BTW--what is national prosperity, and when did we ever have that?
As Blitzie says when "things be boomin." Ronald Reagan led the last real bout of national prosperity - everyone who wants a job has a job, industry at full speed, and most all bellies full. No cesspools in the streets of LA and money to take care of all victims of a catastrophe. A lot of it had to do with national pride and a population not dependent on the taxpayers. It really starts with competent congressional leadership.
So the graphs below show poverty unemployment and crime rates from 1985. This is how you define national prosperity?
Not sure what the crime level has to do with national prosperity unless it was simply a matter of good people having more and bad people taking more.
Poverty increase during Reagan? Consider the fact that his budget reforms (tax cuts demanded by the voters) are always going to increase poverty among the poor as they lose the taxpayer handout and are forced to steal or find a job.
Your last chart shows the unemployment rate peaked as Reagan took office in 1981. It started dropping and continued dropping until he left office in 1989. Reaganomics obviously created jobs.
"The main lesson of the Reagan/Thatcher economic revolution (was) that cuts in tax rates for entrepreneurial people raise up the poor far more effectively than welfare programs. They also produce higher real tax revenues than ever, and create more new jobs (and even whole new industries) than ever. Welfare democracy is a regressive, reactionary idea."
Maybe a good lesson for the next playbook?
No Way Out: Stimulus and Money Printing Are the Only Path Left
BTW--what is national prosperity, and when did we ever have that?
As Blitzie says when "things be boomin." Ronald Reagan led the last real bout of national prosperity - everyone who wants a job has a job, industry at full speed, and most all bellies full. No cesspools in the streets of LA and money to take care of all victims of a catastrophe. A lot of it had to do with national pride and a population not dependent on the taxpayers. It really starts with competent congressional leadership.
So the graphs below show poverty unemployment and crime rates from 1985. This is how you define national prosperity?
Not sure what the crime level has to do with national prosperity unless it was simply a matter of good people having more and bad people taking more.
Poverty increase during Reagan? Consider the fact that his budget reforms (tax cuts demanded by the voters) are always going to increase poverty among the poor as they lose the taxpayer handout and are forced to steal or find a job.
Your last chart shows the unemployment rate peaked as Reagan took office in 1981. It started dropping and continued dropping until he left office in 1989. Reaganomics obviously created jobs.
"The main lesson of the Reagan/Thatcher economic revolution (was) that cuts in tax rates for entrepreneurial people raise up the poor far more effectively than welfare programs. They also produce higher real tax revenues than ever, and create more new jobs (and even whole new industries) than ever. Welfare democracy is a regressive, reactionary idea."
Maybe a good lesson for the next playbook?
The point is, and you'd see it if you removed the poop sunglasses, is that crime is lower today than during Reagan, unemployment is lower than under Reagan, and poverty is lower than under Reagan. That is the time period YOU stated as having national prosperity, yet clearly economic and societal conditions were worse than today.
What you should understand is that Reagan took office after a decade plus period of economic malaise. A malaise that was only conquered by massive Government spending and reduction in interest rates. Also, the boomer generation was coming of age, making babies and demanding things like houses, cars, furniture, fast food and entertainment. The economy was ripe for growth and just needed fertilizer, which Reagan dumped by the bucket load. The era of deficit spending had begun.
Prosperity: During the Reagan administration (1981-1989), real GDP growth averaged 3.5%, compared to 2.9% during the preceding eight years. The annual average unemployment rate declined by 1.7 percentage points, from 7.2% in 1980 to 5.5% in 1988, after it had increased by 1.6 percentage points over the preceding eight years.
Increased crime? Not a measure of prosperity but obviously a result of the increased prosperity of others and an administration determined to provide taxpayers (and business) needed tax cuts and relief from taking care of those who refused to work. Economics cannot dictate HOW those feeding at the trough continued to pay their bills. Prosperity provided job opportunities, but apparently many chose crime over a job.
No Way Out: Stimulus and Money Printing Are the Only Path Left
BTW--what is national prosperity, and when did we ever have that?
As Blitzie says when "things be boomin." Ronald Reagan led the last real bout of national prosperity - everyone who wants a job has a job, industry at full speed, and most all bellies full. No cesspools in the streets of LA and money to take care of all victims of a catastrophe. A lot of it had to do with national pride and a population not dependent on the taxpayers. It really starts with competent congressional leadership.
So the graphs below show poverty unemployment and crime rates from 1985. This is how you define national prosperity?
