From: elwin@maidavale.media.mit.edu (Lee W Campbell)
Subject: Re: Bush Tampering with Key Economic Figures
Organization: MIT Media Laboratory
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 13:06:08 GMT

In article <1992Nov12.100320.5550@desire.wright.edu>, demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:
> In article <1992Nov11.125843.8731@news.media.mit.edu>, elwin@maidavale.media.mit.edu (Lee W Campbell) writes:
> > In article <1dopg6INNims@roundup.crhc.uiuc.edu>, sunder@grusin.crhc.uiuc.edu (Srinivas Sunder) writes:
> ...
> > |> a much-too conservative estimate, and that when the revisions are made after more
> > |> complete data come in, they will probably be UPWARD revisions. He also said
> > |> something about the New York Post being about as good at economic reporting
> > |> as they are at news reporting, which was bad (his opinion, not mine).
> > |> 
> > 
> > That's an interesting opinion, but the market tends to vote with is
> > dollars. The period after those figures came out was business-as-
> > usual despite the expressions of surprise about how high the figure
> > was. If the market believed those figures, where was the market
> > activity? An article I read (I believe it was the NY times) interviewed
> > wall street economists who said the new Bush figures didn't reflect
> > how bad the economy was, and didn't change their view. Market activity
> > corroborates this story alot better than it corroborates the John Liscio
> > story you told.
> 
> 	Actually the fact that the market didn't nosedive after the election is
> because the economy is doing so well and all indications are that Clinton is
> not going to mess with it.  Talk about Volcker as Treasury Sec. is also helping.
>                                        
> Brett

   Brett, I think you missed my point. What I was trying to say was that the
market didn't believe Bush's new growth figure of 2.7% released at the end of
October. The evidence I was citing was that despite widespread expressions of
surprise at how large the figure was, there was no noticable rise in the markets.
Ergo: the market didn't believe Bush.

   As for the market's response to Clinton's election, I agree with part of your
interpretation: it's a vote of confidence in President Clinton. However, I don't
agree with you that the market thinks "the economy is doing so well." I think
the market is worried about the deficit and unemployment. As for me, I'm worried
about unemployment and the deficit.

> ===============================================================================
> 80s: 18 million new jobs, deficits down (%GNP), tax rates down, tax revenues up
> GNP up, inflation down, unemployment down, interest rates down, cold war won
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I still have a question about the data here in your .sig. Perhaps you didn't
see my post, or else I didn't see your answer (this is the first group of posts
I've seen from you all week). I know your news server is wacky and sometimes
holds onto posts and burps them up in groups. Anyway. here is the question again:

In article <1992Nov5.132329.24830@ms.uky.edu> fehr@ms.uky.edu (Jeff Davis) writes:

> Stupendous Man writes:

  [stuff deleted]

> >	The deficit, as a % of GNP, declined during the 80s.
> >
> ???
> Using figures you provided some time ago, the deficit as a % of GNP
> never fell below 3.1% of GNP during the Reagan years. The highest
> % was 6.2% of GNP. The highest % of GNP under that old, irresponsible
> Jimmy Carter was 2.8% of GNP. So, in that the percentage of
> the deficit to GNP peaked at 6.2  (4.1,6.2,5.0, 5.4, 5.3,3.4,
> 3.2,3.1) I guess, yes, you could say that the rate declined during
> the 80s. Sort of like the pain is less when you stop sticking
> 2 bamboo shoots under your fingernails and switch to only 1.


   Brett, I never saw your reply to this question. Do you dispute these
figures? they say that the deficit never declined as low as it was at
its worst under Carter.
				- Lee Campbell
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.elections,ba.politics,co.politics,ne.politics,nj.politics,or.politics,ny.politics,talk.politics.misc