From: echo@ucscb.UCSC.EDU (Hagame uno mas!  Esos son muy cool!)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Question about Clinton's "didn't inhale" remark
Date: 21 Jul 92 16:45:06 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of California; Santa Cruz
NNTP-Posting-Host: ucscb.ucsc.edu


In article <1992Jul20.173527.19026@Princeton.EDU> pswanson@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Paul Swanson) writes:
>In article <1992Jul20.155428.8208@iti.org> aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
>>In article <1992Jul19.225428.25403@afterlife.ncsc.mil> glreno@afterlife.ncsc.mil (Gerald Reno) writes:
>>
>>>Correct me if I'm wrong... aren't we ALREADY in the biggest
>>>recession since the 1930's?
>>
>>consider yourself corrected. The recession in the middle 70's and the
>                                                   ^^^^^^^^^^^
>Gee, isn't this shortly after the first oil crisis?
>
>>one in the early 80's where each far worse. This one is actually pretty
>            ^^^^^^^^^^
>And this one was right after the second oil crisis.  Think there is some
>sort of correlation here?  I certainly do.

We are in the worst GROWTH period since the 1930s.  Economic growth has not
beenthis pathetic since the country shot down the tubes last.

About the oil . . . the mid-70s recession was exacerbated by the oil crisis,
but was already starting in 1970.  It was made much worse by the sudden
inavailability and high cost of energy.

The recession of the early-80s is not attributable to an oil crisis.  It
is partially attributable to the failed monetary policies of the Fed, and
partly to failed policies of Carter and the Congress, and mostly attributable
to failure to communicate (as much as I'd like to, I can't blame Reagan for
it -- much).

>>mild, it just seems worse compared to the previous decade of growth.
>>
>
>What about the length of this recession?  Is it longer or shorter than
>the two that were pointed out by the previous poster?

Longer.  And it's bad.  It is not mild.  I am doubtful about the assertion
that the mid-70s and early-80s recessions were indeed worse than the current
recession.  It depends on whose measures you go by.  I'm willing to bet that
Allen is using the measures of a conservative to base his assertions on.
That's no problem, because I use the judgments of liberal economists :)  But
chronologically, this recession has been much longer than the other two,
mainly because of (once again) failed Fed monetary policy that screwed up
the tepid recovery of 91.

I DO disagree that this one seems bad because of the previous decade of
growth.  Remember where all the growth took place in the previous decade?
Not in places that benefitted most of the hardest hit people of this recession.
In other words, a lot of people were already in a pretty bad state *before*
this recession hit.  This recession looks bad because

	a) we're still going through it, and
	b) things got even worse than they were before.

Of course, if you want to read about *TRULY* bad recessions and see where
true laissez-faire capitalism gets you, read Alexander Keysaar's essay
on unemployment in Massachusetts in the late 1800's. It''s enough to
make a supply-siders hair turn as white as Kemp's.

-- 
  //          ---<--@                     -Echo
\X/                                        The Potato-Salad-Eatin' Fool.
INTERNET: echo@ucscb.ucsc.edu              AT&T: (408) 427-9814 home
                                                 (408) 431-5387 work
"It's a Man Ray kind of sky."

Paul Reed Smith is a god.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections