From: lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov (Dr. Norman J. LaFave)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Trickle Down Economics
Date: 23 Nov 92 14:52:54 GMT
Organization: Lockheed Engineering & Sciences Company
X-Xxdate: Mon, 23 Nov 92 08:49:28 GMT
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1.1d12

In article <By1zMM.GzM@eis.calstate.edu> Kenneth Mitchell,
kmitche@eis.calstate.edu writes:
>Dr. Norman J. LaFave <lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov> writes:
>> 
>> Well according to 600 of our best economists, it is the only plan
>> that showed any understanding of macroeconomics of the three
>> presented. Admitedly, they all had their criticisms, but most of
>> them were implementation problems and disagreements in time scale
>> of implementation. Exactly what could anyone have said that you
wouldn't
>> have cdonsidered campaign rhetoric?
>> 
>600 economists couldn't agree on what month it is, let alone the proper
course
>for American economic policy to take.

So who should we get advice on the economy from? Statements like this
always
amuse me. Although economists do disagree on a wide variety of issues,
there
are macroeconomic laws which the vast majority of economists accept and
that
have, for the most part, been validated by economic history. The economy
is a
highly nonlinear, multivariable system and there are bound to be
differences of
opinion on effect and policy. However, this does NOT mean that economists
don't
know anything.

>And for every economist who thought
>Slick Willie's ideas were better (pardon me, "less bad") than Bush's,
>there were two who disagreed, and THREE who didn't think either one of
them
>had a clue. 

Name them. Where are they located? What is their background and
credentials?
If this list of 1200 economists who endorsed Bush's plan existed, don't
you
think Bush would have used it in his campaign? Have you seen the list of
600?
I have. They are a pretty diverse and accomplished lot (including most of
the
nation's Nobel winners).

Just a note. First you argue that economists don't know anything. Then you
argue that more of them endorse Bush (or neither). You can't have it both
ways. So, which is it?

>
>
> >
>> >You're right on the mark about Bush; he's only marginally less
>> unqualified
>> >to be President than Clinton is. Like Slick Willie, he believes in
>> nothing
>> >other than that he should be President, and will do ANYTHING to get
>> >elected. His problems with the economy, however, are mostly the fault
of
>> >Dan Rostenkowski and George Mitchell, who railroaded him into signing
the
>> >1990 budget "deal", whereby Bush broke a promise that he had made, and
>> the
>> >Congress made a promise that they would break. (To never raise taxes,
and
>> >to reduce federal spending, respectively).
>> 
>> That is crap. Even though I hated Reagan, he had an understanding of
how
>> to get congress to do what he wanted. He agressively took the proposals
>> to the people and let them apply the pressure. Bush has no
understanding
>> of
>> this. Furthermore, most of Bush's proposals are simple band-aids for
>> highly complex problems. Secondly, anyone who promises no new taxes
>> in a campaign should be taken with a grain of salt.
>
>In your highly inexpert opinion, perhaps.

Look, I have done significant research into health care, entitlements,
education, energy policy as part of my work as a volunteer. Insulting my
degree of competance is not an arguement. If you have a REAL
arguement, use it.

>Now, I'm not defending Bush; the
>man was a spineless wimp, and if it weren't for Clinton, I'd be glad that
>he'd lost. But government at all leve;s eats 43% of GNP. Are you
>suggesting that we need MORE taxes? 

Who is suggesting that? I suggest you read Clinton's proposals before you
embarass yourself with statements like this. The only ones who stand to
have
their taxes raised are people who make more than 150K (200K for families).
They will have their taxes raised 2%, back to pre-Reagan levels. The
middle 
class will recieve a tax cut.

However, let me give my opinion. We have some serious economic and social
problems in this country which are streaking toward criticality. If we
don't
spend some money to solve them now (progressive social programs like
workfare and job training, infrastructure investment for roads, bridges,
urban
water and sewer systems, long-term R&D---especially scientific, etc),
we are going to get socked with a much bigger bill later (social unrest,
catastrophic failure, ....). Furthermore, there is only one way to
derease the
deficit without causing extreme damage to our fragile economy....get
people
back to work to increase the tax base and decrease entitlements. This will
spread the tax revenues over more individuals and provide money to use for
deficit reduction. In the short run, this will require the government to
spend some money on investment. However, it is the only way to achieve
a healthy, competitive, economy and achieve significant deficit reduction.
Deficit reduction, by the simplistic approach of cutting government
spending,
is a no-win situation because the economy will weaken. This will shrink
the
tax base and shrink the tax revenues leaving little money for deficit
reduction.
We must spend money to make money.

This idea isn't new or radical. It is the type of logic used in the 40's
and 50's
which made this country an economic superpower. Balancing a corporation's
books, but letting the manufacturing and plants decay does not make good
economic sense. You wind up with a failed company who no longer has the
revenue to balance the books. The company dies.
We taught this to Germany
and Japan and then promptly forgot the lessons ourselves. They have been
kicking us with it ever since. There is no excuse for a country as
diverse and
resource-blessed as this one to be having trouble with countries like
Japan
who have little resources. Clinton is advocating the same kind of program
that built this country---long-term investments FOLLOWED by
aggressive deficit reduction. 

>
>> 
>> >
>> >But to vote for Clinton because you don't like Bush is the political
>> >equivalent of jumping out of the frying pan and into the fire. And it
IS
>> >foolish, and I can't help it if you don't like it. 
>> 
>> It would be if that were the only reason I voted for him. It wasn't.
>> 
>> Norman
>
>
>I've never heard any other, but I'm willing to listen. Tell me ONE THING
>that you LIKE, REALLY LIKE, about Bill Clinton, other that the fact that
>he's not Bush.

I already have (see above).

Norman

Dr. Norman J. LaFave
Senior Engineer
Lockheed Engineering and Sciences Company




When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro
                               Hunter Thompson
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:61107 misc.headlines:7113