ryan@fremen.DEC (10/10/84)
Well, with only a month to go I think it's time to start flaming
over the presidential election. I'm hoping that the opinions I express here
(which, naturally, are not necessarily those of my employer, Digital
Equipment Corporation, or anyone but myself) will "generate more light than
heat" (so I'm an optimist; sue me) - Reagan supporters are welcome to flame
at me all they want, but please do it in net.flame.
Part I: The Economy
Politicians (and economists) refuse to admit that they really don't
understand how the economy works. I admit I don't (and refuse to admit that
you do), but there are certain things that to my eyes give every appearance
of being true. One is that Reagan's "curves" are not going to converge. He's
basing his projections on the assumption that the economy will grow at a
steady rate of 4% a year over the next four years, which is a pipe dream at
best (talk about optimism!). The economy simply does not move in one direction
at a steady rate over a long period of time. Modern economic history shows
that the economy cycles through ups and downs ("bear" and "bull" markets
alternate every few years), and nothing any President does can change this.
What an Administration can affect, however, is the amplitude of the cycle
(how far up and down it goes). Right now, the economy is on its biggest up
in many years (at least as far as us Yuppies are concerned; the Yupsies -
young urban poverty-stricken - have not seen much benefit), as a result of
borrowing against the future (yes, I'm talking about that dirty word - the
deficit). In my opinion, an equally large swing down is looming on the
horizon (perhaps a year or so ahead), and I don't think it will be worth
it (was the boom of the Twenties worth going through the Depression of the
Thirties?). Quite simply, a debt that large cannot be paid without pain -
the question is, should we pay with a Depression (we all know what that can
be like...) or with taxes and a recession (it's probably too late to avoid
at least a recession). To tackle the deficit, we need to raise revenues and
cut spending. Granted, the latter is something we're more likely to get from
Reagan, at least on the domestic side, but Mondale is probably more likely to
cut the Pentagon (there's an awful lot there that can be cut without hurting
our security, even if Weinberger can't admit it) and to compromise on cutting
social spending (yes, I admit to fat there, too - I'm not a "knee-jerk
liberal", as some are sure to label me). I have to admit it's not all Reagan's
fault - there was quite a deficit there when he took over, and Congress hasn't
helped much in terms of cutting spending - but Mondale has a better chance of
getting things done in the House (once he realizes that he'll have to bite the
bullet on domestic cuts), especially if there are a few more Republicans there
to egg things on (by the way, I'm registered as an independant). Also, he's
not allergic to taxing the rich for a few years. I do agree somewhat with
the current Republican theory of lower taxes stimulating growth, but that
won't work until the deficit is smaller and the government has shrunk.
It's past my dinner time, and I'm hungry, so I'll send part II tomorrow.
Mike Ryan