Our Thirty Year Experiment

[jillian]

Our national debt was about 700 billion when Reagan took office. Where are we now?

What was it when bush took over? He said we had a surplus and that meant americans were entitled to a refund. Of course, then he started two wars and ran them on our credit card.

We still had a debt when Bush took over so any surplus should have gone to pay that off.
Although I believe the only surplus was spun up in a blender.

bush had no reason to credit clinton with a surplus if one didn't exist, imo.

and yes, i agree the money should have been used to pay down the debt. but either way, no leader in recorded history until bush cut taxes during wartime.

 

[Big Fitz]

Is it just me or did a fucking memo go out that said "Attack Reagan like mad for the next 2 weeks." or something?

 

[uscitizen]

Is it just me or did a fucking memo go out that said "Attack Reagan like mad for the next 2 weeks." or something?

You missed it?

 

[AVG-JOE]

With Republican efforts to destroy the unions and eliminate minimum wage, their goals become quite clear, a fully employed America with wages a fraction of what they are today. America manufacturing will then be able to compete with China and third world countries. Workers will of course have to make a few sacrifices.

The wages of the Chinese and other 'third world' middle classes coming up and in line with reality on an ever shrinking planet will do much more. The wages of Europe and her spawn America will balance down a little, but there are still a LOT of resources on this planet to exploit. At some point in time nobody will have a gold toilet, but at the same time, nobody will starve, either.

America will ROCK in the next economy because more and more American workers are getting dividend-paying stock in the companies they work for as compensation, and smart Americans are buying stock in their suppliers and competitors.

The Chinese will do well in the next economy because government will still have a major role and, compared to Americans at least, the Chinese trust the government they are inheriting.

More and more higher paid workers are being offered stock in their company as a part of their compensation which may be a good thing. But for middle class earners, financial advisors recommend against any substantial ownership in company stock. The failure of the company can mean your retirement or savings are wiped out. Layoffs typically come when stock prices are low which again can be devastating for the employee. Few low end workers are able to afford ownership in company stock.

All that tells me is that some people are interpreting good advice badly. When your financial advisor recommends against substantial ownership in company stock she is telling you to diversify and take ownership in not only the company you work for but also take ownership in your competitors, vendors and companies whose products you buy.

The 'American Dream' of home ownership is bullshit. The American dream should be owning a slice of the pie that represents the means of production in this country and that means voting stock ownership in the companies that feed our habits and employ us.

Capitalist Utopia will occur a few generations from now when enough of us loose the fear of collective (government) ownership of company common stock instilled in us by the wealthy to help consolidate and protect their wealth.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Well, it's been thirty years now. Thirty years since "Reaganomics" was begun and what has been the result? For many at this site I suspect that this time frame may exceed their memories (they may not be old enough). Some of us though do remember a time before soaring budget deficits, wild military spending and destructive un-restrained greed.

There was a time when one worker could support a family. Typically mom could stay home to raise the children and nurture productive citizens. Now it takes two or even three incomes just to keep a family in a home.

Middle class families could expect to send their children to college, save for retirement, go to the doctor and even have two weeks of paid vacation. Not any more. Now more and more people are slipping into a "new" class of American citizens, that being the "working class", those who work low paying jobs which provide no benifits and leave people living pay check to pay check. AKA the working poor.

Before "supply siders" began setting national policy America was the greatest producer of finished goods in the world.

While that is all true it isn't true that reaganomics or supply siders are the full cause of our declining living standards.

The women's lib movement, globalization, dropping the gold standard, a world wide trend toward service sector economies as well as Wall Street gone to the wolves each had as much to do with our declining fortunes as did reagonomics.

And just for shits and grins the economic state just before Reagan took office was as bad or worse than it is today.

Are you old enough to remember 13.58% annual inflation?

Historical Inflation data from 1914 to the present

How bout 10.8% unemployment?

I might add that Fed policy alone has been more disasterous than Reaganomics.

But FWIW the architect of Reaganomics is on record calling for ALL of the Bush tax cuts to be allowed to expire. Not just hose that effect the top 2%.

I'm old enough to remember "WIN" (whip inflation now);l interest rates in the high teens and the need for economists to invent a new word: Stagflation. That is the economy Jimmy Carter inherited and the ignorant among us believe he caused.

 

[Toro]

These are from before the recession. However

http://www.minneapolisfed.org/pubs/region/08-09/income.pdf

 

[Synthaholic]

I'm old enough to remember "WIN" (whip inflation now);l interest rates in the high teens and the need for economists to invent a new word: Stagflation. That is the economy Jimmy Carter inherited and the ignorant among us believe he caused.

 

[asterism]

What a farce of an opening statement!

30 years ago we were still trying to dig our way out of the last round of Progressive Keynesian Economics.

So as a check to reality, let's remember that the US is still the dominant economic and military power in the world. Our Price Purchasing Parity dwarfs any and all others.

 

[asterism]

These are from before the recession. However

http://www.minneapolisfed.org/pubs/region/08-09/income.pdf

Is there a special significance you place on "Median Household Income?"

What does that actually mean to you?

And since when is an 18% INCREASE a situation where it "stagnates?" I'd give my left nut for 18%.

 

[Toro]

Is there a special significance you place on "Median Household Income?"

What does that actually mean to you?

And since when is an 18% INCREASE a situation where it "stagnates?" I'd give my left nut for 18%.

It is a better representation of the population than "average" household income because averages can be skewed by the cohorts within a population.

It means to me that the broad population saw an increase in income.

An 18% increase in income is not stagnation. That is what I was trying to demonstrate. However, I don't necessarily attribute that to "Reaganomics." I merely wanted to introduce data so people can conclude whether or not the OP is true.

 

[wihosa]

It's interesting to see all the denials or obfuscation of the obvious. Reaganomics, supply side economics, trickle down theory, voodoo economics, whatever incarnation you wish, has failed.

Under this idea that if the wealthy capitalists becomes fabulously wealthy capitalists it will be good for all. All that has happened is that the combined wealth of the nation has been liquidated and put into the pockets of a few.

The vast majority of Americans can see that they work harder and longer just to keep up. Unfortunately the wealthy elite have the media and financial resources to keep about half of America in the dark as to the reason they do.

It is not a coincidence that our slide has corresponded with the radical policy changes bought in by the "conservative era". It's time to end this wreckless experiment, the Reagan Revolution has runs it's course. If we don't turn the ship around now we will hit the iceberg of a permanent elite/underclass society.

 

[boedicca]

Poor people don't hire very many people.

Laws which punish The Rich inevitably end up hurting those in the service and product businesses patronized by The Rich and the companies in which they lessen their investments.

A good example is the boating industry, which lost thousands of jobs when The Rich were punished with a luxury tax.

 

[uscitizen]

What a farce of an opening statement!

30 years ago we were still trying to dig our way out of the last round of Progressive Keynesian Economics.

So as a check to reality, let's remember that the US is still the dominant economic and military power in the world. Our Price Purchasing Parity dwarfs any and all others.

And 30 years ago our national debt was around $700 billion.
and we were the dominant world power then too.

 

[uscitizen]

Poor people don't hire very many people.

Laws which punish The Rich inevitably end up hurting those in the service and product businesses patronized by The Rich and the companies in which they lessen their investments.

A good example is the boating industry, which lost thousands of jobs when The Rich were punished with a luxury tax.

You mean a version of the "fair tax"?

 

[boedicca]

The increase in government outlays is driven far more by entitlement spending than it is by defense, bub.

 

[uscitizen]

Is that the defense budget figures? does it include the off the budget addtional expenses of the 2 wars?
I doubt it.

In any case you missed my point.
Tax and spend or just spend?

 

[asterism]

Is there a special significance you place on "Median Household Income?"

What does that actually mean to you?

And since when is an 18% INCREASE a situation where it "stagnates?" I'd give my left nut for 18%.

It is a better representation of the population than "average" household income because averages can be skewed by the cohorts within a population.

Please elaborate on how median figures don't do that also.

It means to me that the broad population saw an increase in income.

I'd like to see some statistical basis for that meaning.

An 18% increase in income is not stagnation. That is what I was trying to demonstrate.

So you posted a chart that makes a false claim as a means to demonstrate something?

However, I don't necessarily attribute that to "Reaganomics." I merely wanted to introduce data so people can conclude whether or not the OP is true.

Ah. Do you have some "average" data this also worthy of consideration or is that inconvenient to include? What's your point here?

 

[boedicca]

No, it's Federal Outlays, which denote actual payments via cash transfers or checks. It is not budget gimmickry. It's Real Money.

 

[uscitizen]

INCOME hell. lets look at average wages, someone get a graph on that.
Hell the wall st bonuses alone skew the hell out of income averages.
Average income chart distorts the reality for the working class.

 

[asterism]

It's interesting to see all the denials or obfuscation of the obvious. Reaganomics, supply side economics, trickle down theory, voodoo economics, whatever incarnation you wish, has failed.

Under this idea that if the wealthy capitalists becomes fabulously wealthy capitalists it will be good for all. All that has happened is that the combined wealth of the nation has been liquidated and put into the pockets of a few.

The vast majority of Americans can see that they work harder and longer just to keep up. Unfortunately the wealthy elite have the media and financial resources to keep about half of America in the dark as to the reason they do.

It is not a coincidence that our slide has corresponded with the radical policy changes bought in by the "conservative era". It's time to end this wreckless experiment, the Reagan Revolution has runs it's course. If we don't turn the ship around now we will hit the iceberg of a permanent elite/underclass society.

That perspective was presented in 2008 at it has been implemented since 2009. How is it working out?