Not sure what the crime level has to do with national prosperity unless it was simply a matter of good people having more and bad people taking more.
Poverty increase during Reagan? Consider the fact that his budget reforms (tax cuts demanded by the voters) are always going to increase poverty among the poor as they lose the taxpayer handout and are forced to steal or find a job.
Your last chart shows the unemployment rate peaked as Reagan took office in 1981. It started dropping and continued dropping until he left office in 1989. Reaganomics obviously created jobs.
"The main lesson of the Reagan/Thatcher economic revolution (was) that cuts in tax rates for entrepreneurial people raise up the poor far more effectively than welfare programs. They also produce higher real tax revenues than ever, and create more new jobs (and even whole new industries) than ever. Welfare democracy is a regressive, reactionary idea."
Maybe a good lesson for the next playbook?
The point is, and you'd see it if you removed the poop sunglasses, is that crime is lower today than during Reagan, unemployment is lower than under Reagan, and poverty is lower than under Reagan. That is the time period YOU stated as having national prosperity, yet clearly economic and societal conditions were worse than today.
What you should understand is that Reagan took office after a decade plus period of economic malaise. A malaise that was only conquered by massive Government spending and reduction in interest rates. Also, the boomer generation was coming of age, making babies and demanding things like houses, cars, furniture, fast food and entertainment. The economy was ripe for growth and just needed fertilizer, which Reagan dumped by the bucket load. The era of deficit spending had begun.
.
No, that is not how it went.
The Carter administration mostly held the line on US Federal debt. But Federal Government spending was still increasing, so to make up the difference there was a lot of money printing.
Reagan's (Volker's) "miracle" was not really that. All they did was to end the money printing and let interest rates seek their level in a free market. Government spending levels did not change much under Reagan. But the government was also borrowing (selling more bonds) and due to that activity, interest rates spiked upwards.
PS: A lot more crime goes unreported now than years ago. People have the perception that authorities won't do much about it, so the victims don't report everything.
BTW--what is national prosperity, and when did we ever have that?
As Blitzie says when "things be boomin." Ronald Reagan led the last real bout of national prosperity - everyone who wants a job has a job, industry at full speed, and most all bellies full. No cesspools in the streets of LA and money to take care of all victims of a catastrophe. A lot of it had to do with national pride and a population not dependent on the taxpayers. It really starts with competent congressional leadership.
So the graphs below show poverty unemployment and crime rates from 1985. This is how you define national prosperity?
Not sure what the crime level has to do with national prosperity unless it was simply a matter of good people having more and bad people taking more.
Poverty increase during Reagan? Consider the fact that his budget reforms (tax cuts demanded by the voters) are always going to increase poverty among the poor as they lose the taxpayer handout and are forced to steal or find a job.
Your last chart shows the unemployment rate peaked as Reagan took office in 1981. It started dropping and continued dropping until he left office in 1989. Reaganomics obviously created jobs.
"The main lesson of the Reagan/Thatcher economic revolution (was) that cuts in tax rates for entrepreneurial people raise up the poor far more effectively than welfare programs. They also produce higher real tax revenues than ever, and create more new jobs (and even whole new industries) than ever. Welfare democracy is a regressive, reactionary idea."
Maybe a good lesson for the next playbook?
The point is, and you'd see it if you removed the poop sunglasses, is that crime is lower today than during Reagan, unemployment is lower than under Reagan, and poverty is lower than under Reagan. That is the time period YOU stated as having national prosperity, yet clearly economic and societal conditions were worse than today.
What you should understand is that Reagan took office after a decade plus period of economic malaise. A malaise that was only conquered by massive Government spending and reduction in interest rates. Also, the boomer generation was coming of age, making babies and demanding things like houses, cars, furniture, fast food and entertainment. The economy was ripe for growth and just needed fertilizer, which Reagan dumped by the bucket load. The era of deficit spending had begun.
.
No, that is not how it went.
The Carter administration mostly held the line on US Federal debt. But Federal Government spending was still increasing, so to make up the difference there was a lot of money printing.
Reagan's (Volker's) "miracle" was not really that. All they did was to end the money printing and let interest rates seek their level in a free market. Government spending levels did not change much under Reagan. But the government was also borrowing (selling more bonds) and due to that activity, interest rates spiked upwards.
Facts will disagree.....big increase in deficit spending during Reagan. 5% deficits. In today's dollars that's $1.25 trillion. Funny how we bash the deficit spending today but say it was OK 40 years ago even though it was relatively the same. Ya just can't make up this kind of hypocrisy.
