"The underlying reality of low growth", Neil Irwin says, "will haunt whoever wins the White House in November". I don't think so. I expect vigor, no matter who wins the White House in November.
I think it would be pretty ironic if Hillary Clinton gets elected. Because what I'm looking at amounts to vigor starting about a year into the first term of the next U.S. President. If Hillary is elected, we will be hearing stories that it takes a Clinton to create economic vigor. But Bill Clinton had no more to do with the good economy of the 1990s than Hillary does with the good economy of 2018-2024.
It would be more accurate to say that the changes which created the good years of the latter 1990s happened mostly during the Reagan and H.W. Bush years; and that the changes which will create the good years to come happened mostly during the Obama years.
For the record, the vigor of the 1990s was made possible by a big drop in debt growth (1985-1991) combined with a big increase in spending money (1990-1994). The debt-per-dollar ratio shows this as a decline (1990-1994). That decline was followed by unusually rapid increase (1995-2000). This increase was the source of the funds that made vigorous growth possible in the latter 1990s.
The changes are indicated in red on the graphs below:
|Graph #1: The Growth of Total Debt|
|Graph #2: The Growth of Spending Money|
|Graph #3: The Debt-per-Dollar Ratio|
You can see the same effects in the graph of household debt service.
|Graph #4: Household Debt Service|
The stage has already been set for the vigor that will be attributed to our next President.