pn (02/02/83)
When Ronny got elected, I said "oh, sh*t, we're done for now". Driving home today I went by the gas station and saw gas prices are still falling. We know that inflation is no longer a problem, and interest rates are even falling. Granted, the man is senile, and colors his hair, but things aren't nearly as bad as I expected them to be under Reagan. In fact, I almost like him. (I wonder how many flames this will arouse.)
hutch (02/03/83)
Here's a flame aroused by your assertion that Reaggan is responsible for anything resembling economic recovery. FOOEY. I DONT BELIEVE IT, there is not yet evidence of such a thing, all we have so far is the normal sine-wave type stuff that we have had (skewed, but still sine-wave) since Johnson. This "down" trend has been expected but for reasons that were unknown to the economists quoted in newspaper, radio, tv, etc DIN NOT materialize during Carter's administration as expected. (Did I say DIN? I meant DID) Anyway, I will need more reasonable and better documented proof that the economy has "recovered" and even more than that to make me think that Reagan's policies had anything more than a very indirect and mostly accidental effect on it. FEH! -Steve Hutchison Tektronix (I better cut this out. This is my fourth (!) submission this week, and I haven't been debugged yet, so I can't become known as an AI project)
ee161ln (02/05/83)
Ronny had nothing to do with the fall of gas prices!
I have heard people claim that maybe ronny wasn't so bad because
some good things were happenning. Well gas prices were not the
fault of carter and nither is ronny the culprit behind falling
gas priceses. The reason gas priceses falling are because OPEC
is losing control of the price. I feel there is ample evidence
that the fall( or seeming fall) of OPEC is a direct result of the
orginal price increases caused by OPEC. They needed control of a
minimum percentage of the oil demand. By raising prices they
caused users to use less and look elseware for their power needs.
Pessimisticly yours,
Don Coleman
UC @ San Diego
{ ucbvax, philabs }!sdcsvax!sdccsu3!ee161lnech (02/07/83)
#R:dadla-b:-32300:whuxlb:10600004:000:1387 whuxlb!ech Feb 6 17:13:00 1983 Bravo! There is little doubt that administration policy has SOME effect on the general state of the economy, but to credit the President with good news is as absurd generally as to blame him for bad. The stock market may (over)react to news from Washington, but the overall trends in the economy are much more deeply rooted than that. Reagan has correctly observed that the long-term tendencies to socialistic programs has affected the economy; his errors (lies?) have been the suggestions that those trends can be rapidly modified with no major dislocations. Pogo once again comes to mind: we have met the enemy, and he is us. A large majority of the electorate voted in 1980 for lower taxes and lower inflation; today an equally large majority is denouncing policies which attempted to do just that because they weren't painless. In the final analysis, the people get the economy, as well as the government, that they deserve. I happen to agree that Reagan's policies (except on Defense!), if carried for the long term, would result in a stronger, more efficient economy. But it's increasingly clear that the electorate has no intentions of continuing the "small (government) is beautiful" experiment past the '84 elections. About the only way that would happen is if the Democrats nominate Kennedy (who just may be scary enough for people to prefer Reagan...). =Ned Horvath=
johnl (02/12/83)
#R:sdccsu3:-27600:ima:18900002:000:793 ima!johnl Feb 11 12:47:00 1983 Au contraire, Reagan had a lot to do with the fall of gas prices; since he refrained from taking any meaningful action to deal with the American recession, the entire world economy is (more or less) consequently depressed, demand for oil is therefore down, and so OPEC couldn't maintain their high oil prices. For those of us who work in recession-resistant industries such as computing and who think that WW III is not about to start, Reagan looks great. If seeing people out on the streets who lost their jobs and their houses bothers you, or if you think that somebody who doesn't even know what Lenin's first name was might not be super skillful in dealing with the Soviets, he looks a lot worse. Grouchily, John Levine, decvax!yale-co!jrl, ucbvax!cbosgd!ima!johnl, research!ima!johnl
mat (02/16/83)
We live in what is supposed to be a FREE economy. People don't HAVE to invest, or save, or do any number of other good things. Business investment, which is needed for a healthy, productive, and prosperous economy will only occur if business people, as INDIVIDUALS, percieve that they wll profit. Rampant inflation, and a government which rapidly changes econoomic conditions in the name of social causes, can only DISCOURAGE business investment. The continuous adjustments, or tinkering, called for by Keynsian economics have made investment risky in the minds of businessmen AND, indirectly, consumers. A non-activist approach by government is needed -- whether RRR's approach is the best or not is yet to be seen. Also, we are paying an unforseen price for all the Keynsian tinkering ... businesspeople are adept in maximizing their immediate profits, or position , or whatever, even in the face of the tinkering. Result: when the gov't tinkers, the economy as a whole pays the price for the tinkering, but the benefits don't come because the people whose direction or output should be affected have avoided the mechanism. Sorry for the long article, Intellient flames welcome -- If you can show that I'm wrong, please do so. If you hate my guts, shut up.
