At 02:53 PM 5/26/01 -0400, John D. Giorgis wrote:
>At 08:09 PM 5/25/01 -0500 Erik Reuter wrote:
> >Besides, you mentioned a surplus, which implies that the debt should go
> >down numerically, not just as a percentage of the GDP. I showed numbers
> >demonstrating that the debt has not been going down numerically despite
> >several years of so-called "surpluses". If the debt doesn't go down
> >numerically when we have a surplus, I wonder what will happen when tax
> >revenues are cut due to a slowing economy and a lower tax rate?
>
>Of course, tax cuts may well stimulate the economy out of a recession, and
>reduce the impact of declining revenues.
>
>Additionally, paying down the debt may not be such a good idea:
>
>The traditional equation for GDP is that:
>Y = C + I + G + NX
>
>In words, that is:
> GDP = Consumption + Investment + Government Spending + NX
So what does "NX" stand for?
-- Ronn! :)
