Job creation -- republicans vs. democrats

[WildCat]

However, there is evidence that Carter did not ruin the economy and Reagan did not save it. If you have followed my posts regarding this subject you will know that I believe that politically a president must accept responsibility for the economy but in truth presidents often have very little to do with the economy.

I must disagree w/ you about Carter. In1978 Carter appointed G. William Miller as Fed chairman. Miller, in true Keynsian fashion, pursued a loose-money policy that caused inflation to soar (it had been falling under previous chairman Arthur Burns) and caused the 2nd OPEC crisis in 1979. Interest rates soared to 21.5% (that's the prime rate) that year! Carter then realized his mistake, but couldn't fire Miller. So he appointed him to Treasury Secretary (!) and hired Paul Volcker (a Milton Friedman monetarist) who immediately tightened the $$ supply to keep inflation down.

This is when Reagan came into office. But Reagan was also a Friedman monetarist and kept Volcker and his policies even though he knew it would cause a recession, which it did. But it also permanently ended the high inflation of that era and paved the way for the growth in the 80's and beyond. When Volckers' term was up Reagan picked Alan Greenspan as Fed chairman, and every president to date has re-appointed him for good reason.

Greenspan (and so also Reagan who appointed him) really gets credit for Fed policies that kept inflation at bay and thus allowed the growth we've seen since, the tech bubble burst notwithstanding (the tech bubble burst was not his fault, he had warned about it several years earlier).

 

[Victor Danilchenko]

WildCat

Lies, damn lies, and statistics. Nothing in that chart to put anything in context,

that's simply false.The name of the administration provides the relevant context, with a minute amount of historical knowledge.

As for Roosevelt, I'd betthat 95% of his jobs were "created" simply by massively expanding the federal gov't.

No kidding. That's what the New Deal public works projects were about. of course, there was the fact that he curtailed banking freedom in order to stop the bank runs, but i don't suppose that made any difference.

It is widely acknowledged by economists today that this merely prolonged the recovery.

it may be widely acknowledged by chicago school economists, so your statement is extremely misleading. That's like saying that it's widely acknowledged that USA should be a theocracy...

Not to mention that little thing called WWII, which guaranteed full employment if you could carry a rifle. The gov't cannot create wealth, only move it around.

Moving wealth around can create wealth -- what do you think trade is?!. It's creation of wealth by redistribution of resources. In principle, government activities are of the same fundamental nature. Wealth is not tied to the physical amount of money, after all, as value is relative to the valuer rather than being the property of the object being valued.

And besides, you can attack Roosevelt's numbers, and that's fine -- under him, employment had nowehre to go but up; but what about the fact that the worst Dem president did better than the best GOP president?

Why do you keep ignoring the larger picture? it's not just about Roosevelt.

Other flaws: Are these numbers for a single year, or for the presidents entire term?

Averages per year for the term; so yes, you can compare one-term and two-term presidents.

If they're for an entire term, it's obviously not correct to compare the results of a 1 term presidency w/ a 2 term presidency (or 4 terms in Roosevelt's case).

Yeah,. That's why Reagan (with 8 years) did worse than JFK (with 3 years).

Also, compare the growth to the population between the ages of 16-65. This group (working aged adults) expanded greatly due to the baby boom, which would have pushed up the numbers from 1961 onward to some other point.

That's why the average growth number for the entire table is positive; however, normalizing employment against population growth would be highly misleading, as it lags behind the population growth by a couple of decades (newborn babies don't work, you see).

Also, compare the economic policies of the different parties between then and now, they're completely different.

They do have broad consistent themes, though. Dems have consistently edorced government steering of economy via keynesian control, and GOP has consistently endorsed letting the big businesses have a freer rein.

Makes the whoole chart irrelevant.

yes, yes, anything to dismiss the unpleasant facts... Funny how GDP growth, stocks growth and deficit reduction all do better under Dem government as well (yes, it remains the same if you factor in the leadership of congress -- see http://arts.bev.net/roperldavid/politics/economy.htm).

