Subject:
|
Re: How many things need to stack up before we throw this jerk out?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 11 Jul 2003 16:38:09 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1807 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Mike Petrucelli wrote:
> Well from all 3 Economics classes I have taken through high school and
> college all three teachers/professers have stated that a President and
> Congress's effect on the economy shows up about 10 years after the fact.
> Sort of a catch 22, the government gets credited or blamed for their
> predeccessors actions. By the time what they themselves have done comes to
> fruition someone else gets the credit or blame.
We have to be careful about that kind of assertion, though, because it's
after-the-fact and is succeptible to tremendous spin. Additionally (though not
conclusively) I've heard the point put forth most vehemently by conservative
pundits, who conveniently interpret the results in a way that favors Republican
administrations.
Additionally, the Reagan tax cut preceded a huge deficit that can't be readily
blamed on Carter. Should we blame Ford and Nixon instead? Also, if the economy
makes a massive recovery in 2005, is Dubya going to say "Thank Bill Clinton" or
is he going to claim success of his reward-the-rich stimulus package?
I admit that I haven't had too much formal education in economics, but I
haven't heard much to support the 10-year-delay other than wishful thinking.
That's not a refutation, of course, but I'd like more detail.
For example, why do they pick 10 years? And on what basis do they identify
the causative relationship?
Dave!
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
81 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
