From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,sci.econ
Subject: Re: Look Back in Anger
Date: 23 Nov 92 14:26:41 EST
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.

In article <1992Nov22.174203.25230@midway.uchicago.edu>, thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank) writes:
> In article <1992Nov22.023432.5757@desire.wright.edu> demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:
>>In article <1992Nov21.050749.28105@midway.uchicago.edu>, thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank) writes:
>>> In article <1992Nov17.180536.5664@desire.wright.edu> demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:
>>>>	(1982-1990)
>>>>> Can you say, "selection bias"??
>>>>
>>>>	Sure I can say it, but it's not meaningful.  We're discussing
>>>>supply-side and Reaganomics.  Which were ineffect from 1982-1990.  Thus the
>>>>selection period.  Now if I wanted to talk Keynesian, I would pick a different
>>>>time frame.
>>
>>> dates.  Why does the period begin in 1982 instead of 1981?  If you're
>>> arguing that 1981 should be attributed to the residual effect of Carter,
>>> then why isn't 1991 attributed to the residual effect of Reagan-Bush?
>>
>>	1982 is the inflection point for the economy.  
> 
> That's not the question.  The question is whether supply-side began in 1981.
> Did it or didn't it?  

	It's not a yes or no question.  Supply side has been around for
millenia.  In it's latest incarnation, parts of supply side began in 1978. 
Reagan's tax cuts are probably thest best dividing line, if you must have one.
	Which brings us back to 1982.

>>Bush killed the
>>Reagan expansion in 1990 (the tax hike).  It had been wavering since the 1987
>>tax folly.
> 
> Brett, it's sounding more and more like your definition is circular.
> "Supply-side economics makes the economy grow, therefore any year that the
> economy doesn't grow is supply-side economics.  Look!  Supply-side economics
> makes the economy grow!"
> 
	You asked why 1990 was the end.  Tax hikes are not supply side. 
Because 1986 (not 1987) contained both hikes and decreases it was not the end
of supply-side but a disruption.

> You have to explain to me why Reagan's tax hike, which was larger than Bush's
> both in raw and real numbers, is considered supply-side economics, while

	It's not.  But don't let that stop you from saying it is :).

> Bush's doesn't.  The only reasoning you've given is that the economy's stopped
> growing after Bush's tax hike, in which case your "proof" that what you call
> "supply-side economics" is caused by growth is marred by the fact that it
> seems by your definition that growth causes supply-side economics. 

	Reagan's tax hike did not have a direct impact on the economy.  Bush's
did.  Neither was supply side, but you asked why 1982-1990 is a supply side
boom.  1982 and 1990 are the inflection points, what made the economic
expansion during that period was a program that included many of the
supply-side economic propositions.  Not 100%, but enough to make the economy
go.

	If you quit changing your questions, you'd stop getting different
answers.  (Either you want to know why supply side caused the boom, or you want
to know why 1982-1990 is the time frame.)

Brett
===============================================================================
80s: 18 million new jobs, deficits down (%GNP), tax rates down, tax revenues up
GNP up, inflation down, unemployment down, interest rates down, cold war won
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.sex