>The proper analogue to a 75 year average is
>one over a business cycle, from peak to
>peak, not "the thirties". If you're not
>an economist, you can be excused from being
>obliged to know this.
>
Ok, enlighten me: (and I'm not being sarcastic, I really want to know...) which "business cycle" most closely corresponds to what we noneconomists refer to as the "great depression", what was its average growth rate, and how does it compare to other business cycles before and after? (And while your at it, just how do you define a "business cycle", anyway? Seems like kind of a squishy concept, to me)
>Believe it or not, this is not a war of
>ideas where the best ones win. (Sob)
>
I am fully aware of that, but is the best stategy to accept the opponent's assumptions and then try to steer them toward an outcome somewhat less bad? At the very least, couldn't we point out what the assumtions are, and show that if they are correct, SS will be the least of our worries? Simply "accepting things as a politic fact" seems defeatist...
Jim Baird
______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com