"Herbert Hoover, He's Our Man, He's Like Coolidge, 'Yes, We Can!' Just Like Reagan, Off We Go! Except that it's Obama's Show(?)!"
Pundits will suggest that Reagan Trajectory II, of Bush-Bush, was not as fanatically, de-regulatory, as everyone claims. This was a Bush Administration, lost in space, after all. It simply had no clue, and therefore didn't bother. The retort is that, "Bush knew a thing or two about clues. He knew about Weapons of Mass Destruction, for example."
Others would come to a different opinion. The United States economy expanded, the number of regulators remained the same as under Clinton.
Reagan did de-regulation, and he had a precedent. He had Coolidge and Hoover. Lest we forget:
Herbert Hoover's Legacy: Great Depression Goat Inherited Laissez-Faire Economic Policy | Suite101.com
Notice in the article, that farmers, (and share-croppers), had created too much supply. Labor had gravitated away from the farms to the factory towns. There was too much supply of labor. The supply and demand price structure of Laizzez Faire couldn't possibly work.
Later on, the New Deal Democrats would create Demand. Giant Public Works spending in fact, had to happen. The "Entrepreneurial Spirit" doesn't work. An intervening Demand has to be created in advance. Humans can demand leaves from fig trees, (with some hissing, and prodding). It was even this way in the beginning. If stupid Presbyterians are going to create a price-structure, then a distributed currency is required. An income-scale has to be available first.
Increase of Demand tends to inflate prices, just as increase of supply tends to deflate prices. Demand, however, creates costs. Creating supply creates costs. Mostly, the arithmetic is inflationary. There is a greater demand for currency, among humans, punto.
A Cost-of-Living Adjustment, to the income scale, is an arithmetic basis of increase of currency among humans, punto. The objective is to preserve balance sheets. Mostly, COLA's don't exist, of if they do: They tend to reward the rich, and improverish the poor. In recent current events, that clearly doesn't work.
The Reagan Trajectory was not entirely cheap. It was clearly, and simply very wrong. The Entrepreneurial Spirit requires a well-distributed currency. That was only badly attempted, in the Indexation of the Standard Deduction, and personal exemption, equal dollar amounts of the 1986 federal tax reform. The only effect of that was to eventually throw millions off of the tax roles: So that eventually, Ivy League Economics itself would no longer be able to work.
Unfortunately, some still do: Even in the West Wing!
"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(And he didn't even say, "income redistribution," even once!)
Pundits will suggest that Reagan Trajectory II, of Bush-Bush, was not as fanatically, de-regulatory, as everyone claims. This was a Bush Administration, lost in space, after all. It simply had no clue, and therefore didn't bother. The retort is that, "Bush knew a thing or two about clues. He knew about Weapons of Mass Destruction, for example."
Others would come to a different opinion. The United States economy expanded, the number of regulators remained the same as under Clinton.
Reagan did de-regulation, and he had a precedent. He had Coolidge and Hoover. Lest we forget:
Herbert Hoover's Legacy: Great Depression Goat Inherited Laissez-Faire Economic Policy | Suite101.com
Notice in the article, that farmers, (and share-croppers), had created too much supply. Labor had gravitated away from the farms to the factory towns. There was too much supply of labor. The supply and demand price structure of Laizzez Faire couldn't possibly work.
Later on, the New Deal Democrats would create Demand. Giant Public Works spending in fact, had to happen. The "Entrepreneurial Spirit" doesn't work. An intervening Demand has to be created in advance. Humans can demand leaves from fig trees, (with some hissing, and prodding). It was even this way in the beginning. If stupid Presbyterians are going to create a price-structure, then a distributed currency is required. An income-scale has to be available first.
Increase of Demand tends to inflate prices, just as increase of supply tends to deflate prices. Demand, however, creates costs. Creating supply creates costs. Mostly, the arithmetic is inflationary. There is a greater demand for currency, among humans, punto.
A Cost-of-Living Adjustment, to the income scale, is an arithmetic basis of increase of currency among humans, punto. The objective is to preserve balance sheets. Mostly, COLA's don't exist, of if they do: They tend to reward the rich, and improverish the poor. In recent current events, that clearly doesn't work.
The Reagan Trajectory was not entirely cheap. It was clearly, and simply very wrong. The Entrepreneurial Spirit requires a well-distributed currency. That was only badly attempted, in the Indexation of the Standard Deduction, and personal exemption, equal dollar amounts of the 1986 federal tax reform. The only effect of that was to eventually throw millions off of the tax roles: So that eventually, Ivy League Economics itself would no longer be able to work.
Unfortunately, some still do: Even in the West Wing!
"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(And he didn't even say, "income redistribution," even once!)
Last edited:
