What do the following two charts teach us about the Clinton era, and the economy?

Question

1) http://finance.yahoo.com/charts#chart1:symbol=^dji;range=19920809,20000809;indicator=volume;charttype=line;crosshair=on

2) http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/cv2.htm

Winkerbe (below) I would agree IF we did not have known history to include with the data linked above. In those years, high tech people were in demand. Salaries increased exponentially, and Clinton had revenue to divert to Biden's (I believe) "100,000 Cops" program. The overall mood of Americans was strong AND the US dollar was as well.

Answer 1

Well done - that my friend is what we call evidence.

Answer 2

The Data is an indication of the administration choices before the market catches up. Clinton has a good record and taxes were not that out of line. It is true that the market is becoming very unkind to Bush lately. The Evidence shows that Clinton kept the money growing. He had problems at the end.

Answer 3

I have problems with those charts - Dubai owns 20% of the DJIA, plus all the employers that started 401k setups, enabling the common person to get into the DJIA and partially offset the large, hot bag of wind that randomly blows on our overinflated opinions of ourselves and our long term economic viability.

The crime chart would be equally impressive, except laws are subjective and mostly unenforceable. Data doesn't do well with subjectivity.

I worry that, although you are an intelligent person, you are easily swayed by people throwing "facts and figures" at you and drawing conclusions - intelligent ones - but corrupted ones due to the lack of reliable, unbiased data that our society generates.

Do you believe women live longer than men? How about men not in the military? (No disrespect intended to women serving, but that's a recent thing, statistically, and most of them haven't died yet.How about men with no dangerous hobbies? Did the data take those things into account? If not, was it because they weren't paid to? If so, who paid them?

Answer 4

Afeast - if what you say is true then you are arguing that Nixon and Ford created the stagflation of the Carter era, that Carter created the growth of the 80s, that Reagan created the recession under Bush 2 and that Clinton created the Bush growth that Bush fans rave about, but now that Clinton's impact is over the economy is tanking again.
Are you sure you want to go there

Answer 5

The charts in and of themselves tell us nothing. Unfortunately for constructive discussion, some people may automatically presume a connection exists (see arguments from the two books, "Freakonomics" and "Freedomnomics"). However, while either or both could be correct, both could be wrong. The question constitutes a prime example of "Cu.m Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc", which differs from the more well know "Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc". The Cu.m variety requires simultaneity of events. Conversely, the Post variety requires one event to follow another. [Pardon the spelling of "Cu.m"; Yahoo's filters remove the word without the '.'.]

Answer 6

One: the Democratic economic policies that the right-wing calls "socialist" are good for the CAPITALIST economy of the USA.
Two: The liberal approach to crime prevention works. Incidentally, since Bush became presidnent the rates of violent crime reversed and are rising--a change law enforcement officials attribute to cuts by the Bush administration in social programs and funding for law enforcement.

Answer 7

And he took money out of the SS fund to balance his budget.Only president to do this when it was not to be touched. this is a Fact Chi.

Answer 8

Life was good under Clinton?

Answer 9

my dad is way better then Clinton

Answer 10

You failed to mention that there was a Republican Congress during most of this period.

Also, I think that crime was down because it could be argued that Clinton was soft on crime.