The Myths of Reaganomics

[Dr Grump]

Hmm, Reagan ushered in the longest peace time expansion in history. Clinton ushered in 9/11 and a recession that Bush ended quickly.
Bush ushered in the second longest peace time expansion. Obama has the longest recession since the war on his record.
Tell me which side is wrong again?
Rothbard is a narco libertarian so suspect right off. It is easy to give prescriptions from the ivory tower. In real life politics doesn't work that way.

Seriously....your debating skills are pathetic...they really are....

 

[Dr Grump]

The system in the USSR lasted for 70 years. Before Reagan no one was predicting its collapse. It continues on in Cuba, despite widespread prediction of collapse when the USSR went away, and N.Korea.

Not too sure whether it was on this board or another, but a woman who lived in the USSR for quite some time posted and gave a very detailed account of how the USSR started its demise in the 1960s. Raygun had nothing to do with it. He was around for the coup de grace ....

... I lived through Raygun and during his time in office, we all thought he was an average president at best. He looked good because his opposition was so weak...

 

[The Rabbi]

First published in 1922.
Give me a break.

I don't see the point of your objection. Mises shows that socialism in any form is unsustainable, what does it matter if it was in 1922?

Because that was right before the USSR became a world power. In 1922 the country was miserable and mired in poverty. Anyone could have predicted its collapse. No one did so in 1950, 1960, 1970 or 1980.

 

[The Rabbi]

Hmm, Reagan ushered in the longest peace time expansion in history. Clinton ushered in 9/11 and a recession that Bush ended quickly.
Bush ushered in the second longest peace time expansion. Obama has the longest recession since the war on his record.
Tell me which side is wrong again?
Rothbard is a narco libertarian so suspect right off. It is easy to give prescriptions from the ivory tower. In real life politics doesn't work that way.

Seriously....your debating skills are pathetic...they really are....

Says the man with no argument to offer.

 

[Dr Grump]

First published in 1922.
Give me a break.

I don't see the point of your objection. Mises shows that socialism in any form is unsustainable, what does it matter if it was in 1922?

Because that was right before the USSR became a world power. In 1922 the country was miserable and mired in poverty. Anyone could have predicted its collapse. No one did so in 1950, 1960, 1970 or 1980.

See my previous post....

 

[The Rabbi]

The system in the USSR lasted for 70 years. Before Reagan no one was predicting its collapse. It continues on in Cuba, despite widespread prediction of collapse when the USSR went away, and N.Korea.

Not too sure whether it was on this board or another, but a woman who lived in the USSR for quite some time posted and gave a very detailed account of how the USSR started its demise in the 1960s. Raygun had nothing to do with it. He was around for the coup de grace ....

... I lived through Raygun and during his time in office, we all thought he was an average president at best. He looked good because his opposition was so weak...

You're joking , right? That's your evidence? Some woman who claims to have lived in the USSR in the 1960s? How old are you again?
The turds thought he was not an average president but a below-average one. They belittled him as old, out of touch, a cowboy, a talking head, empty suit, etc etc.
In fact his achievements rank him as the greatest president of the 20th century. But the turds can't be satisfied with that so 30 years later they are still trying to demean and diminish him.
Good luck.

 

[Dr Grump]

Hmm, Reagan ushered in the longest peace time expansion in history. Clinton ushered in 9/11 and a recession that Bush ended quickly.
Bush ushered in the second longest peace time expansion. Obama has the longest recession since the war on his record.
Tell me which side is wrong again?
Rothbard is a narco libertarian so suspect right off. It is easy to give prescriptions from the ivory tower. In real life politics doesn't work that way.

Seriously....your debating skills are pathetic...they really are....

Says the man with no argument to offer.

Says the guy who thinks that:

USSR collapse during Raygun Presidency = Raygun must be responsible for said collapse..

...without even giving any critical insight or thought into why it truly collapsed. I really wish I had bookmarked the thread that the woman I talked about in my previous post was in. Very insightful and explained clearly...

 

[The Rabbi]

I don't see the point of your objection. Mises shows that socialism in any form is unsustainable, what does it matter if it was in 1922?

Because that was right before the USSR became a world power. In 1922 the country was miserable and mired in poverty. Anyone could have predicted its collapse. No one did so in 1950, 1960, 1970 or 1980.

See my previous post....

See my post #64

 

[The Rabbi]

Seriously....your debating skills are pathetic...they really are....

Says the man with no argument to offer.

Says the guy who thinks that:

USSR collapse during Raygun Presidency = Raygun must be responsible for said collapse..

