done better under Democrats than under Republicans, and usually with a reduction in debt burden."
Notice how it is always after a Republican has left office. Do you really think that initiatives passed during the preceding administration have any effect prior to their exit from office? The unfortunate thing is that when policies are set in motion the incumbent is rarely in office long enough to see them implemented as planned.
I do not believe that the Clinton administration deserves the credit Mr. Delong is giving them. In fact, it is highly short sighted given the fact that there is no mention of the fallout from 9/11. To ignore this event as an effect on our economy is liberal bias. The Clinton years enjoyed relative calm with the exception of the Monica syndrome. The economy experienced an artificial rise brought on by a technological boom that no one, including Mr. Rubin could anticipate. In essence, Mr. Delong is giving credit where it isn’t due.
Putting aside bias and taking an objective view toward the 90’s it doesn’t take a PhD in economics to understand the dynamics involved today. The real test for Bush is whether his tax cuts take hold and from current indicators the economy is in the upswing again. It’s actually quite remarkable given the events over the past 4 years. Lest not forget the economy was headed for a meteoric slide in 1999 prior to 9/11/2000. Seems to me, Clinton got out while the getttin’ was good.
"Apparently all Democrats are lucky. Measured by almost any criteria, the economy has done better under Democrats than under Republicans, and usually with a reduction in debt burden."
Notice how it is always after a Republican has left office. Do you really think that initiatives passed during the preceding administration have any effect prior to their exit from office? The unfortunate thing is that when policies are set in motion the incumbent is rarely in office long enough to see them implemented as planned.
I do not believe that the Clinton administration deserves the credit Mr. Delong is giving them. In fact, it is highly short sighted given the fact that there is no mention of the fallout from 9/11. To ignore this event as an effect on our economy is liberal bias. The Clinton years enjoyed relative calm with the exception of the Monica syndrome. The economy experienced an artificial rise brought on by a technological boom that no one, including Mr. Rubin could anticipate. In essence, Mr. Delong is giving credit where it isn’t due.
Putting aside bias and taking an objective view toward the 90’s it doesn’t take a PhD in economics to understand the dynamics involved today. The real test for Bush is whether his tax cuts take hold and from current indicators the economy is in the upswing again. It’s actually quite remarkable given the events over the past 4 years. Lest not forget the economy was headed for a meteoric slide in 1999 prior to 9/11/2000. Seems to me, Clinton got out while the gettin’ was good.
"Apparently all Democrats are lucky. Measured by almost any criteria, the economy has done better under Democrats than under Republicans, and usually with a reduction in debt burden."
Notice how it is always after a Republican has left office. Do you really think that initiatives passed during the preceding administration have any effect prior to their exit from office? The unfortunate thing is that when policies are set in motion the incumbent is rarely in office long enough to see them implemented as planned.
I do not believe that the Clinton administration deserves the credit Mr. Delong is giving them. In fact, it is highly short sighted given the fact that there is no mention of the fallout from 9/11. To ignore this event as an effect on our economy is liberal bias. The Clinton years enjoyed relative calm with the exception of the Monica syndrome. The economy experienced an artificial rise brought on by a technological boom that no one, including Mr. Rubin could anticipate. In essence, Mr. Delong is giving credit where it isn’t due.
Putting aside bias and taking an objective view toward the 90’s it doesn’t take a PhD in economics to understand the dynamics involved today. The real test for Bush is whether his tax cuts take hold and from current indicators the economy is in the upswing again. It’s actually quite remarkable given the events over the past 4 years. Lest not forget the economy was headed for a meteoric slide in 1999 prior to 9/11/2000. Seems to me, Clinton got out while the gettin’ was good.
"Apparently all Democrats are lucky. Measured by almost any criteria, the economy has done better under Democrats than under Republicans, and usually with a reduction in debt burden."
Notice how it is always after a Republican has left office. Do you really think that initiatives passed during the preceding administration have any effect prior to their exit from office? The unfortunate thing is that when policies are set in motion the incumbent is rarely in office long enough to see them implemented as planned.
I do not believe that the Clinton administration deserves the credit Mr. Delong is giving them. In fact, it is highly short sighted given the fact that there is no mention of the fallout from 9/11. To ignore this event as an effect on our economy is liberal bias. The Clinton years enjoyed relative calm with the exception of the Monica syndrome. The economy experienced an artificial rise brought on by a technological boom that no one, including Mr. Rubin could anticipate. In essence, Mr. Delong is giving credit where it isn’t due.
Putting aside bias and taking an objective view toward the 90’s it doesn’t take a PhD in economics to understand the dynamics involved today. The real test for Bush is whether his tax cuts take hold and from current indicators the economy is in the upswing again. It’s actually quite remarkable given the events over the past 4 years. Lest not forget the economy was headed for a meteoric slide in 1999 prior to 9/11/2000. Seems to me, Clinton got out while the gettin’ was good.
"Apparently all Democrats are lucky. Measured by almost any criteria, the economy has done better under Democrats than under Republicans, and usually with a reduction in debt burden."
Notice how it is always after a Republican has left office. Do you really think that initiatives passed during the preceding administration have any effect prior to their exit from office? The unfortunate thing is that when policies are set in motion the incumbent is rarely in office long enough to see them implemented as planned.
I do not believe that the Clinton administration deserves the credit Mr. Delong is giving them. In fact, it is highly short sighted given the fact that there is no mention of the fallout from 9/11. To ignore this event as an effect on our economy is liberal bias. The Clinton years enjoyed relative calm with the exception of the Monica syndrome. The economy experienced an artificial rise brought on by a technological boom that no one, including Mr. Rubin could anticipate. In essence, Mr. Delong is giving credit where it isn’t due.
Putting aside bias and taking an objective view toward the 90’s it doesn’t take a PhD in economics to understand the dynamics involved today. The real test for Bush is whether his tax cuts take hold and from current indicators the economy is in the upswing again. It’s actually quite remarkable given the events over the past 4 years. Lest not forget the economy was headed for a meteoric slide in 1999 prior to 9/11/2000. Seems to me, Clinton got out while the gettin’ was good.
"Apparently all Democrats are lucky. Measured by almost any criteria, the economy has done better under Democrats than under Republicans, and usually with a reduction in debt burden."
Notice how it is always after a Republican has left office. Do you really think that initiatives passed during the preceding administration have any effect prior to their exit from office? The unfortunate thing is that when policies are set in motion the incumbent is rarely in office long enough to see them implemented as planned.
I do not believe that the Clinton administration deserves the credit Mr. Delong is giving them. In fact, it is highly short sighted given the fact that there is no mention of the fallout from 9/11. To ignore this event as an effect on our economy is liberal bias. The Clinton years enjoyed relative calm with the exception of the Monica syndrome. The economy experienced an artificial rise brought on by a technological boom that no one, including Mr. Rubin could anticipate. In essence, Mr. Delong is giving credit where it isn’t due.
Putting aside bias and taking an objective view toward the 90’s it doesn’t take a PhD in economics to understand the dynamics involved today. The real test for Bush is whether his tax cuts take hold and from current indicators the economy is in the upswing again. It’s actually quite remarkable given the events over the past 4 years. Lest not forget the economy was headed for a meteoric slide in 1999 prior to 9/11/2000. Seems to me, Clinton got out while the gettin’ was good.
"Apparently all Democrats are lucky. Measured by almost any criteria, the economy has done better under Democrats than under Republicans, and usually with a reduction in debt burden."
Notice how it is always after a Republican has left office. Do you really think that initiatives passed during the preceding administration have any effect prior to their exit from office? The unfortunate thing is that when policies are set in motion the incumbent is rarely in office long enough to see them implemented as planned.
I do not believe that the Clinton administration deserves the credit Mr. Delong is giving them. In fact, it is highly short sighted given the fact that there is no mention of the fallout from 9/11. To ignore this event as an effect on our economy is liberal bias. The Clinton years enjoyed relative calm with the exception of the Monica syndrome. The economy experienced an artificial rise brought on by a technological boom that no one, including Mr. Rubin could anticipate. In essence, Mr. Delong is giving credit where it isn’t due.
