Yet the media and academia rarely credited Reagan for his accomplishments — especially on the economy, where "Reaganomics" became a term of opprobrium among the intelligentsia.
But it's a fact. As the nonpartisan National Bureau of Economic Research once declared, we lived in the "longest sustained period of prosperity in the 20th century" from 1982 to 1999 — one big boom, the NBER said, set off by Reagan.
I brought him up just to see if you are still taking your blood pressure medicine.Cap'n Cat wrote:There are thousnads or organizations, Conk and Progressive, with complimentary or scathing reviews of the Reagan years and his "legacy". I bring him up on here just to get the Conks enraged.
However, a strong case can be made that the recent economic downturn was triggered, ultimately, by Reagan era policy (or lack thereof).
I believe that to be solidly the case.
He is in Hell right now in an unending, fiery blowjob daisy chain with Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Jerry Falwell and Lee Atwater.
The poll I posted last night got me thinking:
http://www.championshipsubdivision.com/ ... =10&t=3964
Are we at a point where the public has had enough (poll numbers) and we will begin a new Keynesian resurgance over Monetarism?
Assuming most things, inlcuding economic thought, tend to occur in cycles, have we come full circle?
A brief History:
The Keynesian Ascendancy 1941 – 1979 also known as the Golden Age of Capitalism.
Displacement by Monetarism 1979 - 1984 & The era of Pragmatism: 1984 - 2007 I personnally lump these two together as deregulation was a constant theme.
The Keynesian Revival of 2008 - ?
Personally, I believe that we have. I think the political will exists for tighter oversight and regulation on the part of the Federal Government.
Note: I tend to subscribe to the New Keynesian economic school of thought.Wage and price stickiness, and the other market failures present in New Keynesian models, imply that the economy may fail to attain full employment. Therefore, New Keynesians argue that macroeconomic stabilization by the government (using fiscal policy) or by the central bank (using monetary policy) can lead to a more efficient macroeconomic outcome than a laissez faire policy would. However, New Keynesian economics is less optimistic about the benefits of activist policies than traditional Keynesian economics was.
"Austrians" reject the attempt to learn economic laws through experiment or real world observation. Thus, I am inclined to diagree with you.dgreco wrote:If anyone thinks Keynesian economics is the right way to go about things we are in trouble. Time has showed us how horrible they are. Austrian School has proved to be an ideal economic model through crises and without crisis.
Well put, and I resemble that remark!OL FU wrote:Personally I think the economic theories are the least reliable of almost all sciences with the possible exception of psychology. I assume to some extent I would agree with the Austrians on that one point. Psychology deals significantly with individual human behavior. Economics is a little more accurate simply because it aggregates human behavior and therefore can at least attempt predictive analysis. But the problem is still that it deals with human behavior. For further evidence, talk to 100 economists on how to correct the current situation and you will get many many different answers (even from the amatuer economist on this board).
OL FU wrote:Personally I think the economic theories are the least reliable of almost all sciences with the possible exception of psychology. I assume to some extent I would agree with the Austrians on that one point. Psychology deals significantly with individual human behavior. Economics is a little more accurate simply because it aggregates human behavior and therefore can at least attempt predictive analysis. But the problem is still that it deals with human behavior. For further evidence, talk to 100 economists on how to correct the current situation and you will get many many different answers (even from the amatuer economist on this board).
Make it, Blowhard.Cap'n Cat wrote:However, a strong case can be made that the recent economic downturn was triggered, ultimately, by Reagan era policy (or lack thereof)...
travelinman67 wrote:Make it, Blowhard.Cap'n Cat wrote:However, a strong case can be made that the recent economic downturn was triggered, ultimately, by Reagan era policy (or lack thereof)...
Real GDP grew under Reagan. Adjusting for the demise of defense spending, and U.S. GDP fell flat under Clinton, and remained that way under Bush who was not a fiscal conservative. The Fed's mismanagement of borrowing mechanisms coupled with the now brutally apparent corruption, greed and mismanagement the housing and banking industry put us where we are today: Not any of Reagan's policies.
Whose punishment is it to give that star studded lineup one hummer after another? LBJ or FDR?Cap'n Cat wrote:He is in Hell right now in an unending, fiery blowjob daisy chain with Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Jerry Falwell and Lee Atwater.
I'm sure you will, Leon.Cap'n Cat wrote:travelinman67 wrote:
Make it, Blowhard.
Real GDP grew under Reagan. Adjusting for the demise of defense spending, and U.S. GDP fell flat under Clinton, and remained that way under Bush who was not a fiscal conservative. The Fed's mismanagement of borrowing mechanisms coupled with the now brutally apparent corruption, greed and mismanagement the housing and banking industry put us where we are today: Not any of Reagan's policies.
