Reaganomics

[Listening]

There is a thread over in the political section entitled "The Failure of Reaganomics."

It opens with anything but a discussion of the economic policies of Reagan. It goes after immigration, Lebanon, Iran-Contra....

But it does nothing to discuss the idea of Supply Side Economics. Then you've got someone on the board who can't let go of Demand Side Economics.

There is NO ARGUING that things got worse under Reagan and then they got better.

Three is also NO ARGUING that our debt increased under Reagan.

Now, I say under Reagan. Even though R.R. had a degree in economics, my guess is that he wasn't up at night masterminding some kind of grand economic program. I could be wrong, but that is a guess. Just like I don't think Obama is masterminding his program either.

So, without the smoke screens of the garbage that goes on in the Political section, let's see what people have to say about the ECONOMIC POLICY called Reaganomics.

I'll start with a few posts.....

 

[Listening]

This is an article that is found on the web under a number of different titles. It will always be titled "The Abject Failure....."

The Abject Failure of Reaganomics

Talking about the Bush Run up in debt....which I totally deplore....it says:

But this debt crisis did not originate with George W. Bush. It can be traced back primarily to President Reagan, who arrived in the White House in 1981 with fanciful notions about restoring America’s economic vitality through massive tax cuts for the wealthy, a strategy called “supply-side” by its admirers and “trickle-down” by its critics.

*************************

So, Bush was Reagan's fault ?

Somehow Reagan causes Bush ?

But the same article says that:

During 1993, Clinton’s first year in office, the new Democratic administration pushed through tax increases, partially reversing the massive tax cuts implemented under Reagan. Finally, the debt problem began to stabilize, with the total debt at $5.7 trillion and heading downward, when Clinton left office in January 2001.

Indeed, at the time of Clinton’s departure, the projected ten-year surplus of $5.6 trillion meant that virtually the entire federal debt would be retired.

*****************

So Reagan takes over in a recession. Runs up the debt...but Clinton has the base from which to retire the debt.

BUSH CAME AFTER CLINTON

So the way I see it. They are not connected at all. And there is good reason to believe that some of Clinton benefited from Reagan's time in office.

Oh, and let's not forget. The American People threw out a democratic house and senate in 1994. But Newt and Co. had nothing to do with this great financial performance (sorry....had to say it).

Just another example of how Reagan gets a rap, in my estimation, he does not deserve.

If I am missing the connection, please tell me. This is in the CDZ for a reason.

 

[oldfart]

There is a thread over in the political section entitled "The Failure of Reaganomics."

It opens with anything but a discussion of the economic policies of Reagan. It goes after immigration, Lebanon, Iran-Contra....

But it does nothing to discuss the idea of Supply Side Economics. Then you've got someone on the board who can't let go of Demand Side Economics.

There is NO ARGUING that things got worse under Reagan and then they got better.

Three is also NO ARGUING that our debt increased under Reagan.

Now, I say under Reagan. Even though R.R. had a degree in economics, my guess is that he wasn't up at night masterminding some kind of grand economic program. I could be wrong, but that is a guess. Just like I don't think Obama is masterminding his program either.

So, without the smoke screens of the garbage that goes on in the Political section, let's see what people have to say about the ECONOMIC POLICY called Reaganomics.

I'll start with a few posts.....

Without searching for threads, I think this is well plowed ground in both the Economy and History forums. Since such threads tend to go downhill pretty fast, I am not sure it is a good idea to resurrect the old threads.

Personally I would be delighted to participate in a thread about Reagan's economic policies. The hardest part would be to find agreement on what they were. Conservatives will point to his speeches and sound bites. Leftists will concentrate on his defense spending, increases in the public debt, and tax increases after 1981. We would probably end up arguing about which was the "real" RR.

 

[Listening]

There is a thread over in the political section entitled "The Failure of Reaganomics."

It opens with anything but a discussion of the economic policies of Reagan. It goes after immigration, Lebanon, Iran-Contra....

But it does nothing to discuss the idea of Supply Side Economics. Then you've got someone on the board who can't let go of Demand Side Economics.

