Edited on Wed Oct-01-08 09:47 PM by Bobcat
They have consistently "fudged" the numbers.
Case in point #1 - David Stockman himself admitted that they "sold" Reagonomics in the 80's by estimating that GDP would grow by 12%, thus bringing in enough revenue to balance the budget in the face of massive tax cuts (for the wealthy) and the tripling of the defense budget. 12% growth is a ridiculous estimate.
Case in point #2 - these days the chicken little argument that Social Security will be insolvent in 10 years is also based on "cooked" numbers. The models used to illustrate the problem are based on a GDP growth rate of 1.6% over the next 50 years. The average growth of the US economy for the 20th century is nearly twice that - in spite of the Great Depression. Actual income (the tax base) will likely be much greater that 1.6% in the long run. I have yet to see a projection based on 3% growth. There are also other variables in the social security formula that could be changed to alleviate the "problem".
FUNDAMENTAL MACROECONOMICS LESSON - one can paint a glowing, rosy picture of the future simply by OVER estimating the rate of GDP growth (e.g. 1980's Reganomics con job) OR one can paint a picture of doom and gloom by UNDER estimating the rate of GDP growth (e.g. current dire predictions about social security). Reasonable projections should be based on historical economic performance. The neocons have been manipulating the numbers for 30 years to foist their agenda on us.
|