From: shallit@graceland.uwaterloo.ca (Jeffrey Shallit)
Subject: Re: the real Reagan record
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 00:57:38 GMT

In article <92320.120538DURRETT@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU> <DURRETT@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU> writes:
>
>In article <BxrHru.JCs@math.uwaterloo.ca>, shallit@graceland.uwaterloo.ca
>(Jeffrey Shallit) says:
>>
>>In article <92317.211208KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu> Kurt Ludwick
>><KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>>>
>>>The truth is,
>>>people in -all- income brackets, as a whole, did better in the 80s because
>>>of supply-side economics.
>>
>>Not according to Kevin Phillips, the *conservative* political commentator.
>>His book, The Politics of Rich and Poor, is a devastating critique of
>>the Reagan-Bush economic legacy.  Table I, on page 17, reveals that
>>average family income, in *constant dollars*, *decreased* for the bottom
>>8 of the ten deciles from 1977 to 1988.  Only for the top 10% of Americans
>>was there any significant increase, and that increase was highly
>>concentrated in the top 1%.
>>
>>Jeff Shallit
>
>Look, I'm as ready as anyone to bash the heads of state for the last n
>years(where n is a large number), but if you wish me to agree that this
>statistic in anyway reflects the performance of the economy, especially
>how the performance of the economy affected people with various income
>levels differentially, under what we are assuming is the ReaganBush
>Philosophy(tm), then you're out to lunch. From 1977-1980, inclusive,
>Jimmy Carter was in office!

Fine -- then *you* provide the statistics for 1981-1988.  From what
I've seen, they will not differ substantially from the above -- 
unless you want to argue that under Carter, median family income
dropped dramatically and never recovered under Reagan.

>This is very likely a good example of lying with statistics.

One wonders what motivation *conservative Republican*
Phillips would have for lying.

If you accuse him of lying based on my single excerpt, I would
say that it is *you* who are out enjoying the noontime meal.
The very least you can do is read his book first.

> What we
>really need to address the issue properly is the same statistic for the
>period 1982-19<latest available>. This number will demonstrate
>conclusively the validity of this sort of argument(though I would argue
>that more complete statistics, including a breakdown by quintile or
>decile would be preferable). Personally, though, I don't *care* if the
>rich got richer, so long as everyone gained in real terms.

One wonders how "everyone" could gain in real terms, if family income
declined for 80% of the populace, measured in constant dollars.  Are
you arguing that prices for goods and services went down significantly
from 1977 to 1988?

Phillips addresses in detail other measures of the economy,
including America's shrinking share of global wealth, and the
increasing inequity between rich and poor.

>My suspicion
>is that the perceived failure(whether real or not) of so-called
>trickle-down economics is due largely to the fact that we financed it
>by running up the debt, thus sucking much of the money which should
>have financed investment in productive jobs at low overhead(i.e., more
>goods/jobs/services per dollar invested) into $600 toilet seats,

This is also addressed in detail in Phillips, Chapter 4.

>""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
>Roo-Dog Rip is:                  <>SLAC, Stanford, the DOE and the
>Derrell Durrett                  <>University of Colorado neither claim
>D_DURRETT@COLOPHYS.BITNET        <>responsibility nor accept liability
>D_DURRETT%KAOS@VAXF.COLORADO.EDU <>for my opinions. Gee- what a surprise.

Jeff Shallit


Newsgroups: alt.fan.dan-quayle