From: bucknerb@bnr.ca (Brent Buckner)
Subject: Re: Perot's Economic Figures - TV
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ontario, Canada
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 19:46:17 GMT

In article <1992Oct7.114158.1@fnalf.fnal.gov> trevizo@fnalf.fnal.gov writes:
>Hi,
>
>Did anyone watch Perot on TV last night (Tuesday)?

Well, I suppose you did; do you count?  I saw the last 10 minutes.

>
>Perot made the last 12 years (Reagan and Bush) look like the downfall of 
>America.

His growth figures extended from 1965.  Several
of his figures indicated exponential growth from small numbers beginning
much earlier than 1980.  Of course, the numbers did get much larger
throughout the last 12 years.

>
>He showed employment figures, deficit figures, growth figures, you name it.
>The figures sure didn't make us look good.  Is he right?

I suggest that your statements are in and of themselves indicative of
a problem.  They make it seem as though you know very little about
the state of your country (absolute, relative to its recent history,
and relative to the rest of the world).  This appears endemic in
the body politic.  It is no surprise that bad things may happen when
the electorate is asleep.

Perhaps worse, you are asking the net at large a simple question,
"Is he right?"  To pose a rhetorical question, why
would you trust answers from the net any more than
Perot's presentation?  I must assume that you would, otherwise
you wouldn't ask.  

I think you would do better to at least
ask for references to back up any answers.  Check Perot's book for
sources.

To answer your question, the numbers that he was quoting at
the end were in accord with my mental file of ballpark figures.

>
>I guess many will disagree with his figures.  Many more will disagree with 
>the causes Perot implied.

His figures will be open to quibbling; I doubt that they are open
to major revisions based upon available government statistics.

Very few people want themselves or their organizations (formal and
informal) blamed for anything at all, let alone anything serious. 
I expect most people associated with any implied cause will disagree
with the implication, mostly because they believe that what they
are doing is good.   

There are causes.  Whatever they are, the people involved with them
are unlikely to agree that they are doing net harm.  That's why they're
involved in the first place.

>
>My opinion is that at the end, Perot's arguments will only help Clinton.
>
>Oscar

As far as this election goes, you may be correct.  However, better
that someone lay the issues out than Clinton be elected without
the electorate having been confronted with them.

I think that the Perot candidacy is pushing some very important
issues toward the fore of American federal politics (the Tsongas
bid also contributed).
The politicians and the electorate
must be ready to face them.  Unfortunately, they do not seem to
be ready now.  I look upon the Perot candidacy as preparing
people to admit that the issues must be faced; the first step
is informing people.
-- 
at Bell-Northern Research
voice:        (613) 765-2739
Canada Post:  P.O. Box 3511, Station C, Ottawa, Canada, K1Y 4H7
I do not claim that BNR holds these views.  
Newsgroups: sci.econ