 

[Victor Danilchenko]

Wildcat,

"I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it." — John Kerry, March 16, 2004

IIRC, Kerry voted for the bill that provided for partial financing of the appropriation from iraqi oil revenues, and against the bill that placed the burden completely opn american taxpayers. Whether you agree or disagree with this voting record, you can't call it inconsistent, as GOP stooges claim. Then again, flat-out lying about the opposition never stopped GOP, and it sure was effective in carrying out the character assassination of Gore in 2000.

 

[WildCat]

WildCat No kidding. That's what the New Deal public works projects were about. of course, there was the fact that he curtailed banking freedom in order to stop the bank runs, but i don't suppose that made any difference.

The bank runs were largely done by the time Roosevelt took office. Banks failed largely because of the enormously misguided policies of Hoover.

it may be widely acknowledged by chicago school economists, so your statement is extremely misleading. That's like saying that it's widely acknowledged that USA should be a theocracy...

Pssst, for the last 26 years (since the Monetarist Paul Volcker was appointed by Carter) the Chicago School has been the driving force behind the uS economy.

Moving wealth around can create wealth -- what do you think trade is?!. It's creation of wealth by redistribution of resources. In principle, government activities are of the same fundamental nature. Wealth is not tied to the physical amount of money, after all, as value is relative to the valuer rather than being the property of the object being valued.

Oh no it can't! Transfer payments do not create wealth. This is a wacky idea, the burden of proof is yours.

[And besides, you can attack Roosevelt's numbers, and that's fine -- under him, employment had nowehre to go but up; but what about the fact that the worst Dem president did better than the best GOP president?

Why do you keep ignoring the larger picture? it's not just about Roosevelt.

Averages per year for the term; so yes, you can compare one-term and two-term presidents.

Yeah,. That's why Reagan (with 8 years) did worse than JFK (with 3 years).

That's why the average growth number for the entire table is positive; however, normalizing employment against population growth would be highly misleading, as it lags behind the population growth by a couple of decades (newborn nabies don't qwork, you see).

Whoa there! Nowhere in that site you linked to does it say how those figures were calculated. And since it's a highly biased, socialist site I will need further information.

They do have broad consistent themes, though. Dems have consistently edorced government steering of economics via keynesian control, and GOP has consistently endorsed letting the big businesses have a freer rein.

Sorry, even Carter late in his term realized Keynesian policy was a folly, and appointed Volcker. Monetarists have been at the helm ever since.

yes, yes, anything to dismiss the unpleasant facts... Funny how GDP growth, stocks growth and deficit reduction all do better under Dem government as well (yes, it remains the same if you factor in the leadership of congress).

A ridiculous statement, since rarely does a single party control all 3 branches of gov'r. And since it takes a year or two for any economic policy to begin to take effect.

 

[WildCat]

Wildcat,

IIRC, Kerry voted for the bill that provided for partial financing of the appropriation from iraqi oil revenues, and against the bill that placed the burden completely opn american taxpayers. Whether you agree or disagree with this voting record, you can't call it inconsistent, as GOP stooges claim. Then again, flat-out lying about the opposition never stopped GOP, and it sure was effective in carrying out the character assassination of Gore in 2000.

I see, Kerry wants to steal the Iraqi oil, and you seem to support this.

But wasn't this the charge the anti-war groups leveled at Bush pre-war? Bush hasn't tried to take the oil, but Kerry wants to. Very interesting.

 

[Cain]

The problem here is that Victor's chart doesn't account for time lag effects. See, this is how it works: If the economy is good, then it must be due to conservative economic policies (because we all know liberal economics is bunk). Note: the time-lag argument cannot be used when the economy is bad under a reigning Democrat or when it is good under a sitting Republican.

Example: If we thought highly of the Reagan economy -- slowest decade for growth in the last sixty years, most protectionist since Hawley-Smoot, tax cuts for the rich passed by a Democratic legislature, dramatic increase in government expenditures, spiraling deficit/debt, and so on -- then that's because of Republican politics.

Carter's moves towards deregulation and liberalization are merrily ignored (as they must be). Clinton is an interesting case because that's the quintessential example of the time lag effect. That economy (of the late 90s) was all to Reagan's credit, except for the stock market crash, which occured right as Clinton's policies took effect. Ignore the fact people like Rush Limbaugh, the Heritage Foundation, and others declared the end of Reaganomics as of 1990. Forget it.

