If you took credit for it, this wouldn't make it any more true.
Your argument is this: because he lied (surpise!), it must be true. Need I tell you that this is illogical?
More importantly, people in this country are amazingly ignorant on this issue: after centuries of experience, most still think that presidents have anything to do with economy. This one went even farther, assuming a president's actions can durably influence the stock prices. Silly.
You are missing the two points I made:
1: Yeah, he lied when he took credit for it. He's lying now when he takes credit for it. The media knows he is lying but they give him credit for it, therefore they are perpetuating this lie that it was his economy so he deserves credit for it. That's insulting and has ticked me off since 1995.
After 9/11/01, most of us agree that yeah, it had already been deflating since the spring of 2000, but would have been more like deflating balloon fwapping around a while until it settled down to a level surface. (/11/01 simply exacerbated already existing problems, banks tightened up on credit and the fwapping balloon became critical mass instead.
BUBBA, however, jumped right in and said the crash was Bush's fault, MY economy was BOOMING, yadayadayada. The rest of the Democrats followed Bubba's lead, saying the crash was Bush's fault and this would NEVER have happened under Clinton because the economy was booming under HIS administration, etc, etc. You were there, you know what they said.
The public ignored them then, because we had bigger fish to fry. NOW that the next election cycle is upon us and the public is getting a little tired of constant QUAGMIRE reporting for lack of real news, Bubba, the rest of the Dems and the media, are right back out there saying the economy is BUSH'S FAULT, the economy was BOOMING under the Clinton administration, elect a Democrat if you want a job etc.
Clinton's lie, the credit for the boom, is therefore nothing more than a way of generating artificial political capital greatly resembling the artifical capital that powered the artificial tech bubble. I resent that. I think more people ought to resent that. Therefore, giving Clinton the credit he wants is bitterly sarcastic, blackly humorous payback.
Point 2: Clinton did indeed profit greatly from companies which benefited from the tech bubble. Clinton, despite popular conservative opinion, is not stupid. He knew that if he made deals, EO's and promoted legislation both here and abroad which would FURTHER profit these companies, he, Clinton, would profit even more from the donations of those grateful companies.
Clinton and his good pold boy network DID conciously meddle in the economy in order to both profit themselves monetarily and keep themselves in power.
Clinton and the DNC network deserve credit for the tiny things they did. And they WANT credit because they want the artificial political capital so reminiscant of the artificial capital driving the artificial economy. I find this insulting, and give them credit he wants as bitterly sarcastic, blackly humorous payback.
I'm surprised I had to explain that.
Usually the influence they have is in an indirect way. The lowering of the tax burden in the 80s paved the way for the boom in the 90s, the excesses of the 90s paved the way for today's downturn. Right or wrong most people give whoever's in office at the time credit (or blame) for what's happening.
People still strongly believe this nonsense.
Just watch the evening news.