🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Aug26.040745.3040@pony.Ingres.COM>, garrett@Ingres.COM (QUOTE OF THE YEAR) writes:
> In article <1992Aug25.224147.3744@desire.wright.edu>, demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupend writes...
>>In article <1992Aug25.173645.16913@oakhill.sps.mot.com>, pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness) writes:
>>> demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:
>>>>	In the last 100 years we've have four "boom" periods.  Each and every
>>>>one resulted from (in part) taxes being lowered.
>>> 
>>> We got 1920's (1924-1929, Coolidge tax cut) 1960's (1964-1969, Kennedy
>>> tax cut) and 1980's (1983-1989, Reagan tax cut).
>>> So what's the 4th boom period?
>>> 
>>	1890s.  (Thus "100 years" instead of this century.)  Sorry about that. 
>>I thought I had put in the dates.                          
>> 
>>Brett                                                      
> 
> This isn't meant as a flame, but I seem to remember that after everyone
> one these "boom" periods there was a severe recession. 

	It also tends to generate the "tail is caused by the nose" syndrome.

	We stopped booming in the 90s because we quit doing what caused the
boom in the first place: lower taxes, fewer regulations.  We also failed to
tackle the debt.

> 1920's	followed by the 30's.

	Remarkable, given that a failure of government to keep the economy
going resulted in the largest period of government intervention ever.  And it
took a World War to get us out of it.
	We had a massive crash in 87 also, but the market recovered.  We had
bank failures in the late 80s but the market is (slowly) recovering.  It would
be even faster if the RTC scam hadn't been done.
	We didn't dive into a depression because government didn't meddle as
much this time.

> 64-69   followed by stagflation in the 70's (I remember a bad recession
> 					in 73-74, but I think there was 
> 					also one before then)

	Wage and price controls.  Abandonment of Bretton Woods.  Inflation to
cure unemployment.  Guns and butter.  Etc.

> 83-89	followed by the present recession.
> I'm not sure of the exact date, but there was a depression in the
> 1890's as well.
> 
> Does anyone have a theory on this?

	Read "The Seven Fat Years".  It is largely a case of guilt-complexes
and faulty conclusions.

	Remember the people decrying "greedy yuppies" buying VCRs?  How people
were starving in Africa while we drove our BMWs?  Well people were starving
before the 80s, and they are still starving today.  As sane people tried to say
in the 80s, it has nothing to do with US consumption.

	There seems to be a segment of the population that feels guilty about
being successful.  How can we live with ourselves (in our beachfront condos)
while there are homeless people?

	They fail to realize that the homeless are not homeless because you or
I bought a house, they are homeless because there isn't enough economic
opportunity for them.

	And a recession is supposed to make things better for them?

	As detailed in part 3 of the "Derailing" series, Mexico has proven that
the way to rebuild your society is by providing economic opportunity for all. 
And the best way to do that is by supply-side economics.

Brett                                                      
_______________________________________________________________________________
Proconsul Computer Consulting                                        CHA-CHING!
Better, Cheaper, Faster					       (Pick any two :)
Disclaimer:								   NOT!