All this crap now happening under Bush, not limited to the economy, is all Clinton's fault. If the economy isn't any worse it's because of Bush's tax cuts.

None of this requires any supporting evidence because it is widely acknowledged that Democrats and liberals know nothing about how the economy works.

 

[WildCat]

The problem here is that Victor's chart doesn't account for time lag effects. See, this is how it works: If the economy is good, then it must be due to conservative economic policies (because we all know liberal economics is bunk). Note: the time-lag argument cannot be used when the economy is bad under a reigning Democrat or when it is good under a sitting Republican.

Example: If we thought highly of the Reagan economy -- slowest decade for growth in the last sixty years, most protectionist since Hawley-Smoot, tax cuts for the rich passed by a Democratic legislature, dramatic increase in government expenditures, spiraling deficit/debt, and so on -- then that's because of Republican politics.

Carter's moves towards deregulation and liberalization are merrily ignored (as they must be). Clinton is an interesting case because that's the quintessential example of the time lag effect. That economy (of the late 90s) was all to Reagan's credit, except for the stock market crash, which occured right as Clinton's policies took effect. Ignore the fact people like Rush Limbaugh, the Heritage Foundation, and others declared the end of Reaganomics as of 1990. Forget it.

All this crap now happening under Bush, not limited to the economy, is all Clinton's fault. If the economy isn't any worse it's because of Bush's tax cuts.

None of this requires any supporting evidence because it is widely acknowledged that Democrats and liberals know nothing about how the economy works.

Are these your points?
1. There is no time lag on economic policies. In fact. the economy adjusts itself the second a president is sworn in, because it knows what policies will be implemented throughout his term.
2. Rush Limbaugh and the Heritage Foundation are the gold standard of economic policy and news.
3. The rich should be taxed until they're no longer rich. "Rich" is defined as anyone making more than you do.
4. Protectionism is bad, unless a Democrat engages in it.
5. The tech bubble burst and 9/11 had nothing to do w/ the economy under Bush. It was all because of "tax cuts for the rich".
6. The economy is getting worse, you haven't read any economic news in the last 6 months.

 

[Cain]

Are these your points?
1. There is no time lag on economic policies. In fact. the economy adjusts itself the second a president is sworn in, because it knows what policies will be implemented throughout his term.

No, I'm criticizing the invocation of an arbitrary time-lag effect, one that basically says any upticks in the economy are due to Republican policies. Throughout the "boom" of the late 90s I kept hearing how the credit should go to Reagan.

2. Rush Limbaugh and the Heritage Foundation are the gold standard of economic policy and news.

Relates directly to the above. The Heritage Foundation is the most visible and influential conservative think tank in Washington. It plays a powerful role in shaping public policy as well as public debate. Both Rush Limbaugh and his army of followers parrot what other conservative commentators are saying, which also influences public discussion. On the one hand, Reaganomics ended in 1990, yet, years later it becomes clear that the following "boom" is due entirely to 41.

3. The rich should be taxed until they're no longer rich. "Rich" is defined as anyone making more than you do.

No, this jab only shows that Democrats went along with Reagan's bastard/military/tax cutting Keynesianism. In the early 80s Democrats were also deficit hawks, as they are today. The two parties switch back and forth without much notice.

4. Protectionism is bad, unless a Democrat engages in it.

No, it's just another bit of hypocrisy.

5. The tech bubble burst and 9/11 had nothing to do w/ the economy under Bush. It was all because of "tax cuts for the rich".

I'm not at all sure where you get that idea from, but then sarcasm isn't the clearest form of expression.

6. The economy is getting worse, you haven't read any economic news in the last 6 months.

Same comment as above. I am speaking in terms of explanations: Okay, so if the economy has been improving in the last six months, then credit goes to Bush. If it gets worse, then blame goes to Clinton/Democratic policies.

Imagine how conservatives would react to a president who: 1) Reverts from a trend toward surpluses to one toward deficits 2) signs lavish farm bills 3) protects steel mills in a swing state. Government spending continues to grow despite the fact Republicans know how to exercise party discipline. Followers don't even really care because the guys in power have an R next to their name.

That said, I think Clinton has been one of the better conservative presidents in recent years. That's not saying much, though.

