From: pcollac@pyrnova.mis.pyramid.com (Paul Collacchi)
Newsgroups: misc.headlines,talk.politics.misc,alt.activism,sci.econ
Subject: Re: Boom Boom Boom Boom :)
Date: 27 Aug 92 18:09:26 GMT
Reply-To: pcollac@pyrnova.mis.pyramid.com (Paul Collacchi)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Pyramid Technologies, Mt. View, California.

In article <1992Aug26.130122.3753@desire.wright.edu>,
demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:
|> 
|> > This isn't meant as a flame, but I seem to remember that after everyone
|> > one these "boom" periods there was a severe recession. 
|> 
|> 	It also tends to generate the "tail is caused by the nose" syndrome.
|> 
|> 	We stopped booming in the 90s because we quit doing what caused the
|> boom in the first place: lower taxes, fewer regulations.  We also failed to
|> tackle the debt.
|>

I agree with your assessment that we "did" the boom -- it was an expression
our our collective productive behavior, but I disagree that taxes and
regulations "do us" -- our productive behaviour is still an expression of
us, and we are not caused or motivated by taxes. I know of no rat which
will cross a shock grid to get to a tax cut, but all will cross one to
get food, water, sex, -- the so-called primary drives. Economic theorists
have a really wierd understanding of human psychology. 

Therefore, we can conclude that humans beings act and that taxes will
effect those actions for which there is marginal human commitment.

 
|> > 1920's	followed by the 30's.
|> 
|> 	Remarkable, given that a failure of government to keep the economy
|> going resulted in the largest period of government intervention ever.
And it
|> took a World War to get us out of it.
|> 	We had a massive crash in 87 also, but the market recovered.  We had
|> bank failures in the late 80s but the market is (slowly) recovering. 
It would
|> be even faster if the RTC scam hadn't been done.
|> 	We didn't dive into a depression because government didn't meddle as
|> much this time.
|> 
|> > 64-69   followed by stagflation in the 70's (I remember a bad recession
|> > 					in 73-74, but I think there was 
|> > 					also one before then)
|> 
|> 	Wage and price controls.  Abandonment of Bretton Woods.  Inflation to
|> cure unemployment.  Guns and butter.  Etc.
|> 
|> > 83-89	followed by the present recession.
|> > I'm not sure of the exact date, but there was a depression in the
|> > 1890's as well.
|> > 
|> > Does anyone have a theory on this?
|> 
|> 	Read "The Seven Fat Years".  It is largely a case of guilt-complexes
|> and faulty conclusions.
|> 
|> 	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.
|> 
|> 	There seems to be a segment of the population that feels guilty about
|> being successful.  How can we live with ourselves (in our beachfront condos)
|> while there are homeless people?
|> 
|> 	They fail to realize that the homeless are not homeless because you or
|> I bought a house, they are homeless because there isn't enough economic
|> opportunity for them.
|> 
|> 	And a recession is supposed to make things better for them?
|> 
|> 	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. 
|> And the best way to do that is by supply-side economics.
|> 
|> Brett                                                      
|>
_______________________________________________________________________________
|> Proconsul Computer Consulting                                       
CHA-CHING!
|> Better, Cheaper, Faster					       (Pick any two :)
|> Disclaimer:								   NOT!

Newsgroups: misc.headlines,talk.politics.misc,alt.activism,sci.econ