courtney (02/27/83)
#R:dadla-b:-32300:hp-pcd:17400005:000:1517
hp-pcd!courtney Feb 24 08:21:00 1983
Reagan is no more likely to solve the problems of our economy any more
than the (wo)man in the Moon.... Reagan's election was a symptom of
a anxious society. People are afraid that they might be losing their
Presto-Burgers, their three-car garages, their world "domination"...
Inflation is a symtom of a finite world being scoured of the wealth of
resources that it has developed over the millenia, not to mention the
fact that the US economy accomplished much of its growth by importing
cheap raw materials and labor (a practice that many differently-developed
countries have been trying to curb). It is silly to think that we can
continue to consumed more "stuff" every day without banging our heads on
the ceiling...not to mention the cost of defending such a material-wealth
differential between US and our many poor neighbors.
Rather than spending our political time and energy to try to continue
to increase the rate of despoilage of our common home (the Earth), we would
be much better off to take a closer at what quality-of-life really means...
Is it really more important to have that extra toy than to spend the extra
time and energy to develop better relationships with our friends, neighbors,
and people that we don't even know? What level of material wealth is a good
balance between being physically comfortable and being continously and almost
totally pre-occupied with increasing the store of our personal "stuff"?
Without answers,....
Courtney Loomisthill@ssc-bee.UUCP (Tom Hill) (10/31/84)
<><><><> First, I do not believe it is proper to call Mondale supporters "fuzzy headed liberals" or "pointy headed liberal." I also do not believe that the people who support Mondale agree with the names tacked on to President Reagan's supporters. Not all supporters on each side are at the far left or far right, just because someone disagrees with you is no reason to label him or her to be some whacko. I am voting for Reagan and it is not because I am a war monger or like to see little old ladies get their social security cut, ect... NO, I do not agree with all of Reagan's policies. He should moderate his defense spending and take a better stance on the environment. I do, however, want a strong defense and a strong President. Mondale just cannot offer that. To say that he has always been for a strong defense is just not true. The only time I have seen him for a strong defense was during the last debate, and that will be the only time he will be for it. We need a strong President in the White House and I just cannot see Mondale as being strong. Reagan, whether you like or not, you must agree has conviction and is not afraid to stand up for what he believes. I perceive Mondale to be like Carter, he will bend which ever way the wind happens to be blowing on any given day. I live in a state with a governor who let the legislature run wild for four years. Judging from the looks of things here our nation would be in sad shape after four years of a weak President. Personally, I would like to see Bush as President. Of the four people on the two tickets he has the greatest potential to mediate a compromise between the parties. To avoid major economic problems in the years to come cuts in both defense and social programs are going to have to be made. Our representatives are going to have to have the guts to say "no" to special interests, and we are going to have to have the patience to and the composure to ride out the storm. Niether party is offering this right now, but I believe that the Reagan Bush ticket has the best chance. I think that it is also interesting to note that while big labor unions back Mondale, their members don't seem to want to vote for him. You can lead a horse to poisoned water but...