I will, Sluggo. When I'm good and fvcking ready. Kiss my ass.
Greed and mismanagement did not start with Reagan (it started with the Romans and then they took over the Church), but it got one big ass boost when Reagan started slashing and deregulating and deriding proper oversight as "government interference". He did more harm with his words, perhaps than his actions. Fvck him. He's in Hell.
I'll be back, Rush.
I can't believe you mention energy independence.travelinman67 wrote:I'm sure you will, Leon.Cap'n Cat wrote:
I will, Sluggo. When I'm good and fvcking ready. Kiss my ass.
Greed and mismanagement did not start with Reagan (it started with the Romans and then they took over the Church), but it got one big ass boost when Reagan started slashing and deregulating and deriding proper oversight as "government interference". He did more harm with his words, perhaps than his actions. Fvck him. He's in Hell.
I'll be back, Rush.
Deregulation was neither the foundation nor the trigger of this economic collapse. Our country's economy has been built on a house of cards since the late 70's. GDP began diving in '73, and has been on a decline since. Merely shuffling or redistributing wealth cannot support ANY industrial nation, yet that has been the economic model for the past 15 years. The last strong back to support the sloth know as American banking industry was the residential mortgage market, built with greed driven, smoke-and-mirrors, ARMS and Interest-Only products destined to fail, and as the inflated value of housing dissipated as earnings dried up, the housing, and inevitably, Wall Street, house of cards finally collapsed. If any "deregulation" can be faulted as a chief contributor, it was the Dem led passage of CRA which attempted to impose socialist economic philosopy on the otherwise politically neutral mortgage underwriters.
One need not be a professional economist to figure this one out...it was childs play.
This had NOTHING to do with Reagan's policies.
The foundational cause was a failing GDP and absence of energy independence, and the trigger was the greed and mismanagement of the housing/mortgage markets, and ancillary incompetence of The Fed which tailored rates and availability in an attempt to keep the house of cards standing, rather than enforcing mechanisms to stabilize and rebuild the economy.
P.S. Mort...I predicted this collapse years ago, been repeating it consistently, and last year told you this was going to happen, the cause, how it could be stopped or dampened, and the duration of this event...
...and you ignorantly mocked me. As always. Maybe you ought to check your Reagan hate at the door, and start listening and learning for a change.
SMFH
He also slashed the budgets of Carters alternative energy programs, let tax incentives for solar and wind lapse, and several of these companies and thier technologies, which were originally funded by American taxpayers, ended up being bought by Japanese and European firms - helping to propel those countries' renewable industries. Reagan even stripped off the solar panels Carter had put on the White House roof - a cynical and nasty move reminiscent of something you or Z might do. 
Why is it the liberals alway run under the shelter of conservation rather than seeking to improve or increase production?D1B wrote:I can't believe you mention energy independence.
From Thomas Friedman's "Hot, Flat & Crowded"
In the wake of the oil embargo in the mid seventies, Ford/Carter implemented higher fuel economy standards for americans cars - to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. 1975 - CAFE ring a bell?
It worked, between 1975 and 1985, fuel economy for passenger cars went from 13.5 mpg to 27.5 mpg, for light truck 11.6 to 19.5. Worked so well it created the oil glut from 85 to 1995, weakend OPEC and contributed to the collapse of the Soviet Union, then the second -largest oil producer in the world.
So what happened next? After the original congressional mandate of 27.5 MPG took full effect in 1985, rather than continue to push for higher fuel economy standards and continue to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, Reagan actually rolled it back to 26 mpg in 1986!!!!
Read the book Tman. This is but one of Reagan's disastrous policies we'll be paying for for decades.
Economics a science?OL FU wrote:Personally I think the economic theories are the least reliable of almost all sciences with the possible exception of psychology. I assume to some extent I would agree with the Austrians on that one point. Psychology deals significantly with individual human behavior. Economics is a little more accurate simply because it aggregates human behavior and therefore can at least attempt predictive analysis. But the problem is still that it deals with human behavior. For further evidence, talk to 100 economists on how to correct the current situation and you will get many many different answers (even from the amatuer economist on this board).
Any competent astrologer could do what economists do. Come to think of it, they do.travelinman67 wrote:Why is it the liberals alway run under the shelter of conservation rather than seeking to improve or increase production?D1B wrote:I can't believe you mention energy independence.
From Thomas Friedman's "Hot, Flat & Crowded"
In the wake of the oil embargo in the mid seventies, Ford/Carter implemented higher fuel economy standards for americans cars - to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. 1975 - CAFE ring a bell?