 

[WildCat]

Imagine how conservatives would react to a president who: 1) Reverts from a trend toward surpluses to one toward deficits 2) signs lavish farm bills 3) protects steel mills in a swing state. Government spending continues to grow despite the fact Republicans know how to exercise party discipline. Followers don't even really care because the guys in power have an R next to their name.

That said, I think Clinton has been one of the better conservative presidents in recent years. That's not saying much, though.

OK, I agree w/ much of what you said.

Neither party has shown much fiscal restraint lately. The steel tarrifs by the Bush admin. were a complete folly, as are farm subsidies.

And yes, Clinton was much more conservative in his economic policies than his fellow Dems.

 

[Victor Danilchenko]

WildCat

Pssst, for the last 26 years (since the Monetarist Paul Volcker was appointed by Carter) the Chicago School has been the driving force behind the uS economy.

No, what we've had has abeen a mix of monetarist and keynesian policies. Chicago boys have been the driving force of only one economy in the world, AFAIK -- Chile under Pinochet. it didn't work out too well.

Oh no it can't! Transfer payments do not create wealth.

Who said anything about transfer payments? I didn't claim that wealth is created by transfering payments to others in terms of welfare (i.e. payments). Wealth can be created when government spends money in a manner that creates a greater net gain for society than the said $$ remaining in private hands -- the Eisenhower interstate highway system wiould be a great example. The government can create wealth through judicious taxation because, having the larger view of the society, it can spend money of projects which would be unfeasible for individual companies -- the Apollo project (which was great for economy), the interstate highway system, the internet, etc.

This is a wacky idea, the burden of proof is yours.

it's a trivial point, really. if two villages each specialize in growing chickens and making clay pots respectively, they will each be wealthier by simply trading some chickens for some pots. Transfer of resources (not just transfer payments) can and does create wealth.

Whoa there! Nowhere in that site you linked to does it say how those figures were calculated. And since it's a highly biased, socialist site I will need further information.

I am currently trying to contact the editors to verify their sources -- so I am already on it. However, the consistent democratic superiority in regard to other economic indicators lends great credence to that trable.

Sorry, even Carter late in his term realized Keynesian policy was a folly, and appointed Volcker. Monetarists have been at the helm ever since.

And Congress has been pursuing keynesian spending policies all that time. the Fed is not the sole source of economic steerage.

A ridiculous statement, since rarely does a single party control all 3 branches of gov'r.

that was not what the statenment is about. If you pursue my last link, you will see that he cross-references economic performance against what the author called 'democratic control index' -- a number between 0 and 7 indicating how great a control of the government Dems have, with 7 indicating the Presidency and both houses, and 0 indicating none of the three powers. The methodology is explained in those pages.

This 'dem control index' is the number that shows consistent positive correlation between Dem control and GDP, and consistent negative correlation between Dem control and unemployment and debt growth.

And since it takes a year or two for any economic policy to begin to take effect.

Yup. However, the policies do make themselves felt pretty rapidly. Stocks are a great example -- under Dems, stocks in general outperform stocks under GOP by 5%, but small caps -- which respond more rapidly to economic changes -- have outperformed such under GOP by 18%; which picture is very consistent with the assertion that there is a lag between new economic policies and their large-scale effects.

See the excerpt from Forbes, at http://www.democraticwings.com/democraticwings/archives/2004_02.php#000324

I see, Kerry wants to steal the Iraqi oil, and you seem to support this.

I specifically said that regardless of whether you support or oppose such a voting record, you can't call it inconsistent. I wasn't defending or attacking Kerry's votes (I very purposefully refused to stake a position in defense or oppositionm of his votes), I was merely showing that in calling them flip-flops, GOP flat-out lies. Just as you lied about my post in the above-quoted passage of yours.

But wasn't this the charge the anti-war groups leveled at Bush pre-war? Bush hasn't tried to take the oil, but Kerry wants to. Very interesting.

What Bush was charged with, was the attempt to wage the war for the sake of benefitting America with cheaper oil. What Kerry voted for was rebuilding Iraq with Iraqi oil money instead of american tax money -- a much more limited, and much more morally justifiable, position. However, I don't suppose the difference matters to you.