...without even giving any critical insight or thought into why it truly collapsed. I really wish I had bookmarked the thread that the woman I talked about in my previous post was in. Very insightful and explained clearly...

Actually only you are saying that.
The USSR was obviously in a difficult period. Do you think Reagan's approach, reviled at the time, had nothing to do with it? Why didn't Carter do the same thing? Carter was president when the USSR invaded Afghanistan. They should have been weak then too.

 

[uscitizen]

Raygun? Talk about teleprompter heaven.

 

[Dr Grump]

You're joking , right? That's your evidence? Some woman who claims to have lived in the USSR in the 1960s? How old are you again?
The turds thought he was not an average president but a below-average one. They belittled him as old, out of touch, a cowboy, a talking head, empty suit, etc etc.
In fact his achievements rank him as the greatest president of the 20th century. But the turds can't be satisfied with that so 30 years later they are still trying to demean and diminish him.
Good luck.

From memory she was an academic who specialised in the Soviet Union. Give me somebody whose actually spends 8-10 hours a day for decades studying a system over an opinion by some neocon whackjob on a messageboard who idolises somebody who had Alzeihmers in the last days of him presidency...

...if you think he was even in the top five presidents of the 20th century, then you need your head read....

Clinton, Kennedy, LBJ, Eisenhower and Truman leave him for dead IMO...Some might even give Teddy R, Franklin R and Woodorw W more props.....But Raygun?? pffftttt....what a joke....

 

[The Rabbi]

You're joking , right? That's your evidence? Some woman who claims to have lived in the USSR in the 1960s? How old are you again?
The turds thought he was not an average president but a below-average one. They belittled him as old, out of touch, a cowboy, a talking head, empty suit, etc etc.
In fact his achievements rank him as the greatest president of the 20th century. But the turds can't be satisfied with that so 30 years later they are still trying to demean and diminish him.
Good luck.

From memory she was an academic who specialised in the Soviet Union. Give me somebody whose actually spends 8-10 hours a day for decades studying a system over an opinion by some neocon whackjob on messageboard who idolises somebody who had Alzeihmers...

...if you think he was even in the top five presidents of the 20th century, then you need your head read....

Clinton, Kennedy, LBJ, Eisenhower and Truman leave him for dead IMO...Some might even give Teddy R, Franklin R and Woodorw W more props.....But Raygun?? pffftttt....what a joke....

actually Condoleeza Rice says the same thing.
You are smoking crack if you think Eisenhower was a better president. Ditto for Lindon Baines "How Many Kids You Kill Today" Johnson.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

First published in 1922.
Give me a break.

I don't see the point of your objection. Mises shows that socialism in any form is unsustainable, what does it matter if it was in 1922?

Because that was right before the USSR became a world power. In 1922 the country was miserable and mired in poverty. Anyone could have predicted its collapse. No one did so in 1950, 1960, 1970 or 1980.

See, this is why you need to read the book before dismissing it. The argument is that socialism will always inevitably collapse because the system is unsustainable. It doesn't matter if the country is in poverty, or a world power. Socialism always fails. Mises and the Austrians continued to say that the Soviet Union was destined for collapse due to the laws of economics.

"Socialism is unrealizable as an economic system because a socialist society would not have any possibility of resorting to economic calculation. This is why it cannot be considered as a system of society's economic organization. It is a means to disintegrate social cooperation and to bring about poverty and chaos." - Ludwig von Mises

 

[uscitizen]

I thought the how many kids did you kill thing was for the Bushes?

 

[uscitizen]

I don't see the point of your objection. Mises shows that socialism in any form is unsustainable, what does it matter if it was in 1922?

Because that was right before the USSR became a world power. In 1922 the country was miserable and mired in poverty. Anyone could have predicted its collapse. No one did so in 1950, 1960, 1970 or 1980.

See, this is why you need to read the book before dismissing it. The argument is that socialism will always inevitably collapse because the system is unsustainable. It doesn't matter if the country is in poverty, or a world power. Socialism always fails. Mises and the Austrians continued to say that the Soviet Union was destined for collapse due to the laws of economics.

Neither will Libertarianism be sustainable. People are far too immature yet for it to work.
Perhaps if we are still around in a thousand years though.

 

[The Rabbi]

I thought the how many kids did you kill thing was for the Bushes?

As usual you are woefully misinformed and teaming with partisan hatred which prevents you from learning anything useful.
No wonder you diss Reagan.

 

[The Rabbi]

I don't see the point of your objection. Mises shows that socialism in any form is unsustainable, what does it matter if it was in 1922?