There is NO ARGUING that things got worse under Reagan and then they got better.

Three is also NO ARGUING that our debt increased under Reagan.

Now, I say under Reagan. Even though R.R. had a degree in economics, my guess is that he wasn't up at night masterminding some kind of grand economic program. I could be wrong, but that is a guess. Just like I don't think Obama is masterminding his program either.

So, without the smoke screens of the garbage that goes on in the Political section, let's see what people have to say about the ECONOMIC POLICY called Reaganomics.

I'll start with a few posts.....

Without searching for threads, I think this is well plowed ground in both the Economy and History forums. Since such threads tend to go downhill pretty fast, I am not sure it is a good idea to resurrect the old threads.

Personally I would be delighted to participate in a thread about Reagan's economic policies. The hardest part would be to find agreement on what they were. Conservatives will point to his speeches and sound bites. Leftists will concentrate on his defense spending, increases in the public debt, and tax increases after 1981. We would probably end up arguing about which was the "real" RR.

Agreed. Those threads tend to get pretty personal pretty fast.

It seems he was of the opinion that tax cuts would stimulate the economy. He cut taxes on the wealthy. They got that much wealthier. Did everyone else.

Many indicators would say no.

But was it Reaganomics or just the globalization period we were going through.

 

[oldfart]

Without searching for threads, I think this is well plowed ground in both the Economy and History forums. Since such threads tend to go downhill pretty fast, I am not sure it is a good idea to resurrect the old threads.

Personally I would be delighted to participate in a thread about Reagan's economic policies. The hardest part would be to find agreement on what they were. Conservatives will point to his speeches and sound bites. Leftists will concentrate on his defense spending, increases in the public debt, and tax increases after 1981. We would probably end up arguing about which was the "real" RR.

Agreed. Those threads tend to get pretty personal pretty fast.

It seems he was of the opinion that tax cuts would stimulate the economy. He cut taxes on the wealthy. They got that much wealthier. Did everyone else.

Many indicators would say no.

But was it Reaganomics or just the globalization period we were going through.[/QUOTE]

OK, some quick thoughts on you last comment and a little background. In any period there are a bunch of things happening and they are all interconnected. Good economic analysis rest on three foundations and when one is ignored or botched, the results usually turn out to be ridiculous. Using Reaganomics for an example, the three are:

1. Historical analysis. Most economics starts here as "economic problems" are usually framed in a temporal context. They start out with "How did we get into this mess?" and quickly progress to "Could we have avoided this mess?" This way of initially framing a question has a number of drawbacks. The past is generally linear and unique. Events in year A are followed by events in year B and we rarely engage in counterfactual history. What happened; happened. But it creates an illusion that the events in year A CAUSED the events in year B, which may not be the case. It provides no grounds, even if there is a causal link, of demonstrating how strong the relationship is. Maybe what happened in year B was inevitable, regardless of what happened in year A (i.e. there is not causality between events in A and B; something other than events in A caused events in B). Now this is just the type of issues that historical method is best equipped to deal with. The usual tools usually are some sort of counterfactual history used to test the sensitivity of results to particular changes in the time line.

In the case of Reaganomics the big example of this is the question of the role of Reagan's military build-up in the economic collapse of the Soviet Union. The build-up clearly preceded the collapse, but in what fashion did it cause it? I have argued elsewhere (a History thread I believe) that there was little connection as the causes of the Soviet decline stretched further back and the system was unsustainable when Reagan took office. I'm bringing this up not to re-start that debate, but to point out that historical method is the usual way of addressing these issues.

The second necessary skill set is mathematical and statistical analysis of data. This is a pretty arcane field, which is why researchers in many fields have statisticians check their work. For example, when you count things in time series data the numbers always seem to get expotentially bigger. Everything seems a function of time. If the public debt was $X trillion when Reagan took office and $3X trillion when he left, then isn't that terrible? Well, not necessarily. There are ways of removing the "Point with pride, view with alarm" factor. We could concentrate on growth rates of increases rather than absolute levels, or we could look at ratios such as the size of the deficit as a percentage of GDP. This is data analysis, and I think you have to have a grasp as to how it's done to understand the numbers coming out of it.

