Quote:
|
Originally Posted by irishgrl
You act like Houston was the snapshot for the entire US of A, and Im here to tell ya, It AINT! The Clinton economy had more going for it than just a few large corporations.....I believe he truly did understand economics better than any President, before or since. He worked very closely with Greenspan and I do think that their joint efforts kept us solvent.
|
Are you unable to read
- Enron was in Houston, but it effected all 50 states, look at your example of California - you don't think people lost jobs because of that. Plus, MCI was in MS and FL - and all the IPO's, which I submit caused more carnage than the fraud, were all over the country, though Claifornia seemingly had a larger share. Again, when 10's of thousands of employees all over the country are no longer buying cars and cutting back on buying things, going out to dinner, etc. - that effects the retail/manufacturing sector and then those effected in those sectors are then forced to cut back.
As for Clinton, once again, when trillions of new wealth are created on an unstable platform, when that platform gives way, those trillions and more are lost and that is exactly what happened with the Clinton economy. Are you actually suggesting that that loss of trillions had no significant effect because the economy was strong enough to withstand that loss. If you think that, then I suggest Economics 101