It worked, between 1975 and 1985, fuel economy for passenger cars went from 13.5 mpg to 27.5 mpg, for light truck 11.6 to 19.5. Worked so well it created the oil glut from 85 to 1995, weakend OPEC and contributed to the collapse of the Soviet Union, then the second -largest oil producer in the world.
So what happened next? After the original congressional mandate of 27.5 MPG took full effect in 1985, rather than continue to push for higher fuel economy standards and continue to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, Reagan actually rolled it back to 26 mpg in 1986!!!!
Read the book Tman. This is but one of Reagan's disastrous policies we'll be paying for for decades.
A fundamental tool of business is to produce less product, provide less service, yet increase gross profit. It's THE fundamental model of late 20th century America business. If I can sell you a smaller car, that has half the power, uses half the energy, for the same price as a larger model, why not? If the oil companies can sell you one gallon of gas for the same price they sold you two gallons for in the 70's, they will.
Downsizing, conserving, simplifying are not philosophically wrong, but when economic or governmental conditions are generated forcing those conditions, principally to compensate for incompetent management or execute a marketing scheme, then the public has been duped.
The U.S. was not prepared to become energy independent in the 70's, for many reasons most of which were designed to protect energy market profit. Rather than tackling those conflicts, the CAFE standards were created to reduce consumer expectations under the guise of efficiency and environmental protection.
CO2 is not causing climate issues, pollution is not destroying the planet. These are just devices used to condition the public and prepare them for the next wave of expectation reduction.
And, BTW, energy independence is only a small portion of the cause of our economic collapse. The $4.00 spike last year was merely a "shove" under the upper fulcrum that expedited the collapse.
Which underscores my assertion of the absence of thoughtful debate on this board. Nice job, D.D1B wrote:travelinman67 wrote:
Why is it the liberals alway run under the shelter of conservation rather than seeking to improve or increase production?
A fundamental tool of business is to produce less product, provide less service, yet increase gross profit. It's THE fundamental model of late 20th century America business. If I can sell you a smaller car, that has half the power, uses half the energy, for the same price as a larger model, why not? If the oil companies can sell you one gallon of gas for the same price they sold you two gallons for in the 70's, they will.
Downsizing, conserving, simplifying are not philosophically wrong, but when economic or governmental conditions are generated forcing those conditions, principally to compensate for incompetent management or execute a marketing scheme, then the public has been duped.
The U.S. was not prepared to become energy independent in the 70's, for many reasons most of which were designed to protect energy market profit. Rather than tackling those conflicts, the CAFE standards were created to reduce consumer expectations under the guise of efficiency and environmental protection.
CO2 is not causing climate issues, pollution is not destroying the planet. These are just devices used to condition the public and prepare them for the next wave of expectation reduction.
And, BTW, energy independence is only a small portion of the cause of our economic collapse. The $4.00 spike last year was merely a "shove" under the upper fulcrum that expedited the collapse.
What part of my statement do you have trouble understanding?Travelinman67 wrote:...Downsizing, conserving, simplifying are not philosophically wrong, but when economic or governmental conditions are generated forcing those conditions, principally to compensate for incompetent management or execute a marketing scheme, then the public has been duped.
dbackjon wrote:...To dismiss conservation like you do shows that YOU are not open-minded on this.
An example of what I'm talking about, dback...travelinman67 wrote:What part of my statement do you have trouble understanding?Travelinman67 wrote:...Downsizing, conserving, simplifying are not philosophically wrong, but when economic or governmental conditions are generated forcing those conditions, principally to compensate for incompetent management or execute a marketing scheme, then the public has been duped.
As I've stated many times, the propriety of an act is dependent upon the intent or motivation of those acting.
And I have yet to hear you or any other liberal acknowledge our failing GDP and the cause of it's decline.
Despite dire warnings of water shortages due to prolonged drought, the Los Angeles City Council on Wednesday rejected a plan to ration water in the nation's second-largest city for the first time in 18 years.
The unanimous 15-0 vote against the plan marked a surprise setback for Los Angeles water managers, who like their peers in cities throughout California were directed to cut water use 20 percent this year under a drought emergency proclaimed by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger.
But David Nahai, general manager of the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, the nation's biggest municipal utility, insisted that the proposal was not dead.
"The city must cut back its water use. There are no two ways about that," Nahai told Reuters after the vote.
He said the council's rejection stemmed not from disagreement over a need for mandatory conservation measures but from questions about how the plan would work and whether it amounted to a rate hike rather than a rationing scheme.
For procedural reasons, he said, the council had no choice but to disapprove the measure for now in order to buy more time to review the matter.
As adopted by the LADWP and endorsed by Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, the plan calls for homes and businesses to pay a penalty rate -- nearly double normal prices -- for any water they used in excess of a reduced monthly allowance.