Finally there is economic analysis. Economists carry around a tool belt of models to try to get to the essence of what's happening in a given situation. These models all have false assumptions to simplify the problem, such as actors have perfect knowledge and are immortal. The question is not how realistic the assumptions of the model are, but how sensitive the results are to the truth value of the assumptions. Hopefully you can change assumptions and still get pretty much the same results.

In the Reagan years the big debate was "supply-side" economics. It was based on an idealized expectation of how markets would behave, especially with regard to assumptions about price flexibility. The solution to a host of problems would be to concentrate on the supply side and increase the supply of goods and services. Lowering tax rates would increase individual effort and thus output. In 1981 this didn't work out too well because in a demand-constrained economy, too much of the benefit of lower taxes went to people who saved a substantial part of their income and there was no boost to demand. It did cause the deficit to explode, however, and when the attempted adjustments ran into sticky prices (especially wages) the policies floundered.

Like you, I believe that Reagan paid too much attention to anecdotal stories in arriving at this fundamental attitudes that dictated policy. He was adept at negotiation and compromise and didn't really mind the other party getting what they wanted if he got what he wanted. This made Reagan in practice not doctrinaire, despite his rhetoric. But it also made him opportunistic almost to the point of having no real core principals about leading the economy.

So let the fun begin.

 

[Listening]

I would enjoy an evaluation of his policies as his policies.

However, it would seem that people like Paul Krugman (and I use the term "people" loosely in this case), can't resist saying George Bush was Reaganomics on Steroids.

That is complete and utter bull. Bush's tax cuts were not couched in a failing economy. He also had a GOP congress to work with.

Finally, he started some very expensive wars that pretty much spelled the financial doom of his presidency.

Bush's presidency was in a more globalized environment and was also at a time when boomers were starting to come out of the workforce.

Bush was stupid....I've alwasy said that .

Bushanomics wasn't Reaganomics.

For better or for worse, Reagnomics did run up some debt. But, with or without the help of Reagan's policies, Clinton had what he needed to eliminate the debt.

You can't blame Reagan for Bush.

Reagan created 15 million jobs (or so this says)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jobs_created_during_U.S._presidential_terms

If that is true, that is a pretty good record, especially considering the mess that came to him. Maybe I am missing something.

Reaganomics did rely on supply side economics. I've never quite understood the idea behind this. Produce bunch of stuff and there will

 

[Meathead]

Reagan is a hero to many and a villain to some. That is the way it has always been with great men. History will remember Reagan more for his foreign policy and his congenial leadership than economics. He was an American renaissance in the wake of 17 years of failed presidents (LBJ,Ford,Nixon,Carter).

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Being affable and congenial counts for nothing. He set this country on the road to financial ruin, broke the law, turned us into a debtor nation, and lied to and cheated Americans. By all standards that count, he was a complete failure.

OTOH, maybe it wasn't him at all. There's some reason to believe it was Nancy and her astrologer who were running things ...

 

[Meathead]

Being affable and congenial counts for nothing. He set this country on the road to financial ruin, broke the law, turned us into a debtor nation, and lied to and cheated Americans. By all standards that count, he was a complete failure.

We're talking about Reagan, not Obama!

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Being affable and congenial counts for nothing. He set this country on the road to financial ruin, broke the law, turned us into a debtor nation, and lied to and cheated Americans. By all standards that count, he was a complete failure.

We're talking about Reagan, not Obama!

That's reeel adorable but its also not true.

And you know it.

I've posted facts about Reagan. If you would like to lie about President Obama, start a new thread but for now, how about we stick to facts, huh?

 

[Meathead]

Being affable and congenial counts for nothing. He set this country on the road to financial ruin, broke the law, turned us into a debtor nation, and lied to and cheated Americans. By all standards that count, he was a complete failure.

We're talking about Reagan, not Obama!

That's reeel adorable but its also not true.

And you know it.

