Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxj!houxm!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!hplabs!hao!seismo!harvard!wjh12!foxvax1!brunix!rch
From: rch@brunix.UUCP (Rich Yampell)
Newsgroups: net.flame
Subject: Re: economy
Message-ID: <9639@brunix.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 22-Sep-84 19:28:26 EDT
Article-I.D.: brunix.9639
Posted: Sat Sep 22 19:28:26 1984
Date-Received: Thu, 4-Oct-84 02:31:16 EDT
References: ihuxe.855
Lines: 15

> Now, four years later, after
> implementing the policies he [Reagan] promised, the economic situation has
> greatly improved.  Why shouldn't his administration take credit for it?
> He's responsible for it.

Interesting reasoning, but it ain't necessarily so.  Because there is a
correlation between fact A and fact B does not in any way prove that A
*caused* B (no matter how strongly A's administration may want to claim
so).  Reagan's policies *may* be responsible for the recovery, but there
are certainly economists around who feel that the economy has improved
*despite* Reagan's policies.  Economics is a sufficiently bizarre and
poorly enough understood "science" that its frequently not clear exactly
what makes it tick or what just made it tock.  Does that fact that
Hoover was in office when the depression hit mean Hoover was responsible
for it?  Should his administration take the blame for it?