Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
People want simple, "all or nothing" solutions to economic problems that are about very complicated scenarios. It's not that basic ideas like a "flat tax" or "deregulation" are inherently bad. It has to do with the implementation and everything else that's intertwined.
I'm very libertarian-minded myself, but I still realize there were aspects of "Reaganomics" which were just plain dishonest to the American public.
If you haven't seen it, I definitely recommend this documentary, BTW:
It goes pretty in depth about the "behind the scenes" stuff that went on in the Reagan era.
IMO, when you're talking specifically about the banking/lending market out there, you can't just remove all of the restrictions and rules until you've FIRST created a true free marketplace. We've really never had anything that close to one in this country, because we still believe in a Federal Reserve banking system where a small group gets to artificially manipulate the currency from the very top level. They get to dictate the "prime rate" and decide how much currency will get printed at a given time and more.
The whole market, therefore, operates using money that's been subjected to arbitrary restrictions. The "gold standard" our money was once tied to certainly had its own set of problems, but at least it ensured the Federal govt. was unable to make unlimited amounts of it. Each dollar had to be backed by another tangible asset (precious metal in this case).
Obviously, we've seen fit to have our government place many, many other restrictions on business as well -- secondary to manipulating the currency itself before we even get to save or spend it.
Honestly, I don't feel like I can really say whether Reagan meant everything he said to the American people in the 80's -- but I get the strong impression his cabinet of advisers and other people with political clout surrounding him were often the "bad actors". Reagan, after all, was a Hollywood actor originally. He was well equipped to deliver a rousing speech or take on the "look" people wanted to see their President take on. It doesn't mean he was well versed in foreign policy or the details of economic theory. I think he really did see the logic in libertarian concepts, and often made comments to that effect; but that doesn't mean he didn't have plenty of "manipulators" around him, promising him they were on-board with those ideas, while using them for their own greedy purposes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by valsteele
Didn't the crash of 2007 and rising inequality and poverty in America prove well enough that the "dream of the 80s" is no longer alive? I hear libertarian and conservative types and even some liberals still sing the praise of deregulation and flat taxes.
Perhaps you can give us a definition of capitalism that works for you.
Its a classical definition.
My definition of capital is a product of human labor that has market value. I also consider classical economic divisions like personal capital, rotating capital and industrial capital, again all being products of human labor.
That is to say for the most part ,Donald Trump is NOT, in my definition, a capitalist because he buys and sells values mostly created by legislative equity which have no aggregate affect on wealth.
The big problem, when cash flows are used for assets, is that capital , by my definition, is not nearly as good a store of value as some da guberment guaranteed, privilege. That is because, using Marx's example, value stored in textiles, a rotating capital, falls as the productivity of the loom rises. So real estate attracts far too much investment ,and yet does not tend to encourage real industry. This is the nature of all essentially da guberment guaranteed assets that are not a product of industry like da guberment debt, rights of way, and access rights like real estate. Those latter things should not generate cash flows because they do not fund industry. That is the fatal flaw in Reaganomics; it does not conceive that wealth can be used to injure competition, or that it may be used to go rent seeking for a pre-revolutionary France, toll booth economy.
Wealth is primarily created by industrial capital. Reaganomics does not tend to fund it. It funds the economy as a weak side effect, growing weaker and weaker as wealth concentrates making it a command style economy of the few.
...And we've officially hit rock bottom. Good night everyone, its been fun having an interesting conversation until this post came along. It was a good run, I think we made it six pages before someone turned economics to race. Well done everyone except that the last poster.
Posts about class warfare and economic disparity? This thread is the place. Randomly throwing in race? That says more about the poster than anyone or anything else.
I apologize if that post was meant as sarcasm and I missed the joke.
I'll leave you with the quote that's often (erroneously?) attributed to Winston Churchill. I think it sums up a lot of what has been said by whom in this thread:
"If you're not a liberal at twenty, you have no heart. If you're not a conservative at forty, you have no brain."
Well, considering the fact that I am 20 and lean left, then I say I am doing just fine! It wasn't sarcasm nor was it a joke.
I strongly believe that people believe in Reaganomics because they love Reagan, not because they love the policy (assuming they know what it's about).
I believe quite a few people that love Reagan also are racist. I have no idea whether or not Reagan was personally a racist, but his policies and political stances would definitely suggest that (in my opinion). For instance, during the crack/cocaine era, he made sure the sentences for crack (black people's choice of drug) charges were longer than the cocaine (white people's choice of drug) charges. He voted against the civil rights for blacks.
Other developed industrialized countries such as Canada, other Western European countries also face globalization trends, but they don't experience the ramp up in general income inequality that the US has. So it would be fallacious to attribute that as a major driver of income inequality.
since when the other developed economies perfect substitutes for one another? You have to focus on the US on re herring comparisons to Canada, Finland, or other such favorites with economies one tenth to one sixtieth the size of that of the US, far less complicated politically, historically or economically, and with different political systems.
Globalization's impact on the US has been disproportionate vs. these other countries.
id rather have "trickle down" economics any day than "welfare up" which we currently have
Reagan believed in the American dream in the working spirit in being all you can be- just get government out of the way!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!
we are almost 20 trillion in debt and no one seems to care- the greased politicians get golden parachutes and never have to worry
congress should not be paid if they don't balance the budget
interest payments on the national debt are the smallest percentage of Federal revenues since 1947.
Facts are hard to get around.
Reagan expanded government in areas that reinvigorated the military-industrial complex. Talk about wasted use of taxpayers $!
Because the right-wing corporate media continues to declare that it works. Evidence says it doesn't.
I asked "what evidence?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Opin_Yunated
Glad you asked.
What happened in 1981?
You presented your chart about the 1% and their growing share of income. But that is not the issue. The issue is whether or not "Reaganomics", ie the cutting of marginal tax rates, leads to economic growth.
Hence my chart. Read it and weep. GDP grew quite well after the introduction of the Reagan tax cuts. Jobs increase by huge numbers. I lived through that period and my own personal circumstances improved considerably. That five bucks a week made a big difference to me.
You presented your chart about the 1% and their growing share of income. But that is not the issue. The issue is whether or not "Reaganomics", ie the cutting of marginal tax rates, leads to economic growth.
Hence my chart. Read it and weep. GDP grew quite well after the introduction of the Reagan tax cuts. Jobs increase by huge numbers. I lived through that period and my own personal circumstances improved considerably. That five bucks a week made a big difference to me.
You presented your chart about the 1% and their growing share of income. But that is not the issue. The issue is whether or not "Reaganomics", ie the cutting of marginal tax rates, leads to economic growth.
Hence my chart. Read it and weep. GDP grew quite well after the introduction of the Reagan tax cuts. Jobs increase by huge numbers. I lived through that period and my own personal circumstances improved considerably. That five bucks a week made a big difference to me.
We arent talking about the top 1%. We are talking about the issue of whether the tax cuts (Reagonomics) led to a better economy.
Read it and weep.
GDP has grown under almost every president. The difference is that almost all the growth in GDP in the last 35 years has accrued to the wealthiest 1% of the population. What hasn't accrued to them has accrued to the rest of the top quintile. Those in the bottom 20% have seen their incomes decline and those in the middle have seen their wages stagnate.
In other words, if you accept the notion of marginal utility, all of that growth has been of little or no actual value. Am I missing something? Is generating wealth meaningful on its own even if there is no utility created? If so, why?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
