[Am-info] MCBRIDE BLAMES IBM, NOVELL FOR SCO'S FISCAL WOES

[Gene Gaines]

All,

Reagan, like most human folk, was neither all good or all bad.

The Republican blind, dishonest rush to identify the man as an
all-good deity is disgusting to me. Said another way, using a
state funeral to push a political party is truly taking the low
road. Accepting the current political doctrine of the Republican
party makes one to be fool in my eyes.

Having said that, let's look at the other party. The Democrat,
and Kennedy, endorsement of Lyndon Johnson as a vice president
running mate was disgusting to me. There was a truly dishonest,
disgusting man. But, he did some great things.

People are people, always a complex mix.

Blink cant and rant and political diatribes cut both ways. The
image of an individual loudly beating the drum of the perfection
of any political party results in me no longer trusting that
person. Consciously or unconsciously, he has lost his soul, his
sense of reason, his willingness to listen to others in his zeal
to "win". Consciously or unconsciously, he has given/sold his
soul.

Here is an interesting editorial from today's New York Times.

June 11, 2004
OP-ED COLUMNIST
An Economic Legend
By PAUL KRUGMAN

In the movie "The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance," a reporter
defends prettifying history: "This is the West, sir. When the
legend becomes fact, print the legend." That principle has
informed many of this week's Reagan retrospectives. But let's
not be bullied into accepting the right-wing legend about
Reaganomics.

Here's a sample version of the legend: according to a recent
article in The Washington Times, Ronald Reagan "crushed
inflation along with left-wing Keynesian economics and launched
the longest economic expansion in U.S. history." Actually, the
1982-90 economic expansion ranks third, after 1991-2001 and
1961-69 =97 but even that comparison overstates the degree of real
economic success.

The secret of the long climb after 1982 was the economic plunge
that preceded it. By the end of 1982 the U.S. economy was deeply
depressed, with the worst unemployment rate since the Great
Depression. So there was plenty of room to grow before the
economy returned to anything like full employment.

The depressed economy in 1982 also explains "Morning in
America," the economic boom of 1983 and 1984. You see, rapid
growth is normal when an economy is bouncing back from a deep
slump. (Last year, Argentina's economy grew more than 8
percent.)

And the economic expansion under President Reagan did not
validate his economic doctrine. His supply-side advisers didn't
promise a one-time growth spurt as the economy emerged from
recession; they promised, but failed to deliver, a sustained
acceleration in economic growth.

Inflation did come down sharply on Mr. Reagan's watch: it was
running at 12 percent when he took office, but was only 4.5
percent when he left. But this victory came at a heavy price.
For much of the Reagan era, the economy suffered from very high
unemployment. Despite the rapid growth of 1983 and 1984, over
the whole of the Reagan administration the unemployment rate
averaged a very uncomfortable 7.5 percent.

In other words, it all played out just as "left-wing Keynesian
economics" predicted.

In the late 1970's most economists believed that eliminating the
high inflation then prevailing in the United States would
require inflicting a lot of pain: the economy would have to go
through an extended period of high unemployment and depressed
output. Once the inflation had been wrung out of the system, the
unemployment rate could go back down. And that's exactly what
happened. In fact, it's instructive to put a graph showing the
actual track of unemployment and inflation during the 1980's
next to a figure from a 1978-vintage textbook showing a
hypothetical disinflation scenario; the two look almost
identical.

Ronald Reagan didn't decide to inflict that pain. The architect
of America's great disinflation was Paul Volcker, the Fed
chairman. In fact, Mr. Volcker began the process in 1979, when
he adopted the tight monetary policy that caused that record
unemployment rate. He was also mainly responsible for the
recovery that followed: it was his decision to loosen up on the
money supply in the summer of 1982 that set the stage for the
rebound a few months later.

There was, in short, nothing magical about the Reagan economy.
The United States did, eventually, experience an economic
miracle =97 but not until Bill Clinton's second term. Only then
did the economy achieve a combination of rapid growth, low
unemployment and quiescent inflation that confounded the
conventional economic wisdom. (I'm aware, by the way, that this
plain statement of fact will generate an avalanche of angry
mail. Irrational Clinton hatred remains a powerful force in
American life.)

It's a measure of how desperate the faithful are to believe in
the Reagan legend that one often reads conservative commentators
claiming that the Clinton-era miracle was the result of Mr.
Reagan's policies, and indeed vindicated them. Think about it:
Mr. Reagan passed his big tax cut right at the beginning of his
presidency, and mainly raised taxes thereafter. So we're
supposed to believe that a tax cut passed in 1981 was somehow
responsible for an economic miracle that didn't materialize
until around 1997. Apply the same timing to the good things that
happened on Mr. Reagan's watch, and you'll discover that Lyndon
Johnson deserves the credit for "Morning in America."

So here's my plea: let's honor Mr. Reagan for his real
achievements, not dishonor him =97 and mislead the nation =97 with
false claims about his economic record.