Putting aside bias and taking an objective view toward the 90’s it doesn’t take a PhD in economics to understand the dynamics involved today. The real test for Bush is whether his tax cuts take hold and from current indicators the economy is in the upswing again. It’s actually quite remarkable given the events over the past 4 years. Lest not forget the economy was headed for a meteoric slide in 1999 prior to 9/11/2000. Seems to me, Clinton got out while the gettin’ was good.
"Apparently all Democrats are lucky. Measured by almost any criteria, the economy has done better under Democrats than under Republicans, and usually with a reduction in debt burden."
Notice how it is always after a Republican has left office. Do you really think that initiatives passed during the preceding administration have any effect prior to their exit from office? The unfortunate thing is that when policies are set in motion the incumbent is rarely in office long enough to see them implemented as planned.
I do not believe that the Clinton administration deserves the credit Mr. Delong is giving them. In fact, it is highly short sighted given the fact that there is no mention of the fallout from 9/11. To ignore this event as an effect on our economy is liberal bias. The Clinton years enjoyed relative calm with the exception of the Monica syndrome. The economy experienced an artificial rise brought on by a technological boom that no one, including Mr. Rubin could anticipate. In essence, Mr. Delong is giving credit where it isn’t due.
Putting aside bias and taking an objective view toward the 90’s it doesn’t take a PhD in economics to understand the dynamics involved today. The real test for Bush is whether his tax cuts take hold and from current indicators the economy is in the upswing again. The resillience of the US economy is actually quite remarkable given the events over the past 4 years. Lest not forget the economy was headed for a meteoric slide in 1999 prior to 9/11/2000. Seems to me, Clinton got out while the gettin’ was good.
"Apparently all Democrats are lucky. Measured by almost any criteria, the economy has done better under Democrats than under Republicans, and usually with a reduction in debt burden."
Notice how it is always after a Republican has left office. Do you really think that initiatives passed during the preceding administration have any effect prior to their exit from office? The unfortunate thing is that when policies are set in motion the incumbent is rarely in office long enough to see them implemented as planned.
I do not believe that the Clinton administration deserves the credit Mr. Delong is giving them. In fact, it is highly short sighted given the fact that there is no mention of the fallout from 9/11. To ignore this event as an effect on our economy is liberal bias. The Clinton years enjoyed relative calm with the exception of the Monica syndrome. The economy experienced an artificial rise brought on by a technological boom that no one, including Mr. Rubin could anticipate. In essence, Mr. Delong is giving credit where it isn’t due.
Putting aside bias and taking an objective view toward the 90’s it doesn’t take a PhD in economics to understand the dynamics involved today. The real test for Bush is whether his tax cuts take hold and from current indicators the economy is in the upswing again. The resilience of the US economy is actually quite remarkable given the events over the past 4 years. Lest not forget the economy was headed for a meteoric slide in 1999 prior to 9/11/2000. Seems to me, Clinton got out while the gettin’ was good.
"Apparently all Democrats are lucky. Measured by almost any criteria, the economy has done better under Democrats than under Republicans, and usually with a reduction in debt burden."
Notice how it is always after a Republican has left office. Do you really think that initiatives passed during the preceding administration have any effect prior to their exit from office? The unfortunate thing is that when policies are set in motion the incumbent is rarely in office long enough to see them implemented as planned.
I do not believe that the Clinton administration deserves the credit Mr. Delong is giving them. In fact, it is highly short sighted given the fact that there is no mention of the fallout from 9/11. To ignore this event as an effect on our economy is liberal bias. The Clinton years enjoyed relative calm with the exception of the Monica syndrome. The economy experienced an artificial rise brought on by a technological boom that no one, including Mr. Rubin could anticipate. In essence, Mr. Delong is giving credit where it isn’t due.
Putting aside bias and taking an objective view toward the 90’s it doesn’t take a PhD in economics to understand the dynamics involved today. The real test for Bush is whether his tax cuts take hold and from current indicators the economy is in the upswing again. The resilience of the US economy is actually quite remarkable given the events over the past 4 years. Lest not forget the economy was headed for a meteoric slide in 1999 prior to 9/11/2000. Seems to me, Clinton got out while the gettin’ was good.