 

[WildCat]

WildCat

No, what we've had has abeen a mix of monetarist and keynesian policies. Chicago boys have been the driving force of only one economy in the world, AFAIK -- Chile under Pinochet. it didn't work out too well.

Somehow, I doubt that Peru is a good example of economics and a modern economy.

Who said anything about transfer payments? I didn't claim that wealth is created by transfering payments to others in terms of welfare (i.e. payments). Wealth can be created when government spends money in a manner that creates a greater net gain for society than the said $$ remaining in private hands -- the Eisenhower interstate highway system wiould be a great example. The government can create wealth through judicious taxation because, having the larger view of the society, it can spend money of projects which would be unfeasible for individual companies -- the Apollo project (which was great for economy), the interstate highway system, the internet, etc.

Government has only one source of revenue - taxes. Taken from one group of people and given to another. i'll concede that infrastructure in general is a good thing, but many projects the gov't does have no real infrastructure value and everything to do w/ pork for an influential congressman's district. This drags down the largewr economy, doesn't enhance it.

it's a trivial point, really. if two villages each specialize in growing chickens and making clay pots respectively, they will each be wealthier by simply trading some chickens for some pots. Transfer of resources (not just transfer payments) can and does create wealth.

That's not what the gov't does. The gov't forcefully takes wealth from more productive people for the short-term benefit of others. In other words, money is taken from those who use it for economic expansion (by investing in capital) and given to those who will merely spend it.

I am currently trying to contact the editors to verify their sources -- so I am already on it. However, the consistent democratic superiority in regard to other economic indicators lends great credence to that trable.

That's good, can't wait to see it.

And Congress has been pursuing keynesian spending policies all that time. the Fed is not the sole source of economic steerage.

Pork-barrel politics is not "economic steerage".

that was not what the statenment is about. If you pursue my last link, you will see that he cross-references economic performance against what the author called 'democratic control index' -- a number between 0 and 7 indicating how great a control of the government Dems have, with 7 indicating the Presidency and both houses, and 0 indicating none of the three powers. The methodology is explained in those pages.

This 'dem control index' is the number that shows consistent positive correlation between Dem control and GDP, and consistent negative correlation between Dem control and unemployment and debt growth.

Yup. However, the policies do make themselves felt pretty rapidly. Stocks are a great example -- under Dems, stocks in general outperform stocks under GOP by 5%, but small caps -- which respond more rapidly to economic changes -- have outperformed such under GOP by 18%; which picture is very consistent with the assertion that there is a lag between new economic policies and their large-scale effects.

See the excerpt from Forbes, at http://www.democraticwings.com/democraticwings/archives/2004_02.php#000324

All potentially misleading. This is like blaming the middle-relief pitcher because teams tend to lose when the middle-reliever makes an appearance. Ignoring, of course, that the only reason the middle reliever is in the game in the first place is because the starter got shelled.

It might also help your case if you would stop referring to such obviously biased sources.

I specifically said that regardless of whether you support or oppose such a voting record, you can't call it inconsistent. I wasn't defending or attacking Kerry's votes (I very purposefully refused to stake a position in defense or oppositionm of his votes), I was merely showing that in calling them flip-flops, GOP flat-out lies. Just as you lied about my post in the above-quoted passage of yours.

What Bush was charged with, was the attempt to wage the war for the sake of benefitting America with cheaper oil. What Kerry voted for was rebuilding Iraq with Iraqi oil money instead of american tax money -- a much more limited, and much more morally justifiable, position. However, I don't suppose the difference matters to you.

First off, by jumping to Kerry's defense because of my sig line does seem to imply that you agree w/ him. After all, it wasn't even the point of this thread. And seem to agree leaves the door wide open for you to clarify, which you did. There was no lie involved, as I never said you did agree w/ it, only that you seemed to.

And Kerry has flip-flopped many times. When Woodward's book came out, and the press reported that Bush had convinced Prince Bandar to lower the price of oil, Kerry was livid, accusing Bush about back-room deals to lower the price of oil. Now he's complaining that Bush isn't putting pressure on the Saudis and OPEC the lower the price of oil. I'd sure call it a flip-flop. Kerry doesn't change his mind because new information comes to light that casts doubt on his previous position (which would be an admirable trait in a politician) but because the polls show that his position may be unpopular. That's my problem with the flip-flops.

