From: elwin@maidavale.media.mit.edu (Lee W Campbell)
Subject: Re: Stupendous Man, Stupendous Silence! (conciliatory message enclosed)
Organization: MIT Media Laboratory
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 13:50:25 GMT

In article <1992Dec1.160853.5954@desire.wright.edu>, demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:
> In article <1992Nov30.023113.5829@news.media.mit.edu>, elwin@maidavale.media.mit.edu (Lee W Campbell) writes:
> [ a long post in which Lee adopts the % of GNP argument ]
> 
> > It grew every single suppy-side year, and by 1989, Reagan's last budget
> > year it was 56% of GNP. Brett, you're so proud of the fact that *deficit*
> > as a % of GNP dropped during a few of Reagan's years, but look, *debt* as
> > a % of GNP dropped steadily under Carter and many others. Which would you
> > rather see reduced: deficit/GNP or debt/GNP? Sure, we got good growth of
> > GNP from supply-side economics; unfortunately, debt grew 50% faster. Do you
> > still think that's a win? I know you, Brett. You want to give all the
> > credit for the GNP growth to supply-side, and all the blame for debt growth
> > to Congress, but it won't wash. Supply side promised us such growth that
> > it would outstrip growth in the debt. It never did. Not for a single year.
> > And it left us with a huge millstone around our necks in the form of this
> > gigantic debt. Some success story.
> 
> 	Lee, I accept you surrender in the % of GNP war.

In article <1992Dec2.153145.5987@desire.wright.edu> Stupe writes:
>...	Lee is correct here, in that *he* never said anything about amounts.

Brett, I accept your surrender that I never argued anything except % of GNP.
The only war I've fought was to keep you honest, and I've only had partial
success there. Some things you've apologized for, but others you've passed
off as "confusion" which doesn`t ring true. Not that you're not confused, it
just doesn't explain *all* your errors.

As far as your use of the word "down" as in "80's: deficits down (%GNP)" I'll
show you how bogus that is. Would you say inflation was "down" during the Carter
Administration? Of course not. But yet it reached its peak in '79 and was on
a "downward trend" after that. Extrapolate it far enough and eventually it would
be down. So if your use of the word "down" is valid for Reagan's deficits (%GNP)
it is also valid for Carter's inflation. I say the use of the word "down" is not
valid in either place; what do you say?

> 	Now, would you like to continue with the reasons why Reagan was forced
> into a choice between winning the cold war and attacking the debt?
> 
> 	Before you accept, you might want to look at the point at which the
> growth of the debt went from geometric to exponential (1974).  There is a
> reason it started then, and it has to do with impoundment.

Gosh, Brett, it looks like you've switched to arguing dollar amounts instead
of % of GNP! How did this happen? I thought % GNP was "Accepted as THE valid
measure of government spending levels." And we both know that debt as a % of
GNP was dropping steadily from Eisenhower through Nixon, Ford, and Carter,
and, as noted above, debt as a % of GNP rose significantly every single supply-
side year. Can you explain why you're so hung up on change in deficit (%GNP),
which is the 2nd derivative of debt (%GNP), when debt itself was going the
right way (down) under N, F, & C; and the wrong way (up) under supply-side?

> Brett
> ===============================================================================
> 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
> -* Accepted as THE valid measure of government spending levels.----------------
     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Then why did YOU suddenly switch???
					- Lee Campbell
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.conspiracy