From: Jeff Bone (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Mon Oct 16 2000 - 14:22:12 PDT
> Jeff, while you are right in that C/G didn't screw up royally, it certainly
> wasn't for the lack of trying.
'k, now that you've stipulated that...
> The market did not boom until after the GOP took over
Sure, absolutely, I never thought otherwise.
Again, there's a difference between attributing the thanks for it to C/G (which
I have explicitly and repeatedly stated that I'm *not* doing) and pointing out
that they at least weren't able to screw it up. I have *no doubt* that the
basis for this boom was laid throught the 80's and first years of the 90s, in
Reagan's and Bush's administration. It's also clear that the GOP taking
Congress is strongly correlated for the vertical takeoff.
OTOH, any economic "policy" which doesn't *prevent* a massive economic boom nor
*cause* a downturn is pretty damn benign, not "crap." Arguing the merits of a
policy that, by agreement between us, neither caused nor prevented a boom is
academic at best, disingenuous at worst. It has the smell of propaganda.
> So, please, before telling me that what I said about the C/G economic record
> is "unfact", refute my arguments with your own stats.
Again, your own stats support my case. If C/G didn't screw it up, then they did
okay... even if the actual advantage is due to the GOP, which I'm willing to
stipulate. What we're arguing here is the definition of "crap." "Crap" would've
been an activist economic policy administration that steered the nation into a
> I've got tons and tons of data from everything from Compustat to I/B/E/S to
> prove you wrong.
How can you prove an *opinion* wrong? Again, we're arguing about what
constitutes "crap" in economic policy. BTW, my bad about calling your
assertions "unfacts." More like "rhetorical distortions."
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 16 2000 - 14:31:26 PDT