Maybe Kerry will also send Western Europe w/ the bill (interest included) for the Marshall Plan? And Japan for MacArthur's rebuilding efforts?

I'll also add that Kerry was willing to put the lives of American troops on the line in order to play petty political games.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A few points about what I said a few posts back. The economic positions of the parties have changed tremendously in the last 25 years. Republican Nixon, for example, issued wage and price controls that were disastrous for the economy. And it wasn't because of support from big business. And Democrat Clinton got NAFTA signed. Going back to the Great Depression to show what parties economic policies are better just seems like data mining to me, because so much of it is irrelevant to today.

 

[JAR]

Here's another site that also declares that Democrats are better for the economy: Democrats versus Republicans

It appears that the freemarketers' supposedly ingenious economic plan, which consists of letting the market run its course, has nothing to show for it.

 

[JAR]

It appears the freemarket principle does have some victories. Ronald Reagan wrote in http://www.ronaldreagan.com/ussr.html(twelve paragraphs from the bottom of the page):

I can only speculate as to why Gorbachev ultimately decided to abandon many of the fundamental tenets of Communism along with the empire that Joe Stalin had seized in Eastern Europe at the end of World War II.......Perhaps it took something like discovering that the three percent of Soviet agricultural land cultivated by private, profit making farmers produced forty percent of the meat in his country. Perhaps the robust recovery of the American and Western European economies following the recession of the early eighties - while the Communist economies went nowhere - convinced him that the central planning and bureaucratic control of the Soviet economy, as he wrote in Perestroika, sapped the people's incentive to produce and excel.

According to page 144 of Russia in Revolution by E.M. Halliday, when Lenin introduced the New Economic Policy, which made the Soviet Union's economy more capitalistic, it succeeded fairly well in pulling Soviet society out of the economic swamp into which it had been sinking, even though a terrible famine struck the country in 1921 and 1922.

 

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko:
No, what we've had has abeen a mix of monetarist and keynesian policies. Chicago boys have been the driving force of only one economy in the world, AFAIK -- Chile under Pinochet. it didn't work out too well.

I was under the impression that Chile was in a much better state economically than everywhere else in Latin America.

 

[JAR]

As for Roosevelt, I'd betthat 95% of his jobs were "created" simply by massively expanding the federal gov't. It is widely acknowledged by economists today that this merely prolonged the recovery. Not to mention that little thing called WWII, which guaranteed full employment if you could carry a rifle. The gov't cannot create wealth, only move it around.

When confronted with poverty, the most logical action is to have the community pay for things rather than the individual. If a person combines some of his money with the money of another person, he will have an easier time buying something expensive like a house or business. Poverty creates a need to have more property be communal property rather than private property and to have individuals combine their money to buy more businesses and pay for the creation of more jobs.

 

[Victor Danilchenko]

WildCat

Somehow, I doubt that Peru is a good example of economics and a modern economy.

Chile, not Peru. No, it's not -- and Chicago boys didn't help.

Government has only one source of revenue - taxes. Taken from one group of people and given to another. i'll concede that infrastructure in general is a good thing, but many projects the gov't does have no real infrastructure value and everything to do w/ pork for an influential congressman's district. This drags down the largewr economy, doesn't enhance it.

True. Remember, however, that the question is not whether government intervention is bad or good and to what extent, but whose intervention does more good (or less harm) -- Dem or GOP?

That's not what the gov't does. The gov't forcefully takes wealth from more productive people for the short-term benefit of others.

This is only one thing of many that government does with tax revenues.

In other words, money is taken from those who use it for economic expansion (by investing in capital) and given to those who will merely spend it.

the government does more than write welfare checks.

That's good, can't wait to see it.

I'll post it when I get a response.

Pork-barrel politics is not "economic steerage".

Which is not to say that GOP are exculpated of pork dealings. Remember, this is about GOP vs. Dems, not about how some idealized libertarian government could have handled it.

All potentially misleading. This is like blaming the middle-relief pitcher because teams tend to lose when the middle-reliever makes an appearance. Ignoring, of course, that the only reason the middle reliever is in the game in the first place is because the starter got shelled.

