Re: Leftists knocking Friedman ?

On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 12:27:13 -0600, "John Galt"
<whoisjohngalt@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:

>
><stuff_stuff@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
>news:jq6er3dtas7dps3027b4u6iljd8jcl686f@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 10:50:02 -0600, "John Galt"
>> <whoisjohngalt@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>
>>>> (This stability is one of the reason markets and the economy perform
>>>> better under Democratic administrations that push regulatory policies
>>>> that increase stability. )
>>>
>>>Perhaps a bit of a reach here. You'd have to wait until the end of the 
>>>next
>>>business cycle to determine if such intervention was in fact working,
and
>>>there's a pretty good chance that event will occur in somebody else's 
>>>term.
>>
>>
>> We've had this discussion, but the numbers bear it out.
>> http://www.coba.unr.edu/econ/wp/papers/UNRECONWP06008.pdf
>>
>> (He also does it with various lag times.)
>
>Doesn't matter. Programs and policies take on lives of their own and
their 
>effects continue into perpetuity. Over time, it becomes an
incomprehensible 
>mishmosh of stuff that only partisans who are obsessed with the
opposition 
>care about.

Of course it matters or the data wouldn't be so lopsided. It would be
more random. 

>Keep your party affiliation all you want, but never forget that two
viable 
>parties are necessary for a functioning democracy. Remove one from
viability 
>and you start moving on the milieu between democracy and totalitarianism,

>and the latter is a worse devil than the party-you-don't-like.