From: sug6@usite-next.uchicago.edu (Patrick Sugent)
Subject: Re: why progressive tax rates (was Re: Clinton's
Organization: University of Chicago
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 22:51:11 GMT

  I am going to post a short version of the letter I will send you.
Essentially, I think we are mostly agreeing at this point, I just
have different views on to what extent "Slick Willie" can be trusted
to do the right thing.

  However, there are a couple of (short) points that I think are worth
posting.

In article <1992Aug21.190650.8649@sequent.com> bfish@sequent.com (Brett Fishburne) writes:
>
>>  The best successes we've seen in turning around schools have had
>>less to do with money than to do with giving control of the school
>>to less central powers. (Such as the Harlem example which also
>>involved school choice.)
>
>Can't some of this success also be attributed to relieving creative teachers
>from stifling requirements? 

  Absolutely.  But getting these School Boards off of the backs of the schools
has a lot to do with it too.  Try to pass that through politically.
In Chicago, it is real hard.  It is politics at its worst with little
to no thought about the education of the children.


>Your point is well taken.  Money doesn't seem to help the issue.  All the
>same, I can't understand why my mother has to use books 5-10 years out of
>date because the school system can't afford more.  How is it possible that
>with more money going in, class sizes are rising, schools are having to
>consolidate and parents are having to pay for things like football programs?

  Well, numbers of administration workers have a lot to do with it from what
I've seen.  Now, please note that I have never said I am against an increase
in school funding.  I just think that it is insufficient to get the
job done.  The GOP convention cited an example of a janitor that gets
paid $57k a year to sweep the floor three times a year.  This is part
spin, to be sure, but I have seen (but cannot cite) studies about 
relative numbers of administrators for private and public schools and
the numbers are quite shocking.
>
>
>>  Do you know where he stands on testing?  He was adamantly for it.
>>I wonder if he backed off of that too.
>
>What kind of testing?  Teacher or student?  I'll check around and see what
>I can find.

  Student is what I was referring to.  He was for national student testing,
but I'm not sure he still is.

>
>>  The _Fortune_ article said:
>>
>>  "Just how serious is the job drought? Serious.  Focus on the expansion
>>of the 1980s and leave aside the past few recession-marred years,
>>which would make the numbers look even worse."
>>
>> 
>>   Now, this is (at best) just intellectually dishonest.  The study
>>(for the most part) covers the years 1979-1989.  Now, this was a lot of
>>how Krugman started the "poor got poorer" in the 80s bit.  By including
>>the recession years of 1979-1982 (which were disastrous), it wholy
>>biases the statistics.  And to think, _Fortune_ said that it wanted
>>to "Focus on the expansion of the 1980s".  If it had really wanted
>>to do so, its study would have included 1983-(mid) 1990.  Obviously,
>>the article was more interested in making a point than providing
>>legitimate analysis.  
>
>You have a beef, but if you're talking about the 80's (admittedly ignoring
>the past few recession-marred years), why is 1979-1989 unreasonable?  OK,
>its easy to point out any small area where there will be a boom or bust
>(just a little chaos theory), but shouldn't a 10 year period be a broad
>enough range?  

  Well, the key words to me is that they say they want to focus upon
the _expansion_ of the 80s.  The _expansion_ of the 80s was '83 to
mid-'90.  (This also roughly corresponds to when Reagan's policies
and agenda actually took effect.  In 1981 he had Carter's budget,
so in 1982 his changes would have started to take place with their
visible effects occurring in 1983.)

  Oh, just for definitional purposes, the expansion of the 80s is
when we saw our GDP grow instead of shrink.  When it shrinks, we
are in a recession, when it grows we are in either a recovery
or an _expansion_.  (GDP=Gross Domestic Product. It is like GNP, only
a better indicator for how the domestic economy is doing.)
So, the technical definition of _expansion_ of the 80s would
place it in the years 1983-1990.  This is all a little bit of eco-speak,
but _Fortune_ is well aware of what they were saying and doing.


  At any rate, anybody who tells you that they want to focus only
on the _expansion_ of the 80s and avoid the recent recession
years and then includes 1979-1982 in the study is just lying.
The years 1979 to 1982 were a disaster for our economy.  In fact, 1979 is one
of two times since 1967 when per capita income actually decreased in real
terms (inflation adjusted.) The other time was 1973.

  Not many jobs were created in 1979-1982.  But, a lot of jobs were
lost and as I said it is one of two times when per capita income in
the U.S. actually decreased.  Including these years (and 1979 specifically)
in a study on the _expansion_ of the 80s is extremely dishonest and is only 
done in order to bias the statistics.  It is for reasons such as this that
I originally called _Fortune_ a rag.  If they wanted to focus
on the the _expansion_ of the 80s to see what sort of jobs were
created, they have a funny way of showing it.

  EXTRA NOTE:  Technically '79 - '82 included two recessions.  There is
some debate concerning the extent to which they should be lumped together.
The WSJ argues that the recovery in between the years was inflation induced
and should not be treated as a real recovery.  I don't entirely agree
with this, however it is clear that the next recession started while
Carter's policies were still running the country (if you are interested
in the politics of the thing.)

  But, no matter what, these years do not include the _expansion_ of the
80s that _Fortune_ proclaimed they would cover and there is a real good
chance that they knew what they were doing.  After all, I do.


>What about the 12 year period of the Reagan/Bush era (OK, OK
>Reagan got stomped on by the economy Carter left, but isn't that about to
>happen to Clinton via Bush?).

  Actually, the last recession was no where near as bad in terms of
GDP growth as '79 - '82.  I guarantee that if the report had focussed
on the _expansion_ of '83 to '90 they would have seen wholy 
different and much more favorable results.  Heck, I guarantee
that if they had focussed on only the years that Reagan and Bush were
in office they would have seen completely different and positive results.

  The fact is, that _Fortune_ analysts know this as well as I do.
They wanted to write an article about how bad jobs are, and they
found a way to bias their data so that they could do so.

  As I said, Krugman originally tried to do the same thing and say
the "poor got poorer in the 80s expansion."  Then, other economic
analysts made him stop using '79 -'89 and he had to admit that
everyone did better in the 80s expansion, but that the years '79
'82 were disastrous for the poor.  Well, we all knew this, but it
somehow doesn't fit the political agenda that Mr. Krugman was
trying to muster.


_____
>
  Anyway, I got really wordy after your issues comments.  I deleted
that and will send you a copy.  If you want to continue debating here,
that's OK. I'll post it, but I think at this point we agree enough
to move it to e-mail.  After all, we wouldn't want to clutter up all
of these flames with two people agreeing. :-)

  Thanks for the discussion.  You make some very good points and
I think only our different views on the "trust factor" of the candidates
separates our votes.


Pat


-- 
Patrick Sugent				"Cry 'Havoc!' and let slip   
sug6@usite-next.uchicago.edu		 the Hogs of Peace."
(708) 447-1771				 --P.J. O'Rourke
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc