From: rja@mahogany126.cray.com (Russ Anderson)
Subject: Re: Sixteen more years
Originator: rja@mahogany126
Organization: The 1991 World Champion Minnesota Twins!
Date: 14 Oct 92 13:56:47 CDT


In article <Bw0tDA.IJ0@apollo.hp.com>, nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
> In article <MATT.92Oct12103900@physics.berkeley.edu> matt@physics.berkeley.edu writes:
> >In article <1762@aviary.Stars.Reston.Unisys.COM> munck@stars.reston.unisys.com (Robert G. Munck) writes:
> >
> >> One of the things panicking the Republicans is the realization that the
> >> economy will almost certainly have turned around four years from now,
> >> independent of who is President and what he does.
> 
>   This is clearly NOT an ordinary recession with an ordinary cyclical
>   recovery; if it was we would have already started to see a major
>   turnaround by now!   Today's Wall Street Journal published another
>   economic consensus forecast showing only 2.7% growth next year with
>   some economists adding that if they were wrong then 2.7% is on the
>   *optimistic* side.   If this were an ordinary cyclical recession
>   then next year would be 5-6% GDP growth!

I agree with both posters.  Economicly, GDP growth will be slow for the 
next few years.  Debt (both private and government) and a shaky financial 
system (with the FIRRA deserving much blame) will limit the amount of 
capital for both investment and consumer spending.  Politically, the 
Republicans will get the blame (even thought there is enough to go 
around).  Even 2+% annual growth (twice as much as under Bush) and 
slowly falling unemployment will be enough for the Dems to keep the 
White House in 1996.  (Remember that FDR kept getting re-elected even
though there was no real recovery until WWII.)

>   As I've been saying, we will almost certainly have to get serious
>   about the deficit in the next few years and once we do we're going
>   into a *depression* with double-digit unemployment and massive social
>   unrest.  (again, if anyone can make the numbers come out some other
>   way >please< post them to the net!!).  So I sure don't envy the Demo-
>   crats if Clinton wins.  

While there is always opportunity for politicians to screw things up, I
don't see a 1930's type depression.  

> >                                        The only thing holding the
> >Republican coalition together is that the party keeps winning
> >elections; once that glue is removed, it will be very hard to keep the
> >party from fragmenting.                
> 
>   I agree with this.  I'm just scared of what will replace it.

While I enjoy the implosion of the Republicans (after watching the Dems
self destruct since the mid-60's), I'm encouraged with what will replace
it.  The winning party will be (generally) for limited government in
social issues (ie abortion) and limited government in economics.  (Although
not as limited government as the Libertarian view.)

Whether that party is the Dems or Repubs has yet to be determined...

-- 
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!)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections