From: cshi@cs.ulowell.edu (Chunde Shi)
Subject: Re: American Poltices
Organization: University of Massachusetts at Lowell Computer Science
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 23:52:08 GMT

In article <1992Aug25.223214.18274@objy.com> cw@orion.uucp (C.W. Chung) writes:
>    In article <1992Aug24.161125.13955@dsg.tandem.com> leung@DSG.Tandem.COM (Steven Leung) writes:
>    >Since the TV has covered both parties' conventions in length, I
>    >don't feel guity to chat politics here. Why didn't I do that in
>    >soc.culture.usa? Well, because I felt that most of us, when
>    >talking about American politics, are probably more concerned
>    >about what it means to China, especially about democracy, etc.
>
>    >* The #1 issue is economy. All candidates (from Bush to Clinton
>    >  to Perot) say that they know what is the problem and have a
>    >  plan to fix it. I don't know much about economy theory, but 
>    >  I have fundamental doubts about the implicit assumption that
>    >  the national economy is controllable. And even if someone really
>    >  understand how the economy works and indeed has a solution,
>    >  whether the solution will be accepted (by voters) is still a
>    >  problem.
>
>Well put.  I still remember from Economic 101 that there is such thing
>called 'Econonmic Cycle'.  Nobody likes to have it, but nobody figure
>out a way to get rid of it either.
>
>What makes the matter worse is that there are so many ways the economy
>could be measured: e.g. GNP growth, inflation, budget deficit, interest
>rate, real interest rate (interest rate - inflation), unemployment, 
>discomfort index (unemplyment+inflation), job growth, foreign exchange
>strength, government spending, saving rate, tax rate, etc.  Optimizing 
>one target often will have detrimental effect on the other target (e.g. 
>could push up economy by more government spending at the risk of
>increasing the budget deficit and inflation).
>
>So even today when most people would say the economy is in shambles, the
>following indicators are good: low interest rate, low inflation,
        No! It is like to say a hungry people do not have overweight problem.
It is not good news.
>moderate discomfort index, lower tax rate.  Other indicators range
>from medicore to bad: low (but not negative) GNP growth, high unemployment,
>low job growth, very weak foreign exchange, still hugh government 
>spending.
>
>    >* The president controls the administration and the congress
>    >  controls the legislation and they are separate. I felt that
>    >  the situation of admin/legislation controlled by different
>    >  parties IS the choice of the American people, simply 'coz
>    >  they want the govt. spend money (Democrates are good on that)
>    >  but don't want to pay for it (Republicans are good on that).
>    >  Is there really a solution on this? (Maybe we can get a clue
>    >  from the current CA budget crisis.)
>
>People criticised Bush for breaking the 'no new tax' pledge.  Here in
>California is a case that the Republican governor who do not want to raise
>tax, and the Democrat Congress who do not want to have a deep cut in spending
>(especially education).  This would have happen to US Federal Govt if
>Bush did not compromise to get the budget passed, and he got flamed
>for doing it.  Now Pete Wilson is also getting flamed for not doing it.
>(I am glad that I am not in politics :)
>
>Coming from HK and looking at what happen in Mainland, I have a healthy
>skeptism towards big government.  We just could put all blame on the
>government.  We'll got to put the matter in our own hands and tried
>solving it.  Could you blame USGovt for the downfall of GM?  I prayed
>not. I think GM has nobody to blame but its inept management. Likewise,
>I am not crying for WANG or DEC or PRIME.  They have seen their best
>time, and just mismanaged to stay competitive.  For all the noise
>about the demise of American industries, there are many of them
>staying very compeitive.  Even in California where unemployment is
>high, many companies are still hiring.  You just don't hear good news
>that often (perhaps the nature of media).
>
>-cw-
>_____________________________________________________________________________
>C.W.Chung       Objectivity Inc.      Object-Oriented DBMS  Tel: 415/688-8023
>                800 El Camino Real,   Menlo Park CA 94025   Fax: 415/325-0939
>                                      email: cw@objy.com    or  uunet!objy!cw