🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1993Jan25.184133.6791@desire.wright.edu>, demon@desire.wright.edu (Not a Boomer) writes:
> 
> 	I think supply-siders demonstrated an aptitude for reducing both
> inflationand unemployment.
> 
I think the supply-siders demonstrated no such capacity.  Jobs and growth were
generated by >3T$ of deficit spending.  Inflation was controlled by painful
monetary policy by Volcker (a Carter appointee).  Even job growth during the Reagan
"miracle"years wasn't great.  RR generated 14M jobs in 8 years, while Carter
generated 11M in 4, even during OPEC oil shocks.  Bush created no net
private sector jobs at all.  Thanks to Darman's "computer chips or potato chips"
de-industrial policy, we now have more employees in government than in
manufacturing!
> 	We might as well wish for 3% unemplyment and 3% inflation.  But
> that will have to wait until Kemp gets elected :).
> 
> 	Seriously, though, I don't think it's an either/or proposition.
> 
You imply that the Phillips curve has somehow been repealed.  I don't think
you`ll find much agreement on this point.  Admittedly, Kemp would seem a big
improvemnt over the Repub's current batch of right-wing ideologues. He does bear
some responsibility for helping sell Laffer's half-baked tax scheme to Ronald
(Don't confuse me with the facts, I've got my pre-conceived notions) Reagan.
> > 
> > Is there an answer?
> 
> 	Stimulate the economy in the right places (ie, by making the creation
> of supply easy) while paying down the debt and controlling government spending. 
> The economic boost provided by the private sector will bring unemployment down
> while the fiscal policies of the government will keep the lid on inflation.
> 	In other words, let's see a repeat of 83-90 with better control of
> government spending.
> 

You mean doing all the Keynesian things government used to do before Reagan`s
supply-side legacy saddled us with 4T$ of debt, *immobilizing* government?
> Brett

steve soar
(my cute quote got laid off.)