 -- end Times editorial --

Gene
gene.gaines@gainesgroup.com

On Thursday, June 10, 2004, 10:20:06 PM, John wrote:

> Stephen A. Carter wrote:

>>On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 16:07:49 -0400, Fred Miller wrote:
>> =20
>>
>>>Ronald Reagan 1911 - 2004
>>>An American Patriot who hated Communism and Socialism, never=20
>>>brought shame upon himself, his family, his political offices or abused
>>>the trust of the American People.
>>>   =20
>>>
>>
>>Did you just sleep right through the 80s, Fred?
>>

> Oh, I hate to get involved, but you are just so wrong...

>>
>>"What we have found in this country, and maybe we're more aware of it
>>now, is one problem that we've had, even in the best of times, and
>>that is the people who are sleeping on the grates, the homeless who
>>are homeless, you might say, by choice." -- Reagan explaining away
>>the failure of his Voodoo Economics
>>

> Funny how there are only homeless when a Republican is President.

> If going from 20% interest rates to 7 is "voodoo,"
> ig going from 15% inflation to about 6 is "voodoo,"
> if going from 10.5% unemployment to about 7 is "voodoo,"
> if raising government revenue from 560 billion to 1.2 trillion is "voodoo=
,"
> you might have a point.

> Perhaps you would prefer those high rates and failing economic policies?

>>
>>"You'd be surprised how much being a good actor pays off." -- on his
>>qualifications to be President
>>
>>"You sonofabitch, you broke my rib." -- to the Secret Service agent
>>who pushed him into the limousine after John Hinckley's attack
>>

> I take it you know this supposed agent's name?

>>
>>"In spite of the wildly speculative and false stories of arms for
>>hostages and alleged ransom payments, we did not -- repeat did not --
>>trade weapons or anything else for hostages; nor will we."
>>

> Well, we got the hostages back after 446 days of Carter's ineptitude.
> Because the Iranians were terrified of what Reagan might do to them.

> I bet the hostages were glad to be back.  Perhaps you weren't?  Perhaps
> you would prefer the hostages stayed in the hospitality of the Ayatollah?

>>
>>"If the question comes up at the Tower Board meeting, you might want
>>to say that you were surprised." -- Reagan fucking up and reading his
>>stage directions aloud in his testimony before the Tower Commission,
>>where he reverses himself and specifically admits having approved the
>>sale of arms to a terrorist nation in order to illegally fund
>>drug-running guerrilla forces in Nicaragua
>>

> Well, the Nicaraguan people have successively *elected* those "guerilla
> forces" year after year since the Sandanistas were removed from power.

> Perhaps you think you know better than the Nicaraguans what's good for th=
em?

>>
>>"My fellow Americans, I'm pleased to tell you today that I've signed
>>legislation that will outlaw Russia forever. We begin bombing in five
>>minutes."
>>
>>Then there's Joan Quigley, the official White House astrologer who
>>for eight years divined the timing for every important event in
>>Reagan's itinerary -- press conferences, Air Force One departures,
>>even international summits.
>>

> BS.

>>
>>And let's not forget the man's obsession with invasion by space
>>aliens:
>>

> It wasn't an obsession with aliens.  It was a genuine belief in
> humanity.  Perhaps you would prefer the cold war?  Perhaps the East
> Germans, the Poles, Czechs, ... would be better off still under the
> Communist boots.  Perhaps you think you know what's better for those peop=
le?

>>
>>"[H]ow easy [Gorbachev's] task and mine might be in these meetings
>>that we held if suddenly there was a threat to this world from some
>>other species from another planet outside in the universe. We'd
>>forget all the little local differences that we have between our
>>countries ..."
>>
>>Mikhail Gorbachev in 1987 -- "At our meeting in Geneva, the U.S.
>>President said that if the earth faced an invasion by
>>extraterrestials, the United States and the Soviet Union would join
>>forces to repel such an invasion. I shall not dispute the hypothesis,
>>though I think it's early yet to worry about such an intrusion..."
>>
>>If the Earth were under attack from an external threat, "Don't you
>>think the United States and the Soviet Union would be together?" --
>>Reagan to Soviet Foreign Minister Eduard Shevardnatze at a luncheon
>>in the White House
>>
>>"I've often wondered, what if all of us in the world discovered that
>>we were threatened by an outer -- a power from outer space, from
>>another planet. Wouldn't we all of a sudden find that we didn't have
>>any differences between us at all, we were all human beings, citizens
>>of the world, and wouldn't we come together to fight that particular
>>threat?"
>>

> Well. wouldn't we?

> John

>>
>>ObMSFT --=20
>>
>>Korean regulators raid Microsoft offices
>>http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1104_2-5230754.html
>>
>>Microsoft faces more monopoly misery in New York
>>http://www.macworld.co.uk/news/index.cfm?NewsID=3D8881&Page=3D1&pagePos=
=3D9
>>
>>
>> =20
>>


> _______________________________________________
> Am-info mailing list
> Am-info@lists.essential.org
> http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/am-info


--=20