From: elwin@maidavale.media.mit.edu (Lee W Campbell)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,sci.econ,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: % of GNP, trends,  deficits
Date: 14 Dec 92 13:40:48 GMT
Organization: MIT Media Laboratory

In article <1992Dec8.014246.6114@desire.wright.edu>, demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:
|> In article <1992Dec5.161432.29430@news.media.mit.edu>, elwin@maidavale.media.mit.edu (Lee W Campbell) writes:
|> [lots of chaff and whining deleted]
|> > Here is the post that started it:
|> > 
|> > Message-ID: <1992Nov20.160142.5726@desire.wright.edu>
|> > Date: 20 Nov 92 16:01:42 EST
|> > References: <1992Nov13.110541.12935@ms.uky.edu> <1992Nov20.131057.22658@news.media.mit.edu>
|> > Summary: you can reach me in talk.politics.misc and sci.econ after this....
|> > Followup-To: talk.politics.misc,sci.econ
|> > Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.
|> > Lines: 74
|> > 
|> > In article <1992Nov20.131057.22658@news.media.mit.edu>, elwin@maidavale.media.mit.edu (Lee W Campbell) writes:
|> >> Brett: first off, sorry about the inflammatory subject line; I just wanted
|> >> to get your attention. My question concerns your claim that the deficit, as
|> 						   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|> >> a percentage of GNP, declined during the '80's. Jeff Davis posted some
|> >> figures that he said were re-posts of your figures, which seem to belie that
|> 	^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|> >> claim. I've asked you a couple of times what your response is to Jeff's
|> ^^^^^^^^^^^
|> 
|> 	So you did come in on the middle of a discussion.  The only thing you
|> "started" was the use of "Stupendous...." in the title.  Congrats.

Actually, no. Jeff was backing me up. You had been ignoring my comments for a
week or two. I was asking about your claim and jeff added figures to the thread.
I guess it's just another one of those little things you got "confused" about.

|> P.S. I'm sorry if the bandwidth-conserving .sig confuses you.  When asked I'll
|> gladly expans on just what "deficits down (%GNP)" means.  Of course you full
|> well know that, and would rather yak on about 89 vs. 80 or whether saying "80s"
|> implies the whole decade instead of the intended supply-side effects, etc.

Oh, so you'll gladly expand when asked? Funny thing, Brett. In the message of
Dec. 5 that you are replying to, I *did* ask you to expand, but you chose to
ignore the questions. Here they are again; want to try answering them this time?

+	... I objected to your statement that deficits as a % of GNP went
+down in the 80's. In particular, I objected to the word "down." It's an
+adjective; it's a comparison. So I wondered: "down" compared with what? Deficits
+as a %GNP in the 80's are not down compared to the '70's. They're not down
+compared to Carter. They're not down compared with the historical average. So
+what are they down compared to?

+As far as your use of the word "down" as in "80's: deficits down (%GNP)" I'll
+show you how bogus that is. Would you say inflation was "down" during the Carter
+Administration? Of course not. But yet it reached its peak in '79 and was on
+a "downward trend" after that. Extrapolate it far enough and eventually it would
+be down. So if your use of the word "down" is valid for Reagan's deficits (%GNP)
+it is also valid for Carter's inflation. I say the use of the word "down" is not
+valid in either place; what do you say?


|> 	Yak on.  Let me know when you are ready to discuss supply-side effects
|> on the economy, and whether they led to a decline in the deficits (as a 
|> percentage of the GNP :).
|>            

Another question you chose to ignore is this:

+ 				...And we both know that debt as a % of
+GNP was dropping steadily from Eisenhower through Nixon, Ford, and Carter,
+and, as noted above, debt as a % of GNP rose significantly every single supply-
+side year. Can you explain why you're so hung up on change in deficit (%GNP),
+which is the 2nd derivative of debt (%GNP), when debt itself was going the
+right way (down) under N, F, & C; and the wrong way (up) under supply-side?

Brett, I've posted versions of this question frequently, and you've always
ignored it. Whenever you're ready to stop ignoring the supply-side effect on
*debt* (%GNP), please let me know.
					- Lee Campbell
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:64713 alt.sex:39830