Actually the history has been the other way around. During the 1980s, Reagan was constantly forecasting the disappearance of the budget deficit on the basis of "rosy scenario" overoptimistic forecasts of growth rates (based on hokey models of what their policies were going to do to growth). Anyway, that is the background of the current caution by some policymakers about being overly optimistic. But then, as Robert Eisner notes, and Paul Davidson is not irrelevant here for once, telling people today we must make big sacrifices on the basis of hokey forecasts several decades into the future is nonsense. (Post) Keynesian uncertainty certainly is relevant on this one. Barkley Rosser On Wed, 29 Jul 1998 16:10:12 -0400 Brett Knowlton <brettk at unica-usa.com> wrote:
> I have to agree with Doug here, although I am curious about one thing. Has
> there been a history of pessimistic growth rate predictions by the gov't,
> or is this something new?
>
> Brett
>
> At 03:42 PM 7/29/98 -0400, you wrote:
> >Max Sawicky wrote:
> >
> >>It remains for us to explain why we'll get
> >>to 2.5, and why the arguments that we won't
> >>get there are wrong.
> >
> >Seems to me the burden of proof is on someone forecasting a sharp departure
> >from historical averages, not on those who argue that the future should be
> >much like the past. (Don't tell Paul Davidson!) Even 2.5% is well below the
> >average growth rate of the last 75 years.
> >
> >Doug
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
-- Rosser Jr, John Barkley rosserjb at jmu.edu