NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #19/NN_1992_19.iso/spool/sci/econ/7369

Text File | 1992-09-07 | 3.4 KB | 79 lines

Newsgroups: sci.econ
Path: sparky!uunet!stanford.edu!kronos.arc.nasa.gov!iscnvx!news
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Supply-side economics
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (News)
Organization: Lockheed Missiles & Space Company, Inc.
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 92 19:58:13 GMT
Lines: 68

In <[e-mail]>, Stupendous Man writes:

(Much supply-side debate deleted)

>>
>> A "majority" of Americans saw their real incomes decline through the
>> eighties,

>   Decline due to inflation?  Tell me when that has *not* occured.  After
>experiencing a decade of stagflation in the 70s, the expansion would have had
>to last a few more years to outpace inflation.

The person mentioning a "decline" is probably referring to a recently released
CBO study.  The period is commonly called "the 80s" by the media, but the
period studied was *actually* 1977 to 1989.  ALL of the decline, and then some,
resulted in 1979 and 1980.  In fact, a better indicator of supply-side happens
when just 1982-89 is analyzed.  All income levels experienced growth.  In fact,
the lowest 20% experienced (approximately) a 16% jump in REAL income.  The top
20%, the "evil rich," rose about 18%.  The difference--2%--is a statistical
blip.  Looking at 1977-80, the Carter years, ONLY THE RICHEST 20% GAINED!  ALL
OTHER GROUPS FELL!!  Which economic policies, I ask, give to the rich at the
expense of the poor?

>> which lasted ten years not four as indicated. The growth in

>   Whoever said it lasted four years?

>> income went to the top 20% of income-earners and most of that went to
>> the top 5%.

As I said before--that's only because 1977-80 are included.  Crunch the numbers
yourself, year by year, and you'll see all five quintiles fared roughly the
same--increases in real income from about 15% to 19%.

>   85% of the taxpayers who paid taxes from 1978-1987 and started in the
>bottom 20% moved up during that period.
>   You fail to recognize that the 'top 20%' is not a monolithic entity.
>By definition, they are the most successful.  Trying to limit their success to
>some % of the bottom 20% will get you an economy that functions like the US
>educational system.

This is the major truth that gets overlooked.  The 20% "at the bottom" are not
static--far from it.  In fact, so many of the poorest rose during the '80s that
the lowest class was virtually redefined.  It's like today's poverty stats.
As our standard of living increases, the "standard of living" at the poverty
line increases also.  Lower than most Americans, sure, but compared to the
starving people of Ethiopia and Somalia?

> The fact that 50% of the American public re-elected Reagan and elected
> Bush can hardly be used as evidence that most people felt "better off."

Then why did they elect Reagan?

>That was Reagan's primary issue in both 1980 and 1984.  The people
>elected Bush in 88 on his promise of "more of the same".

Actually, the 1980 Reagan election was more anti-Carter.  But the 1984 election
was *clearly* a referendum on the early Reagan years, and the result was a huge
landslide for Reagan.

>   It's too bad Bush didn't deliver.

I agree.  I think I'll vote for Marrou this year.

Tim Irvin  [e-mail]
***************************************************************************
"In a free government the security for civil rights must be the same as that
for religious rights." -- James Madison, Federalist #51