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.
One of the first gifts of Reaganomics was a recession that followed a year later (1982). And anytime economy recovers from a recession, it will add jobs at a faster pace than normal. 1982-83 recession was among the worst in history, but what followed 2001 recession was a blasphemy. And as it stands now, the current recession that started in 2007 happens when Reaganomics is very much in vogue.
Link (http://barrdear.com/john/tag/recession/ - broken link)
LOL, I guess we aren't in a recovery now since job growth is anemic.
I would, however, argue on the artificiality of 1982 recession, given that massive tax cuts were instituted in 1981 as a means to help the economy grow.
Well, let me put it to you this way. Volcker and Reagan probably both knew a recession was likely with a surge in interest rates, especially since the economy had not yet recovered from the 1980 recession. Whether or not they expected it to be so severe is a different story.
As for the 1981 tax cut, Reagan was going to institute his tax cuts whether the economy was doing well or not. His tax cut passed in late 1981; since it was a 3 year plan and considering any changes to the tax code will not take effect until the next fiscal year, it is unlikely that the tax cuts would have an immediate effect on growth. In fact, some parts of that tax cut were canceled before they even took effect by a separate bill in 1982. Interestingly, in FY83 when the final phase of the tax cut was implemented, the economy soared..
The fact remains that 18.3 million jobs were created as a result of "Reaganomics".
How do you rate Reaganomics as far as Reagan's economic polices affects on businesses and jobs?
It was a compleate dissaster. http://www.bearishnews.com/wp-conten...l-debt-gdp.jpg just take a look at the graph. Total debt has gone up way up. The trip back down will be very painful. What has happened is wealth redistribution from the middle class to the rich. So for most people it was a compleate dissaster.
LOL, I guess we aren't in a recovery now since job growth is anemic.
It takes a while to turn a ship around. If you could comprehend the simple graph you just saw, you would see 2007+ recession is unlike any other since the great depression (the chart depicts post-WWII era). If it took a mild recession like in 2001 four years for job recovery, and perhaps I should assume you weren't aware of the anemic growth, what makes you give this recession less time?
Well, let me put it to you this way. Volcker and Reagan probably both knew a recession was likely with a surge in interest rates, especially since the economy had not yet recovered from the 1980 recession. Whether or not they expected it to be so severe is a different story.
As for the 1981 tax cut, Reagan was going to institute his tax cuts whether the economy was doing well or not. His tax cut passed in late 1981; since it was a 3 year plan and considering any changes to the tax code will not take effect until the next fiscal year, it is unlikely that the tax cuts would have an immediate effect on growth. In fact, some parts of that tax cut were canceled before they even took effect by a separate bill in 1982. Interestingly, in FY83 when the final phase of the tax cut was implemented, the economy soared..
The fact remains that 18.3 million jobs were created as a result of "Reaganomics".
"The fact" is highly debatable. For that matter, tell me what was so different about Reaganomics in the 1980s to the Bushnomics in the 2000s? I will say though, that pragmatism was not all lost in the 1980s. Reagan did go about increasing taxes and closing tax loopholes to ensure greater tax receipts, perhaps being wary of exponential growth in deficits and debt. Something that I just couldn't see a part of Bushnomics given the people dictating the course.
But back to the point I made earlier, do you not see a conflict in intent with a designed recession to go with something that Reaganomicists believe to be a cure for recessions (tax cuts)?
Last edited by EinsteinsGhost; 07-13-2010 at 12:39 PM..
It was a compleate dissaster. http://www.bearishnews.com/wp-conten...l-debt-gdp.jpg just take a look at the graph. Total debt has gone up way up. The trip back down will be very painful. What has happened is wealth redistribution from the middle class to the rich. So for most people it was a compleate dissaster.
I'm inclined to agree. I think supply side and trickle down economics are a fine idea but their real world application leave a lot to be desired. To be fair, I believe Reagan was an honest and good man and as president he did a good job overall. Unfortunately the economic policies he is best known for have been corrupted and used to break the back of the American middle class.
In my humble blue collar opinion the only way to improve the economy in any meaningful way is to abandon our current service based economy and take back our industrial and manufacturing capabilities from China.
The way I see it, our current system only shuffles money around, it does very little to actually generate income.
Secondly, this is part of the reason why energy independence is essential to not just our national security, but to our whole economic structure. We are pumping hundreds of billions of dollars to other countries (some of whom HATE us) for oil. We need to keep those dollars in America!
- we must get the federal budget under control and eliminate our national debt as quickly as possible ( this will be the painful part)
- we must immediately halt off shoring of American jobs.
- we must start manufacturing our own durable goods and other consumer products domestically again.
Again, I don't claim to be an expert, but a guy doesn't have to be a mechanic to know he's got a flat tire. Some things are just obvious...
It takes a while to turn a ship around. If you could comprehend the simple graph you just saw, you would see 2007+ recession is unlike any other since the great depression (the chart depicts post-WWII era). If it took a mild recession like in 2001 four years for job recovery, and perhaps I should assume you weren't aware of the anemic growth, what makes you give this recession less time?
Me thinks it is you who is not paying attention. $1.7 trillion in business capital is sitting on the sidelines as a direct result of Obama's policies. He is s job killer.
lokig at what Reagan did he left a economy that was on the up swing providing gains in revenue much beyond anyhtig that Clinto could ahve hoped for.The private sector resoended to his policy just the opposite of Obamnas anti-business polices and the nation recover from the 70's recession brought about and wores=ened by Carters liberal policies . Result count the rest is spin.Obama is leaving a terrible problem just as Carter did.The next president is going to have to make deep cuts and likely the one after.
I'm inclined to agree. I think supply side and trickle down economics are a fine idea but their real world application leave a lot to be desired. To be fair, I believe Reagan was an honest and good man and as president he did a good job overall. Unfortunately the economic policies he is best known for have been corrupted and used to break the back of the American middle class.
In my humble blue collar opinion the only way to improve the economy in any meaningful way is to abandon our current service based economy and take back our industrial and manufacturing capabilities from China.
The way I see it, our current system only shuffles money around, it does very little to actually generate income.
Well said. America must find a way to create wealth. Spending based economy is NOT sustainable. Even services have been finding their way out. Unemployment (not measurable via unemployment rate which is something I consider a sham) is a HUGE reason we're in the current mess. The economy simply never did recover after 2001 recession. Only lipstick on pig was applied with fervor and with regularity.
And to create wealth, a focus has to be placed back on the middle class. Rich and poor classes are natural, middle class, however, requires a design, and discipline. Both were dismantled, beginning sometime in the 1970s and have accelerated since.
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.
