From: rja@redwood26.cray.com (Russ Anderson)
Newsgroups: alt.activism,misc.headlines,sci.econ,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Derailing the Reagan Revolution, part I: Reverse Reaganism
Date: 19 Aug 92 16:44:10 GMT
Organization: The 1991 World Champion Minnesota Twins!
Originator: rja@redwood26


In article <1992Aug18.142838.3577@desire.wright.edu>, demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:
> 
> 	Most of the following is taken from _Forbes_, August 17, 1992. 
> 	Nobel Prize-winning economist Milton Friedman [...]
> 
> 	FORBES: How's the economy?
> 
> 	Friedman: If you look closely, and pay attention to the short-term
> money supply movement, it looks very scary.

Now that's a glowing endorsement of Bush policies...

> 	President Bush has a policy I've been calling reverse Reaganism.  It
> promises slow growth in the 1990s.  Now, on top of that, the short-term cycle
> came down sharply, then started to go up, but has been severely retarted by
> slow monetary growth.  It may indeed turn into another recession.

"another recession"!!!  How long will it take Bush to recognize this one?

> 	[Federal Reserve Chairman Alan] Greenspan has ben more successful than
> Volcker in avoiding excessive volatility in the money supply.  But while I
> share his objective of long-run zero inflation, in the short run the money
> supply has grown much too slowly....

This is what Friedman is talking about:

      Money Supply Growth Rates

M2 growth (4Q/4Q)  M3 growth (4Q/4Q)
-----------------  -----------------
1988  5.2%         1988  6.4%
1989  4.8%         1989  3.6%
1990  4.0%         1990  1.7%
1991  2.8%         1991  1.2%
 *    1.4%          *   -0.3%

(* 11/91-6/92)
Source: Federal Reserve Board

>         Does this mean that you're disappointed in Bush?
> 
>         [Laughs.]  Disappointed is putting it very mildly.  I believe the Bush
> presidency has been very close to a disaster.

Another glowing endorsement of Bush.

>         Reagan when he came into office had four basic points: one, reduce
> marginal taxes; two, reduce regulation; three, restrain government spending;
> four, have a stable and noninfaltionary monetary policy.  And while he did not
> achieve them to the extent to which I would have liked, he did achieve a great
> many of them.
>         Now Mr. Bush comes into office, and what happens with respect to these
> four planks?  He presided over the summit, which ended up with an increase in
> marginal tax rates.  Not very large.  But it's opening the door to future
> increases.  As long as you had a firm policy, "Read my lips," that possibility
> was simply ruled out.
>         On regulation: an enormous increase in control over the citizens.  The
> number of people employed by the regulatory agencies has now gone up under Bush
> more than it went down under Reagan.  He reversed Reagan on policy number three
> as well, spending.  Government spending has been going up more rapidly under
> Mr. Bush than--you have to go back a very long time to find a comparable
> period.
> 	On inflation: He hasn't been able to dominate the Federal Reserve
> Board.  However, he did try to interfere.  He waited until the last minute to
> reappoint Alan Greenspan.  He and Secretary of the Treasury Brady have been
> jawboning the Fed.  I'm not going to defend the Fed's policy.  I'm just
> contrasting the situation.

In other words: Bush is a failure.

-- 
Russ Anderson    |  Disclaimer: Any statements are my own and do not reflect
------------------              upon my employer or anyone else.  (c) 1992
EX-Twins' Jack Morris, 10 innings pitched, 0 runs (World Series MVP!)