Because that was right before the USSR became a world power. In 1922 the country was miserable and mired in poverty. Anyone could have predicted its collapse. No one did so in 1950, 1960, 1970 or 1980.

See, this is why you need to read the book before dismissing it. The argument is that socialism will always inevitably collapse because the system is unsustainable. It doesn't matter if the country is in poverty, or a world power. Socialism always fails. Mises and the Austrians continued to say that the Soviet Union was destined for collapse due to the laws of economics.

"Socialism is unrealizable as an economic system because a socialist society would not have any possibility of resorting to economic calculation. This is why it cannot be considered as a system of society's economic organization. It is a means to disintegrate social cooperation and to bring about poverty and chaos." - Ludwig von Mises

I didnt dismiss it. I am dismissing you.
I could say "The US will fail as an empire because every empire has failed." Eventually I will be shown to be correct because, really, every empire has failed. But it isn't any smarts on my part to be able to say that.
Similarly, predicting the failure of the Soviet Union right before its greatest rise to power is a failure, not a success.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Because that was right before the USSR became a world power. In 1922 the country was miserable and mired in poverty. Anyone could have predicted its collapse. No one did so in 1950, 1960, 1970 or 1980.

See, this is why you need to read the book before dismissing it. The argument is that socialism will always inevitably collapse because the system is unsustainable. It doesn't matter if the country is in poverty, or a world power. Socialism always fails. Mises and the Austrians continued to say that the Soviet Union was destined for collapse due to the laws of economics.

"Socialism is unrealizable as an economic system because a socialist society would not have any possibility of resorting to economic calculation. This is why it cannot be considered as a system of society's economic organization. It is a means to disintegrate social cooperation and to bring about poverty and chaos." - Ludwig von Mises

I didnt dismiss it. I am dismissing you.
I could say "The US will fail as an empire because every empire has failed." Eventually I will be shown to be correct because, really, every empire has failed. But it isn't any smarts on my part to be able to say that.
Similarly, predicting the failure of the Soviet Union right before its greatest rise to power is a failure, not a success.

Of course, if you're a libertarian, or classical liberal in Mises' case, then being right still means your wrong in the world of The Rabbi.

 

[The Rabbi]

See, this is why you need to read the book before dismissing it. The argument is that socialism will always inevitably collapse because the system is unsustainable. It doesn't matter if the country is in poverty, or a world power. Socialism always fails. Mises and the Austrians continued to say that the Soviet Union was destined for collapse due to the laws of economics.

"Socialism is unrealizable as an economic system because a socialist society would not have any possibility of resorting to economic calculation. This is why it cannot be considered as a system of society's economic organization. It is a means to disintegrate social cooperation and to bring about poverty and chaos." - Ludwig von Mises

I didnt dismiss it. I am dismissing you.
I could say "The US will fail as an empire because every empire has failed." Eventually I will be shown to be correct because, really, every empire has failed. But it isn't any smarts on my part to be able to say that.
Similarly, predicting the failure of the Soviet Union right before its greatest rise to power is a failure, not a success.

Of course, if you're a libertarian, or classical liberal in Mises' case, then being right still means your wrong in the world of The Rabbi.

Even a narco-libertarian Wookie-suit wearing Ron Paul supporter like you can acknowledge that the Soviet Union's power INCREASED after 1922, not decreased. Thus Mises was only right in a general sense about communism not working. He certainly didnt predict anything. And as mentioned, everyone else thought the USSR was here to stay in 1980.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I didnt dismiss it. I am dismissing you.
I could say "The US will fail as an empire because every empire has failed." Eventually I will be shown to be correct because, really, every empire has failed. But it isn't any smarts on my part to be able to say that.
Similarly, predicting the failure of the Soviet Union right before its greatest rise to power is a failure, not a success.

Of course, if you're a libertarian, or classical liberal in Mises' case, then being right still means your wrong in the world of The Rabbi.

Even a narco-libertarian Wookie-suit wearing Ron Paul supporter like you can acknowledge that the Soviet Union's power INCREASED after 1922, not decreased. Thus Mises was only right in a general sense about communism not working. He certainly didnt predict anything. And as mentioned, everyone else thought the USSR was here to stay in 1980.

And in saying that communism must inevitably fail consistently throughout his life Mises accurately predicted that the Soviet Union would collapse. You only want him to be wrong because you're unable to give any credit to libertarians, especially when it means that the Cold War-hysteria of the conservative movement of the time was pointless.