dwhitney@uok.UUCP (07/25/84)
#N:uok:6600061:000:1981
uok!dwhitney Jul 25 00:30:00 1984
Just some food for thought, you may comment, or ignore it, but I just wanted
to say that at first.
Much has been made of the Newsweek poll which put Mondale/Ferraro ahead
of Reagan/Bush by about 2 percent.
Many people see (media people in particluar) see this as making the campaign
close...I sort-of disagree.
First of all, the poll was taken just after the Democratic convention; I
would certainly expect Mondale to gain some post-convention support. Also,
he gains support as people accept Ferraro as his VP. But..
Post-convention popularity upswings are expected; in fact, if Mondale HADN'T
gained some support in the polls, he might REALLY have something to worry
about. I mean, if after all the rhetoric in that convention some people
didn't lean towards Mondale, he might as well not bother to run the rest
of the campaign. Same goes for the post-Republican convention; they will
certainly try to match the rhetoric level, and hurl just as many invectives
at the Democrats as they hurled at the Republicans while giving the nation
very little with which to work.
One thing, though; all the good a 4-day harmonious convention does may
easily be undone when the news reports say GNP rose 7% and Inflation is
down to 4.2%; whether or not he was ACTUALLY responsible for the improvement
is irrelevant; what IS relevant is who the public will give the credit for
that improvement to. And that's probably going to be Reagan.
Oh, well. I think Reagan will be re-elected, because America has no history
of booting out incumbents (except Jimmy Carter.) In fact, Carter probably
would have been reelected had the Iran crisis not exploded in his hands
two days before the election. Going into October, he still had a small lead
over Reagan in the polls, if I remember correctly. (If I dont, forgive me.)
(P.S. I did NOT say the America has NEVER booted out an incumbent, I merely
say it is not a frequent occurrence.)
David Whitney
ctvax!uokvax!uok!dwhitneymwm@ea.UUCP (07/26/84)
#R:uok:6600061:ea:10100068:000:546
ea!mwm Jul 26 14:45:00 1984
/***** ea:net.politics / uok!dwhitney / 12:30 am Jul 25, 1984 */
Oh, well. I think Reagan will be re-elected, because America has no history
of booting out incumbents (except Jimmy Carter.)
(P.S. I did NOT say the America has NEVER booted out an incumbent, I merely
say it is not a frequent occurrence.)
David Whitney
ctvax!uokvax!uok!dwhitney
/* ---------- */
Infrequent is correct. I think the only other incumbent not to get relected
is Ford (how did you miss him, david?). If their are others, I'd like to
know about it.
<mikedanw@oliven.UUCP (danw) (03/01/85)
[] Food for thought >It should be obvious that the American system combining many farmers >with government technical assistance and price supports has been the most >productive in the world. The Agricultural Adjustment Act was passed in 1933 >to provide stability to the agricultural market which tends to suffer >from the "cobweb effect" in which prices oscillate wildly due to a >relatively inelastic demand, and an uncertain supply. >Unfortunately the Reagan administration is about to dismantle this system >and pave the way for large corporations to exercise the same control over >farming that they now exercise over other industries. >The ultimate effects will be the same as other industries- a few oligopolies >will control the market, increase prices and restrict supply. >Once again, the free market leads to its own dissolution..... >But do not forget the role of government policy in making American agriculture >the most productive in the world! > tim sevener whuxl!orb ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I have read some pretty ridiculous things on the net in the last year or so ... but this one takes the rag off the bush. There is one fact that can not be argued away - Socialism can`t feed itself. Before 1917 Russia was a net EXPORTER of wheat, (sevener will tell us there has been 50 years of bad weather, and things will be better under the new five year plan). The inescapable fact IS that free enterprise farmers in the west have been feeding the world, socialists included. It we have any problems with farming it is that the government has been `trying to fix what aint broke`. Farmers have been working miracles in spite of the government. And along comes the net's leading Socialist to explain to us that the farm success is the RESULT of government controls ! My God! danw sevenerism: The total and absolute acceptance of Socialistic dogma , with the least regard for fact, ethics , morality, or the common good.
baba@spar.UUCP (Baba ROM DOS) (03/01/85)
> sevenerism: The total and absolute acceptance of Socialistic dogma , with the > least regard for fact, ethics , morality, or the common good. > danw On the contrary: Tim's principal problem is a regard for morality, and for *his* perception of the common good, out of proportion to his debating skills. Baba
gjk@talcott.UUCP (Greg Kuperberg) (03/02/85)
>It should be obvious that the American system combining many farmers >with government technical assistance and price supports has been the most >productive in the world. The Agricultural Adjustment Act was passed in 1933 >to provide stability to the agricultural market which tends to suffer >from the "cobweb effect" in which prices oscillate wildly due to a >relatively inelastic demand, and an uncertain supply. >Unfortunately the Reagan administration is about to dismantle this system >and pave the way for large corporations to exercise the same control over >farming that they now exercise over other industries. >The ultimate effects will be the same as other industries- a few oligopolies >will control the market, increase prices and restrict supply. >Once again, the free market leads to its own dissolution..... >But do not forget the role of government policy in making American >agriculture the most productive in the world! > tim sevener whuxl!orb I'm confused...Which companies comprised your "oligopoly" before the Adjustment Act? And I don't know about this inevitable trend of the free market. Where is this trend in the software industry? The airline industry (since its deregulation)? Even when there are not so many companies involved, I don't see how you can say there is little competition; Coke and Pepsi seem to be in heavy competition to me! I don't know about your restricted supply either; the supply of cars, for example, doesn't seem restricted in the slightest. And how could the auto companies be an oligopoly when one of them was about to go bankrupt? Finally, which government policy are you referring to in your last sentence? Price fixing? Paying the farmers not to grow food? The monopoly on, for example, the hops market? I think that John Deere had more of a role in increasing productivity than did Uncle Sam. --- Greg Kuperberg harvard!talcott!gjk "2*x^5-10*x+5=0 is not solvable by radicals." -Evariste Galois.
gjk@talcott.UUCP (Greg Kuperberg) (03/02/85)
>>sevenerism: The total and absolute acceptance of Socialistic dogma, with the >> least regard for fact, ethics, morality, or the common good. >>danw > >On the contrary: Tim's principal problem is a regard for morality, and >for *his* perception of the common good, out of proportion to his debating >skills. > Baba No, those don't hit the mark. We must try again: sevenerism: A philosophy consisting of an artificial economic theory used to support an entrenched political view. --- Greg Kuperberg harvard!talcott!gjk "2*x^5-10*x+5=0 is not solvable by radicals." -Evariste Galois.
mike@erix.UUCP (Mike Williams) (03/04/85)
In article <812@oliven.UUCP> danw@oliven.UUCP (danw) writes: > There is one fact that can not be argued away - Socialism can`t feed >itself. Before 1917 Russia was a net EXPORTER of wheat, (sevener will tell us >there has been 50 years of bad weather, and things will be better under the new >five year plan). How many of the serfs in the USSR were starving while the USSR was exporting wheat? Mike Williams
gjk@talcott.UUCP (Greg Kuperberg) (03/07/85)
> How many of the serfs in the USSR were starving while the USSR was exporting > wheat? > > Mike Williams 1) I didn't know that the USSR existed before 1917... 2) There were no major famines in Russia during the last two decades of Imperial rule. However, all that changed with Lenin and Stalin. Then again, serfdom was abolished in 1861, so perhaps my example doesn't count... --- Greg Kuperberg harvard!talcott!gjk "2*x^5-10*x+5=0 is not solvable by radicals." -Evariste Galois.