Newsgroups: alt.activism
Subject: Witless, indeed
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Date: 27 Aug 92 11:39:27 EST
Followup-To: witless
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.
Summary: Some numbers would be nice...

In article <1992Aug27.020057.3647@pony.Ingres.COM>, rogerl@Ingres.COM (Roger Leuthner) writes:
> In article <1992Aug26.130122.3753@desire.wright.edu> demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:
>>
>>	Read "The Seven Fat Years".  It is largely a case of guilt-complexes
>>and faulty conclusions.
> 
> Easy to say, difficult to verify.  Written any books lately?

	Read the book.  "Witless" indeed.

>>	Remember the people decrying "greedy yuppies" buying VCRs?  How people
>>were starving in Africa while we drove our BMWs?  Well people were starving
>>before the 80s, and they are still starving today.  As sane people tried to say
>>in the 80s, it has nothing to do with US consumption.
> 
> Arguing with you seems to be fruitless, but ...
> 
> Statistics abound (I'm sure you've seen some, and I don't have them on
> line) taht say, in as few words as possible, 'the rich got richer and the
> poor got poorer?' 

	"Statistics abound" but are never posted.  Meanwhile, statistics that
prove otherwise (and that are posted) are ignored.

	Economic opportunity reached all in the 80s.

> (in the United States) (dragging Africa in to this is a
> rather red herring).  By 'statistics' I'm not referring to hypothesis
> testing, I'm referring to data gathered from real events.

	So am I.  Read the three "derailing" posts.  Read "The Seven Fat
Years".

> As far as greedy yuppies and their accoutrements, I've recently seen them
> losing their hot jobs and therefore forfeiting their buy-now-pay-later
> goods; (kind of like the US in the 1980s then 1990s) primarily because the
> false economic growth caused the formation of a large number of companies
> which are not competitive.   Sure was a boon for the suited dudes on the
> street - events like 'corporate raiding' became so common that the words
> are now part of everyday vocabulary.  This happened in the 1980s, in the
> United States.

	The yuppies are still around.  Investment bankers and stock sellers
made up only a small number of the young, educated workers who began making
more money in the 80s.

>>	As detailed in part 3 of the "Derailing" series, Mexico has proven that
>>the way to rebuild your society is by providing economic opportunity for all. 
> 
>>..supply side economics is the best way to [ follow Mexico (!) to prosperity (!)]
> 
> This is a subjective conclusion, and is not supported by this evidence.

	It is supported by the evidence.  If you have numbers that show
otherwise, all you have to do is post them.

	(We'll wait :)

> Mexico is a third world country.  They are not starting with a populace
> that is as [ economically ] sophisticated as that of the US.  Saying the
> same approach will work for an economy as mature as that of the United
> States is naive.  Try running an apple through an orange juicer.  goop.

	"Not as sophisticated"!  This is rich.  Since when does it take a
certain level of sophisitication to buy something?  Produce something?

	Look at the numbers.  Disprove them if you can.  From all appearances
you're just venting hot air.

Brett                                                      
_______________________________________________________________________________
Proconsul Computer Consulting                                        CHA-CHING!
Better, Cheaper, Faster					       (Pick any two :)
Disclaimer:								   NOT!
Xref: sparky alt.activism:15881 talk.politics.misc:43482