[lookout123]

the president has very little impact on the economic cycle. he can only do a few things. clinton isn't any more responsible for the booming '90's than bush is to blame for the recession at the beginning of the decade (or the recovery for that matter).

Take this bull market that recently ended, for instance. Was it caused by the president? no. it was caused by easy credit and a sinking dollar. the early catalyst was historically low interest rates which sparked a housing boom, which brought jobs, an increase in the demand for materials, instant cash from the sale of said homes, etc.

Was Clinton responsible for the booming '90's? no. the fact that americans finally fell in love with computers did. instead of having one geek on the block having that web thing, it became a source of scorn if you didn't have at least one high speed connection in your home. then the tech boom was magnified for awhile before the turn of the century when every $30-40/hour computer geek was charging $100+/hour to get you "y2k compliant". said geeks spent that money somewhere, so demand for products was high. of course january 1st rolled around, we woke up and realized that the world was still standing and our coffee pots hadn't conspired with our printers to throw us into slavery... and that geek was now worth $30/hour again if we needed him at all. Oh, and btw - we started to expect the companies who sold us stock to also produce a product. at a profit. Bull Run Over.

And then a couple of planes went boom giving the average american someone to blame for the fall in their lucent stock. and hey, what's behind this curtain that says Worldcom...

The fed chairman has more direct effect on the economy than the president, and even that effect is never felt until 6-9 months after a decision is made.

markets go up. markets go down. but then... markets go up. before they go down.