I've posted facts about Reagan. If you would like to lie about President Obama, start a new thread but for now, how about we stick to facts, huh?

You've posted essentially nothing. Real adorable soundbite stuff and tired mantra, but nothing of substance.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

We're talking about Reagan, not Obama!

That's reeel adorable but its also not true.

And you know it.

I've posted facts about Reagan. If you would like to lie about President Obama, start a new thread but for now, how about we stick to facts, huh?

You've posted essentially nothing. Real adorable soundbite stuff and tired mantra, but nothing of substance.

Then prove its not true.

And, since you made this about Obama, compare this with Reagan's record -

Facts only, please.

 

[Meathead]

That's reeel adorable but its also not true.

And you know it.

I've posted facts about Reagan. If you would like to lie about President Obama, start a new thread but for now, how about we stick to facts, huh?

You've posted essentially nothing. Real adorable soundbite stuff and tired mantra, but nothing of substance.

Then prove its not true.

And, since you made this about Obama, compare this with Reagan's record -

Facts only, please.

You compare it with Reagan's record and get back to me. I accept the initial report, but it's a world-tallest-midget type thing at this point in Obama's administration

 

[Indeependent]

Let's stick to the Short and Long Term Policy failures of Reagan.

 

[Meathead]

Let's stick to the Short and Long Term Policy failures of Reagan.

Seriously, we can only discuss failures? Not your thread and seems like you're running some kind of re-education camp.

 

[Indeependent]

Let's stick to the Short and Long Term Policy failures of Reagan.

Seriously, we can only discuss failures? Not your thread and seems like you're running some kind of re-education camp.

The use of Cocaine or Supply Side Economics has almost immediate positive results which then quickly slide into an abyss.

 

[Meathead]

Let's stick to the Short and Long Term Policy failures of Reagan.

Seriously, we can only discuss failures? Not your thread and seems like you're running some kind of re-education camp.

The use of Cocaine or Supply Side Economics has almost immediate positive results which then quickly slide into an abyss.

I despair of publicly educated Americans. Although it is indeed sad, I too am American, though spared the publicaly educated aspect.

 

[Listening]

Being affable and congenial counts for nothing. He set this country on the road to financial ruin, broke the law, turned us into a debtor nation, and lied to and cheated Americans. By all standards that count, he was a complete failure.

OTOH, maybe it wasn't him at all. There's some reason to believe it was Nancy and her astrologer who were running things ...

You couldn't prove that statement if your life depended on it.

This is the CDZ, not your typical bulls**t zone.

Get out of the thread if you are not going to post an argument.

He didn't lead the country on a road to ruin. He ran up debt. But for whatever reason, Clinton (along with a whole lot of help from a very conservative congress) was able to create a trajectory that had us on the road to NO DEBT and he came after Reagan. So, how did Reagan put us on the road to ruin when we are on a very good road after he left office ?

Post with numbers or shut and get off the thread.

 

[Listening]

Being affable and congenial counts for nothing. He set this country on the road to financial ruin, broke the law, turned us into a debtor nation, and lied to and cheated Americans. By all standards that count, he was a complete failure.

We're talking about Reagan, not Obama!

That's reeel adorable but its also not true.

And you know it.

I've posted facts about Reagan. If you would like to lie about President Obama, start a new thread but for now, how about we stick to facts, huh?

Yes, we can see you posted a lot of nothing relative to the topic.

I've reported all your posts and being off-topic.

When you want to discuss Reaganomics in the way the OP proposes, I'll be happy to listen. Otherwise you are just trolling.

Get out of the thread.

 

[Listening]

Let's stick to the Short and Long Term Policy failures of Reagan.

No. Read the OP.

This is about the economic policies that are called Reaganomics.

What are they and what were the results ?

This isn't a thread for you and your moron friend Luddy to hijack. If you want to discuss Reaganomics as proposed in the OP, fine.

Other wise get out of the thread. Go to the one entitled "The Failure of Reagonmics" in the Political Forum where everyone can trash each other at will.

This forum is supposed to be more structured and regulated.

Post to the OP or get out.