"Apparently all Democrats are lucky. Measured by almost any criteria, the economy has done better under Democrats than under Republicans, and usually with a reduction in debt burden."
Notice how it is always after a Republican has left office. Do you really think that initiatives passed during the preceding administration have any effect prior to their exit from office? The unfortunate thing is that when policies are set in motion the incumbent is rarely in office long enough to see them implemented as planned.
I do not believe that the Clinton administration deserves the credit Mr. Delong is giving them. In fact, it is highly short sighted given the fact that there is no mention of the fallout from 9/11. To ignore this event as an effect on our economy is liberal bias. The Clinton years enjoyed relative calm with the exception of the Monica syndrome. The economy experienced an artificial rise brought on by a technological boom that no one, including Mr. Rubin could anticipate. In essence, Mr. Delong is giving credit where it isn’t due.
Putting aside bias and taking an objective view toward the 90’s it doesn’t take a PhD in economics to understand the dynamics involved today. The real test for Bush is whether his tax cuts take hold and from current indicators the economy is in the upswing again. The resilience of the US economy is actually quite remarkable given the events over the past 4 years. Lest not forget the economy was headed for a meteoric slide in 1999 prior to 9/11/2000. Seems to me, Clinton got out while the gettin’ was good.
"Apparently all Democrats are lucky. Measured by almost any criteria, the economy has done better under Democrats than under Republicans, and usually with a reduction in debt burden."
Notice how it is always after a Republican has left office. Do you really think that initiatives passed during the preceding administration have any effect prior to their exit from office? The unfortunate thing is that when policies are set in motion the incumbent is rarely in office long enough to see them implemented as planned.
I do not believe that the Clinton administration deserves the credit Mr. Delong is giving them. In fact, it is highly short sighted given the fact that there is no mention of the fallout from 9/11. To ignore this event as an effect on our economy is liberal bias. The Clinton years enjoyed relative calm with the exception of the Monica syndrome. The economy experienced an artificial rise brought on by a technological boom that no one, including Mr. Rubin could anticipate. In essence, Mr. Delong is giving credit where it isn’t due.
Putting aside bias and taking an objective view toward the 90’s it doesn’t take a PhD in economics to understand the dynamics involved today. The real test for Bush is whether his tax cuts take hold and from current indicators the economy is in the upswing again. The resilience of the US economy is actually quite remarkable given the events over the past 4 years. Lest not forget the economy was headed for a meteoric slide in 1999 prior to 9/11/2000. Seems to me, Clinton got out while the gettin’ was good.
"Apparently all Democrats are lucky. Measured by almost any criteria, the economy has done better under Democrats than under Republicans, and usually with a reduction in debt burden."
Notice how it is always after a Republican has left office. Do you really think that initiatives passed during the preceding administration have any effect prior to their exit from office? The unfortunate thing is that when policies are set in motion the incumbent is rarely in office long enough to see them implemented as planned.
I do not believe that the Clinton administration deserves the credit Mr. Delong is giving them. In fact, it is highly short sighted given the fact that there is no mention of the fallout from 9/11. To ignore this event as an effect on our economy is liberal bias. The Clinton years enjoyed relative calm with the exception of the Monica syndrome. The economy experienced an artificial rise brought on by a technological boom that no one, including Mr. Rubin could anticipate. In essence, Mr. Delong is giving credit where it isn’t due.
Putting aside bias and taking an objective view toward the 90’s it doesn’t take a PhD in economics to understand the dynamics involved today. The real test for Bush is whether his tax cuts take hold and from current indicators the economy is in the upswing again. The resilience of the US economy is actually quite remarkable given the events over the past 4 years. Lest not forget the economy was headed for a meteoric slide in 1999 prior to 9/11/2000. Seems to me, Clinton got out while the gettin’ was good.
keith/Tomcat,
Apparently you don't seem to know how to post a comment very well, and to top it off, you seem to be a slow learner.
Posted by: Don_Quijote on December 3, 2003 08:51 PM"Apparently all Democrats are lucky. Measured by almost any criteria, the economy has done better under Democrats than under Republicans, and usually with a reduction in debt burden."
