🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Aug26.130122.3753@desire.wright.edu>, demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupend writes...
>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?

>> This isn't meant as a flame, but I seem to remember that after everyone
>> one these "boom" periods there was a severe recession. 

>> 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.

Some of what you said made sense, but this doesn't. The economy hit bottom
in 1932. The "New Deal" didn't go into affect until the later part of 1933.
When I say "hit bottom", I mean unemployment and GNP.

>	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.

I'm not sure what the RTC scam is, but I can tell you that your bank failure
comparison is faulty. When banks went under in the early 30's ALL the 
investors lost ALL their money, now they are at lest partially reimbursed.
When a large bank goes under, and thousands lose all their savings, it
doesn't take an economist to know that there will be a significant shock
to the local economy.
I'm not trying to preach the wonders of the FDIC, I'm just making a 
significant point.

-Garrett