Which is a bad comparison, of course, because there is no logical connection between change of administrations, the way there is between change of pitchers.

It might also help your case if you would stop referring to such obviously biased sources.

Forbed magazine is biased, but not towards Dems -- this is why I love that quote. If Forbes says Dems are good for stock market, it's credible. As for that collection of analyses, they all cite the data the analyses were done on.

First off, by jumping to Kerry's defense because of my sig line does seem to imply that you agree w/ him.

I defended his consistency, not his voting record per se. I actually happen to disagree with the way he voted in that instance -- I think that, seeing as we are already there, the reconstruction should be paid for by USA.

And Kerry has flip-flopped many times. When Woodward's book came out, and the press reported that Bush had convinced Prince Bandar to lower the price of oil, Kerry was livid, accusing Bush about back-room deals to lower the price of oil. Now he's complaining that Bush isn't putting pressure on the Saudis and OPEC the lower the price of oil.

The difference is between back-room deals, where Bush primises Pan-knows-what in exchange for oil (weren't those backroom deals structured so that the oil price drop would be timed to be the October surprise?) -- and public, well-documented and properly conducted negotiations. Again, no flip-flopping, unless you are a lying republican shill.

I'd sure call it a flip-flop. Kerry doesn't change his mind because new information comes to light that casts doubt on his previous position (which would be an admirable trait in a politician) but because the polls show that his position may be unpopular. That's my problem with the flip-flops.

Kerry didn't change his mind in either case -- in both cases, he holds positions which are complex, and thus which result in different responses in different circumstances. He lacks the simplistic foolish soundbite-gauge pseudo-consistency that Bush is so proud of.

Maybe Kerry will also send Western Europe w/ the bill (interest included) for the Marshall Plan? And Japan for MacArthur's rebuilding efforts?

Both Marshall plan and Japanese reconstruction were partially funded by loans, and thus partially funded by the people being helped -- which was exactly the position Kerry staked out.

I'll also add that Kerry was willing to put the lives of American troops on the line in order to play petty political games.

Bush is certainly guilty of that, with his 'bring it on' posturing and his giving free rein to the 'information at any cost' approach which seems to have been the root cause of Abu Ghraib scandal (and his utter refusal to prepare for nation-building); however, I am not aware of Kerry doing anything of the sort. Do you mean Kerry's Vietnam protesting? Well, there is a difference between patriotism through genuine dissent (even if it has harmful conseuqences to the troops), and juvenile macho posturing or simple lack of care and foresight (which also have harmful consequences to the troops).

 

[Victor Danilchenko]

JAR,

It appears the freemarket principle does have some victories.

Your quote from Reagan is simply incorrect. USSR economic reform movement was initiated by Andropov, when he proclaimed the need for experimenting with alternative economic approaches in 11/1982, right before he became Gensek (and before Reagan's StarWars plan was announced and thus could have had economic impact on USSR, BTW). Gorbachev extended the reform initiative to the social and political sphere, but Gorbachev's economic reforms were merely the continuation of Andropov's policies.

BTW, I love your Dem-vs-GOP page. Someone should work it up in terms of dem control index (i.e. accounting for legislative control) rather than just Dem presidency.

 

[Victor Danilchenko]

Shane,

I was under the impression that Chile was in a much better state economically than everywhere else in Latin America.

is it? i'd like the references; but if it is, it became that after Chicago boys were given the boot. During their decade-and-a-half reign under Pinochet, Chilean economic growth was both the slowest of any Latin American countries, and painfully erratic on top of that. Real median wages fell during that time.

The 'chilean miracle' of 1978-1981 was so impressive because it followed a recession almost as deep as Great Depression -- there was nowhere to go but up at that point; but by 1983, Chile's unemployment rate grew to about 35%. By 1989, Chilean per-capita GDP was still 6% below 1981 level.

Chile had stratospheric swings up and down, and when you averaged it all out, under Chicago boys, it did very badly overall. You can only claim 'chilean miracle' when you ignore the plunges, and only look at the time periods when the economy was recovering from the plunges.

A nice writeup of that entire nasty mess is at http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-chichile.htm