Notice how it is always after a Republican has left office. Do you really think that initiatives passed during the preceding administration have any effect prior to their exit from office? The unfortunate thing is that when policies are set in motion the incumbent is rarely in office long enough to see them implemented as planned.
I do not believe that the Clinton administration deserves the credit Mr. Delong is giving them. In fact, it is highly short sighted given the fact that there is no mention of the fallout from 9/11. To ignore this event as an effect on our economy is liberal bias. The Clinton years enjoyed relative calm with the exception of the Monica syndrome. The economy experienced an artificial rise brought on by a technological boom that no one, including Mr. Rubin could anticipate. In essence, Mr. Delong is giving credit where it isn’t due.
Putting aside bias and taking an objective view toward the 90’s it doesn’t take a PhD in economics to understand the dynamics involved today. The real test for Bush is whether his tax cuts take hold and from current indicators the economy is in the upswing again. The resilience of the US economy is actually quite remarkable given the events over the past 4 years. Lest not forget the economy was headed for a meteoric slide in 1999 prior to 9/11/2000. Seems to me, Clinton got out while the gettin’ was good.
Apologies for the multiple posts. I kept getting an web page error after hitting the post button. After refreshing the page the post didn't appear.
As for Don Whatever........a slow learner huh. Well that's an intellegent rebuttle.......NOT!
You can't come up with anything better than that?
Obviously a mental midget..........
Posted by: Keith on December 4, 2003 05:12 AMApologies for the multiple posts. I kept getting an web page error after hitting the post button. After refreshing the page the post didn't appear.
As for Don Whatever........a slow learner huh. Well that's an intellegent rebuttle.......NOT!
You can't come up with anything better than that?
Obviously a mental midget..........
Posted by: Keith on December 4, 2003 05:13 AMFYI
This is the Error that appears after posting.....
Error - 403
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Failed to read headers returned by server.
Headers were invalid or incomplete.
I agree with the general theme of your argument: that the Clinton Administration's fiscal policy was sounder than the Bush Administration's. I think the huge swing in the budget balance is lamentable and could set the stage for serious challenges down the road. However, I think a little balance is in order. To say that the Clinton Administration had the deck stacked against it, while the Bush Administration had everything going for it, I think is disingenuous.
First, Clinton enjoyed the good fortune of presiding over a colossal dot-com stock market bubble, which buoyed business investment by lowering the cost of capital (and stirring "animal spirits") and consumer spending via the wealth effect. It also contributed to budget surpluses through automatic fiscal stabilizers. I don't think Clinton/Rubin can take credit for the bubble, nor would they want to, as it led to the March 2000 crash that precipitated the ensuing recession. Make no mistake: Bush inherited the recession and all of the fiscal consequences that went along with it. Not that the stock market crash were Clinton/Rubin's fault either; I'm just saying that the roots of this economic cycle – up and down – fall to a large extent outside of the political realm.
Second, Clinton assumed office at a time when a post-Cold War peace permitted hefty reductions in defense spending. In contrast, the war on terror and, more contentiously, Iraq, have necessitated increased spending on defense and homeland security. Now I know that the fiscal mess we're now in has more to do with reckless tax cuts and rising spending on all kinds of other things, but the changing geopolitical environment – largely outside of Clinton's or Bush's control – should also be recognized.
The fact that increased government spending in developed countries reduces economic growth is well documented. (See a 40-year study of 30 countries at the Joint Economic Commission website "The Size and Functions of Government and Economic Growth April 1998 - Figure 5). Economic growth is, of course, the only way to raise the standard of living of a population. Will someone either provide a study that disproves this (I asked Berkeley and they came up emtpy) or explain why any government spending beyond law enforcement and security are justified under any circumstances?
Posted by: Ray Germann on December 4, 2003 07:38 AMThe fact that increased government spending in developed countries reduces economic growth is well documented. (See a 40-year study of 30 countries at the Joint Economic Commission website "The Size and Functions of Government and Economic Growth April 1998 - Figure 5). Economic growth is, of course, the only way to raise the standard of living of a population. Will someone either provide a study that disproves this (I asked Berkeley and they came up emtpy) or explain why any government spending beyond law enforcement and security are justified under any circumstances?
