Dave wrote:
As you've already indicated you don't buy the argument that productivity
didn't increase, why are you calling it "hypothetical/"

Because it's too small to measure reliably and has no effect whatever on
the rest of the economy. It's like designing a car with a very fuel
efficient engine, then throwing sawdust into it so it barely chugs
along, blowing smoke and burning excess fuel, and then raving about the
fuel efficient engine. It's a red herring at best.




I think productivity was affected by a number of factors, including earlier
increases in the number of temporary workers who could be let go more easily
than permanent employees when demand fell, caution on the part of most
businesses about increasing their numbers of employees as demand for their
products increased, and reduced costs of capital expenditures, including
both low interest rates and a reduction in the tax on dividends.

Not to mention cutting benefits & pay for workers, resulting in
increased productivity in terms of labor costs.

You're citing all this to show what, how great the Bush Administration
is managing the nation's economy?


I'd agree with that. But given the Times's history and reputation I would
expect it to be more than just a bit better than the average bear, just as I
expect the Metropolitan Opera to be more than just a bit better than the
average opera company, and the Royal Shakespeare company to be more than
just a bit better than your local repertory company. It hasn't come close to
meeting that expectation.

In other words, you demand that the NY Times meet your personal
standards of truth & accuracy, even though you're most often offended by
same; although you yourself tell fibs trying to support your
opinions... and you admit that it's a good publication, just not
superior enough to meet your double standard?!?

I knew that neo-conservatives were very short on logic & consistancy,
but you're nuttier than Bubbles.

DSK