This is all my opinion, so democrats don't get pissed at me:
The economic health/strength of the U.S. follows about 5-10 years behind the economic policy of the administration in power; this is an understood fact in economic circles. It is true that the economy can be controlled to small degree by adjusting the interest rates, etc. But long term health of the business/technology sector is dependent upon taxation and government spending. With that in mind let quickly run over the last 20 years of econ starting with Regan in 1980:
- (1980-1988) Regan cuts business taxes and ups gov. spending, especially in millitary. Gives the rich there money back. Companies and rich start saving more money and licking wounds.
- (1988-1992) Bush continues Regan's intiative but raises taxes a little. Meanwhile companies and rich start investing money that Regan saved them into tech fields.
- (1992-2000) Clinton, a wanton womanizer and horrible economist, cuts military spending, increases taxation for people and business; businesses began, increasingly to set up factories in other countries reduce costs. Capital and assets amassed during republican economic policy continues to fuel tech development and investment.
- (2000-2001) Tech boom is ending due to Clinton's economic policy of the past 8 yrs.
Just, think about it. When did companies like Cisco, Microsoft, Intel, 3Com, etc. start or really get moving full steam? In the 1980's and early 90's. These companies are a product of Reganomics, not Clinton. Clinton has cut down the military so small, we couldn't even fight another desert storm if we had to. I know this for a fact because a couple of my friends are in the military or just got out; they all either fly/flew jet or are officers and see al the numbers. Classically, mil. spending is really important to our economy as is the expansion of technology and companies. Regan promoted this, Clinton has done a thing for the economy aside keeping the interest rates stable (BFD).
I know this is somewhat off topic. But days of P/E's of 40, 80, 100 are going away really fast. Under non-"boom" conditions, its takes more than sex appeal to sell stock. Remember Palm? They went up to like 40 bil market value with only about 100-200 mil in revenue based on sex appeal. They are no where near that now and shouldn't be.
Two more things:
- Clinton/Gore are not responsible for the economic prosperity of the 90's, they are responsible for the economic silde that has been happening since about Q499 till now. Regan lit a big fire and it took the democrats a long time to blow it out but now that it's out, our economy will probably continue to slide on the whole unless policy turns around in a hurry.
- I'd still keep AMD. With a P/E of 6 and the products they have now and coming, there going to rise to at least 15-20 P/E. Also another dark horse is Fruit of the Loom, they are in debt right now (Chapter 11) but coming out of debt and they have a 1 bil revenue; and right now, their stock is $0.27 a share. It was $40...you do the math. Can't write all the details but read up on it.