From: an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism,alt.conspiracy,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Privatization
Date: 24 Jan 1993 05:22:55 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank) says:

>I think you're becoming increasingly loony.  "PC" is hardly sweeping the


       HA!  How did you guess?   

       PC just swept a president into office.  

       Yep, that's what they said at Savin, when I said they headed
    for bankruptcy.  That's what I heard at my Litton division, 3 years
    before we lost 50% of our personnel.  And, of course, I heard it
    in L.A.  Luckily, I didn't listen.  If I had taken the advice of
    'rational' people like yourself, I'd now have myself a domicile 
    of burned ash, and no job.  

    Methinks thou has dwelt among the non-quantitative arts a mite 
    too long.


>>    Now, I ask YOU, do these numbers show a people who are grounded 
>>    in reality?
>

>Sure.  Now, if they also expected tax cuts, there might be a problem.


     But, but, the polls show that they DO, Ted.  hehehehe.


>
>>    Does a $4 trillion debt show an understanding of reality?
>
>It's not optimal, but it's also not necessarily fatal.



     Oh, of COURSE, Ted.  I agree on this point.  The defict will merely
     be the *instrument* of destruction, not the wielder.  Were the 
     deficit to grow, oh, say, even at the same rate as economic 
     growth, I would certainly agree with you.  

>
>>    Therefore, I would suggest to y'all that there is at least a 
>>     fairly good chance that you are wrong about the "deficit not
>>     mattering".  A chance.
>
>No one says the deficit doesn't matter.  What we've been arguing is
>for attacking the problems that are causing this particular deficit,
>rather than just have people recite the catchphrase "The deficit is
>bad" without any understanding what *makes* a deficit bad.  And not
>all deficits are bad.
>
>You're free to panic over the deficit now, and flee to a hut in Ecuador

      Ahhh, a subtle use of PC already, I see. " Panic "  ??

      No, what I have said, is that it would behoove people to 
      prepare.  You must have taken lessons from ABC.


      And, in case you haven't noticed, there is a large number 
  of people who ARE panicking.  How long do you suppose the much-
   vaunted belief that "the deficit is unimportant" will last?


    Tsk, tsk,  I've already ruled out Ecuador.  I thought I mentioned
    it.  Incidentally, you wouldn't happen to actually OWN any 
    government bonds, would you?  


    Yes, you're absolutely right.  If you can show me ONE historically
    example of a government which prospered through continous borrowing,
    I'd be appreciative.

>if you like.  There are still people in shelters in Montana waiting for
>the inevitable global thermonuclear war, after all.
>-- 
>ted frank                     | thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu 
>standard disclaimers          | void where prohibited
>the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
>