If you have "no place to go," come here!

Anatomy of Clintonomics

nasrudin's picture

"...The performance of the American economy under Clinton has also been far more mixed than is acknowledged by boosters of his ‘Third Way’. GDP growth and productivity gains have not exceeded the performance of previous presidential eras, even after official statisticians have revised national accounts upwards to reflect putative contributions to growth by computer technology, and genuine acceleration since 1996. Moreover, while unemployment and inflation have both fallen, the drop has been in large measure due to the declining ability of workers to secure wage increases even in persistently tight labour markets. Finally, the real economic gains of the period have rested on a fragile foundation—a stock market in which prices have exploded beyond any previous historical experience, inducing an enormous expansion of private expenditure on consumption. But because household incomes have not risen to anywhere near as far as financial asset values, the result has been unprecedented borrowing to pay for the spending spree. The springs of economic growth under Clinton have come from a levitating stock market setting off a debt-financed private consumption boom..."

"Anatomy of Clintonomics" by Robert Pollin, New Left Review, May-June 2000


nasrudin's picture
Submitted by nasrudin on fairly well laid out in Pollin's article. Reading the whole thing may rankle your predisposition to Clintonomics, but the relief of letting go of the illusion that ANY neoliberal is on your side...priceless. =]

Short form of "my" point: under neoliberal finance capitalism, ANY illusory short-term gains -- whether debt-generated, lower prices via exploitation of foreign workers (called "free" trade by DLCers, New Dems, Third Wayers, and their fellow travelers), etc -- will be short-term, and the losses (for the vast majority) of the guaranteed, soon-following crash will exceed the short-term gains.

jjmtacoma's picture
Submitted by jjmtacoma on

Big Obama supporter with near max-contributions to the campaign having a problem with Clinton and the DLC or whatever? I think I've seen this movie before.

He clearly doesn't remember or hasn't experienced a life where having an income that resembles his campaign contributions is normal. It must be nice.

Submitted by lambert on

Bullshit in argumentation, bullshit in sourcing. Well done!

Submitted by lambert on

Read the post; there's no "predisposition" to "Clintonomics." The post is all about the beneficial effects of rising real wages. The "short term" argument has nothing to do with the case, and is dealt with there. I can't imagine why you keep repeating it, unless you want to make wage earners feel stupid.

Further, please cite to the passage where I claim that neo-liberals are "on my side."

There's also a critique of your foolish and ahistorical notion that all bubbles are alike; I'd like an answer to that one too.