Posted by: Ray Germann on December 4, 2003 07:43 AMOkay, May Rubin was so great i don't doubt it. Many governmets even run high deficits in the good times. But I agree with the first post that great deal of the past surpluses were caused by the acceleration of economic growth in the second half of the 90's and not in the midst of adeverse circumstances as it appear to be stated in the article. At the same time running deficts in bad times is keynes old medicine, may be we can disagree with the way Bush has done it, but if the crisis is over shouldn't we give some credit to the fiscal push?
It's true is not the way it should be done and will have bad consequences in the future, but we should't critice fiscal deficits perse.
By the way, as an economist it looks much worse to me his protecionist practices.
The answer:
Clinton was not able to renew the right to line item veto bills (or was it the right to unilaterally negotiate trade deals??). Anyway, he didn't have enough votes to renew.
Bush gave the congressmen from 3 or 4 steel producing states the tarriff for 2 years (the time it would take for the WTO to nix it), and in return, they gave him enough votes to get the right to line - item veto bills back again.
No need to blog this one. That's the answer.
JS
Posted by: Sunderland on December 4, 2003 11:20 AM"Economists and historians will long debate the contrast between the economic policies of the Clinton and George W. Bush administrations. The Clinton administration took office with remarkably few and remarkably bad cards--a long-term legacy of extremely slow economic growth, the huge federal budget deficits created by the Reagan-George H.W. Bush administrations of 1980-1992, a relatively high "natural" rate of unemployment below which inflationary pressures began to build, and so on. The George W. Bush administration took office with remarkably good cards: a budget in substantial surplus, rapid trend productivity growth produced by the fact that the information-technology revolution had reached critical mass, and a remarkably low "natural" rate of unemployment. "
The premise of this is false IMHO.
In fall of 1992, the economy was in the beginnings of recovery - it was growing at 4%. Interest rate were finally coming down and the banks recovered on the backs of a nice 'carry' between low short term and high long term rates.
Bush inherited the hangover from a tech bubble spawned by Y2K Federal Reserve excess and the subsequent interest rate hikes of 2000. From march 2000, the stock market fell by the day Bush took office at a steep decline - the nasdaq already lost 60% of its value. And then 9/11 shock, which further weakened confidence and further uncovered yet more excesses to be wrung out - corporate book-cooking. Most of the corporate scandals that were unwinding by 2002 were invariably initiated in the loose ethical and money atmosphere of the late 1990s bubble. example: Worldcom had cooked books since 1999/2000.
So the REALITY is that G W Bush inherited an economy riding high but driving off a cliff.
Clinton inherited an economy that had hit bottom 18 months earlier and was heading back up.
It seems now that Q3 2003 is a new corner-turning, with growth and productivity up at better rates than in 20 years.
As for deficits, while it is absolutely true the Government is spending too much and 'compassionate conservative' seems to mean spend like a liberal and tax like a conservative, we should also note that in the mid-1990s the best help given on the budget deficit was the fiscal discipline of the Republican Congress, which cut the deficit by $100 billion in a single year by holding the line on appropriations. hmmm, whatever happened to those guys?? :-)
"The economy experienced an artificial rise brought on by a technological boom that no one, including Mr. Rubin could anticipate."
Well, one point worth noting (because it is so often forgotten) is that the technological boom did not occur in a vacuum. Without significant gov't investment the boom would either never have happened, or occurred much later.
The internet is a product of extensive investment by the US government over decades, dating back to the 1960s. Like the transcontinental railroads of the 1860s/70s, this was an example of government investment that enabled strong economic growth.
Furthermore, it is frequently forgotten that: from 1988-1994 the Internet's strongest political advocate was Al Gore; Al Gore was instrumental in the dramatic increase in gov't investment in the internet; Clinton and Gore made investment in the "Information Superhighway" a key part of their 1992 campaign; and Clinton's first budgets made good on this promise by greatly increasing funding in the Internet.
Posted by: Z on December 29, 2003 02:16 PM