From: garrett@Ingres.COM (QUOTE OF THE YEAR)
Newsgroups: tx.politics,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: The blame game
Summary: Improvement
Date: 15 Sep 92 20:32:07 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: ASK Computer Systems, Ingres Product Division
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-b1

In article <1992Sep15.123142.5821@mksol.dseg.ti.com>, mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j writes...
>In <1992Sep15.010551.8372@pony.Ingres.COM> garrett@Ingres.COM (QUOTE OF THE YEAR) writes:
> 
>>In article <1992Sep8.214556.29784@awdprime.austin.ibm.com>, curt@ekhadafi.austin.ibm.com (Cu writes...
>>>>In article <1992Sep2.205150.3382@pony.Ingres.COM>, QUOTE OF THE YEAR writes:

>>  The depression lasted many
>>>years longer due to his policies than it otherwise would have.
>>> 
>>This is no more than an opinion and therefore means no more than anyone
>>elses view without facts.
> 
>Well, examine some of his policies.  Minimum wage laws increase
>frictional unemployment and help keep prices and wages (which are
>sticky on the down side anyway) from adjusting downward. 

Although I don't have any numbers on hand, I clearly remember
recent newspaper articles about how wages aren't keeping up with
inflation during this recession.

 This will
>lengthen any economic correction which requires prices and wages to
>adjust downward. 

Isn't unemployment enough of an adjustment on the wages side?
Serious question.

 Reducing the money supply by some 25% will cause
>contractionary pressures on the private economy, because credit and
>capital simply will not be available.  Couple that with a fiscally
>expansionist policy of government jobs programs and credit becomes
>even tighter for the private economy due to 'crowding out' in the
>credit and capital markets. 

I won't argue this point, but by employing people you are also 
putting money into the economy through the consumer. I'm no 
economist, but this must be factored in on at least a marginally
positive side.

 The trade unionist laws enacted prevent
>industry from adjusting prices and wages downward, too, and also
>prevent people who would be willing to work but are not in the union
>from getting jobs. 

This is simply not true. The unions gave "give backs" in several
industries during the early 80's. Also, unions are not in the business
of preventing employment. First of all, unions will allow almost 
anyone into their union, whether they can employ them or not.
Secondly, most states are "right to work" states (including Ark.),
which means that state law prohibits unions from barring people
from working on a union job if they don't want to join the union.

 It is quite a long list, and the contention that
>many of the things FDR did lengthened the Great Depression would seem
>to be well supported by the facts.
> 
I still dipute this fact as speculation, and I also forward the
point for further the debate that as we came out of the depression
everyone came out of the depression, not the upper class first.

>>>Reduced regulation.
> 
>>What kind of regulation? antitrust regulation? Worker safty laws?
>>Environmental protection laws? Child labor laws? Minimum wage laws?
>>Which regulations do you want to throw out? And try to be specific.
> 
>Minimum wage laws tend to be a drag on the economy and increase
>frictional unemployment.

This needs further explination.

  Extreme worker safety laws do likewise.  In
>this case, it is a case of some being good and more being bad.

Fact: More mployees die every year from on the job accidents then
all the American deaths from the 8 years of Vietnam. I must ask
what you mean by Extreme worker safety laws.

>>>	FDR did none of these.  And the depression went on for YEARS 
>>>	because of him.
>>>
>>Once again, an opinion. BTW, you do remember that the world was suffering
>>from a world-wide DEPRESSION. Not just recession, depression. 
> 
>There is no difference between a recession, a depression, and a panic.

I must disagree. You can't compare 1992 with 1932 or even 1973. The words
are no different, but the economies are.

>>The economy
>>improved every year except 37' under his administration. EVERY YEAR except
>>about 6 months out of 1937. When did we have a president that could do 
>>that. If he did such a bad job, as you say, then why was he re-elected 
>>4 times by wide margins?
> 
>There are a lot of reasons why FDR kept getting reelected, most of
>which have nothing to do with his economic performance.
>
I must ask what your theory is then?

>Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.

-Garrett