Skip to comments.Krugman’s Misleading “Tale of Two Bubbles”: A Closer Look At The Data
Posted on 01/29/2012 9:48:00 AM PST by whitedog57
Paul Krugman had an interesting blog in his New York Times Conscience of a Liberal column entitled A Tale of Two Bubbles. In the blog, Krugman points out that there was a Clinton bubble and a Bush bubble Clintons was an equity (dotcom) bubble that burst and Bushs was a debt (housing/credit) bubble that burst. Krugmans point is that Clintons bubble only harmed equity investors while Bushs bubble harmed virtually everyone.
But if we look more closely at the data, Krugmans criticism of the Bush Administration (as if Congress had nothing to do with it!), a different Tale can be told. Here is the same chart as Krugmans, but focusing on Total Credit Market Debt Owed by Domestic Nonfinancial Sectors Household Sector (HSTCMDODNS)
So, what was put in place PRIOR to President Bush that could lead to a massive expansion of household debt?
In 1995, President Clinton directed HUD Secretary Henry Cisneros to expand home ownership in the U.S. HUD issued (then removed from their website) the National Homeownership Strategy where the Federal government formed public/private partnerships with the private sector in an endeavor to expand homeownership through more and more household debt. (Please read the NHS Dream that turned into a nightmare).
So, while it took a while to gain strength, the rapid growth in household debt started BEFORE President Bush was sworn into office. In fact, homeownership rates began climbing in 1995.
And who were the private sector partners of the Federal government? Among others, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the mortgage giants in conservatorship.
So, Clintons NHS strategy, while well-intended, was a full blown propaganda program by the Federal government to encourage homeownership AND DEBT. While lowering underwriting standards.
Stated differently, Who Let The Dogs Out? William Jefferson Clinton.
(Excerpt) Read more at confoundedinterest.wordpress.com ...
Yes, the RNC should have real Economist dispel the Democrat economist everywhere being we know the media prefers the ambiguity for the Democrat’s election advantage.
Krugman's point is that Clinton's bubble only harmed equity investors while Bush's bubble harmed virtually everyone.
Bush warned about the Bubble.
Is it Bush Bubble because it popped when Bush was President? The Bubble belonged to the Democrats and should be called Barney Franks Bubble. Are we trying to change history here?
As if the housing bubble didn’t start in the 90s. The ‘Bush Bubble’, as Krugman puts it, was also a big reason the economy was humming along in the late 1990s. Clinton’s economic numbers enjoyed some padding from increasing home values and all the labor/services associated with the housing industry.
This idjit - the worst columnist ever - opined that Enron would be seen as a bigger thing than 9/11 in the future history books.
All the runners up for Worst Columnist Ever also work at the NY Times... hhhmmm
Nothing stranger than to watch liberals revise the history you actually lived through.
Krugman always spins the facts (omit the nexessary facts) to turn half truths into lies.
He can talk about the “Clinton bubble” (the dot.com bubble), and how it was, economically more “benign”, situated predominately in the equity markets alone.
But, the sources (seeds) of that bubble, new technology and more equity type investing (for the new technologies) started (began to be planted) in the 1980s, and continued with the tax comprimises the GOP majority in the House forced in Clinton.
Like many thinks that seem to suddenly spring to life during a particular presidency, many sitting in the office of the president are more passengers observing events that had their origins before they took office.
Yet, the media, a largely ignorant public and many commentators like Krugman help perpetuate the myth held to by a majority of citizens that what happens during a presidency can rightly be placed on the blame or credit side to that president, simply because they happened to be the occupant in the White House at the time.
This is not only stupid thing to be going on but it produces invalid expectations, and calls for invalid executive authority for presidents (like Soviet czars) to “make things happen” - as if we would ever want a president to be so powerful that they could.
No, but Krugman is. Again.
Notice how Hollywood has pretty much ignored 9-11 besides a recent film that has been given very little pre-publicity, all part of the process of forgetting it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.