From: MEDELMA@cms.cc.wayne.edu (Michael Edelman)
Subject: Re: Using misinformation
Organization: Wayne State University, C&IT
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 19:19:07 GMT

In article <27418@life.ai.mit.edu>
elwin@ai.mit.edu (Lee Campbell) writes:
       [...]
>
>Well, I don't think the yearly average "grossly distorts the real trends,"
>any high peak will increase the yearly average. The average is a sort of
>low pass filter, which IMHO filters out noise and emphasizes trends. But
 
Quite the opposite. It hides a critical piece of data- that infaltion
was peaking around the time of the '76 election, and it was an
*increasing* misery index that did Carter in.
 
>have it your way. In any case, the Reagan unemployment had monthly peaks
>over 10%, so they benefit from the same distortion. This is not the meat
 
No, this happened early on, before Reagan's policies took effect.
 
>of your argument, so let's forget it.
 
Is that a way of saying you can't defend the contention?
>
  [...]
 
>
>WRONGO!! There were *two* oil price shocks, not just one. Look at the
>energy prices in the data given! The first was in '74; the second was
>in '78. I remember it well; I was a senior in high school and my mother
>used to get me up early so I could drive her car down and wait in the
>gas line before breakfast. Don't tell me there was only one embargo;
>I was there for the second one. Your whole argument is based on only
>one oil price shock; it holds no water because there were *two* price
>shocks.
>
No, my argument is that policies drove oil prices rather than the
opposite. There was always plenty of oil at a price. There was never
an actual shortage. What kept oil in short supply was US government
price fixing. You're cleverly deleted that part of my argument. Read
William Simon's "A Time For Truth" for the inside story on that bit
of nonsense.
 
>- OPEC, US energy prices stayed high! If we look at the "energy policy" of
>- Carter, we see a number of reasons prices stayed high. Those of you old enough
>- to have been reading the newspaper back then may recall the various classes
>- of oil and the different tariffs- at first there was "old oil", which was
>- taxed heavily, and "new oil" which wasn't. Then Congress came up with ways
>- to increase taxes, including "new old oil" and "old old oil". It was
>- policy, not any embargo, that kept energy prices high.
>- >
>- >For those of you who want to argue about how awful Carter's administration
>- >was and what horrible economic policies he had, at least have the courtesy
>- >to use valid data.  (If you have different numbers feel free to post them
>- >along with their source).
>- >
>- And before you post a silly argument like the above, make sure you
>- understand the data!
>
>Talk about silly arguments! You just tried to blame the 2nd oil embargo
>on Congress!!!!
 
Congress did for oil prices exactly what they've done for the prices
of agricultural commodities, with exactly the same results. That's
neither surprising nor counter intuitive. On the contrary, it is
perfectly typical of the effect that obtains when congress starts
interfering with the allocative efficiencies of markets. It is also
exactly what Bill CLinton has promised to do with US capital markets.
You heard it here first.
 
>                                - Lee Campbell
>
    Michael Joseph Edelman           Wayne State University
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.rush-limbaugh