BTW--what is national prosperity, and when did we ever have that?
As Blitzie says when "things be boomin." Ronald Reagan led the last real bout of national prosperity - everyone who wants a job has a job, industry at full speed, and most all bellies full. No cesspools in the streets of LA and money to take care of all victims of a catastrophe. A lot of it had to do with national pride and a population not dependent on the taxpayers. It really starts with competent congressional leadership.
So the graphs below show poverty unemployment and crime rates from 1985. This is how you define national prosperity?
Not sure what the crime level has to do with national prosperity unless it was simply a matter of good people having more and bad people taking more.
Poverty increase during Reagan? Consider the fact that his budget reforms (tax cuts demanded by the voters) are always going to increase poverty among the poor as they lose the taxpayer handout and are forced to steal or find a job.
Your last chart shows the unemployment rate peaked as Reagan took office in 1981. It started dropping and continued dropping until he left office in 1989. Reaganomics obviously created jobs.
"The main lesson of the Reagan/Thatcher economic revolution (was) that cuts in tax rates for entrepreneurial people raise up the poor far more effectively than welfare programs. They also produce higher real tax revenues than ever, and create more new jobs (and even whole new industries) than ever. Welfare democracy is a regressive, reactionary idea."
Maybe a good lesson for the next playbook?
The point is, and you'd see it if you removed the poop sunglasses, is that crime is lower today than during Reagan, unemployment is lower than under Reagan, and poverty is lower than under Reagan. That is the time period YOU stated as having national prosperity, yet clearly economic and societal conditions were worse than today.
What you should understand is that Reagan took office after a decade plus period of economic malaise. A malaise that was only conquered by massive Government spending and reduction in interest rates. Also, the boomer generation was coming of age, making babies and demanding things like houses, cars, furniture, fast food and entertainment. The economy was ripe for growth and just needed fertilizer, which Reagan dumped by the bucket load. The era of deficit spending had begun.
.
No, that is not how it went.
The Carter administration mostly held the line on US Federal debt. But Federal Government spending was still increasing, so to make up the difference there was a lot of money printing.
Reagan's (Volker's) "miracle" was not really that. All they did was to end the money printing and let interest rates seek their level in a free market. Government spending levels did not change much under Reagan. But the government was also borrowing (selling more bonds) and due to that activity, interest rates spiked upwards.
Facts will disagree.....big increase in deficit spending during Reagan. 5% deficits. In today's dollars that's $1.25 trillion. Funny how we bash the deficit spending today but say it was OK 40 years ago even though it was relatively the same. Ya just can't make up this kind of hypocrisy.
Heh the spending was perfectly fine 4-8 years ago when it was almost twice the pace as it is now. Time to bankrupt this baby like another Atlantic City casino. 🍿RGDS!
BTW--what is national prosperity, and when did we ever have that?
As Blitzie says when "things be boomin." Ronald Reagan led the last real bout of national prosperity - everyone who wants a job has a job, industry at full speed, and most all bellies full. No cesspools in the streets of LA and money to take care of all victims of a catastrophe. A lot of it had to do with national pride and a population not dependent on the taxpayers. It really starts with competent congressional leadership.
So the graphs below show poverty unemployment and crime rates from 1985. This is how you define national prosperity?
Not sure what the crime level has to do with national prosperity unless it was simply a matter of good people having more and bad people taking more.
Poverty increase during Reagan? Consider the fact that his budget reforms (tax cuts demanded by the voters) are always going to increase poverty among the poor as they lose the taxpayer handout and are forced to steal or find a job.
Your last chart shows the unemployment rate peaked as Reagan took office in 1981. It started dropping and continued dropping until he left office in 1989. Reaganomics obviously created jobs.
"The main lesson of the Reagan/Thatcher economic revolution (was) that cuts in tax rates for entrepreneurial people raise up the poor far more effectively than welfare programs. They also produce higher real tax revenues than ever, and create more new jobs (and even whole new industries) than ever. Welfare democracy is a regressive, reactionary idea."
Maybe a good lesson for the next playbook?
The point is, and you'd see it if you removed the poop sunglasses, is that crime is lower today than during Reagan, unemployment is lower than under Reagan, and poverty is lower than under Reagan. That is the time period YOU stated as having national prosperity, yet clearly economic and societal conditions were worse than today.
What you should understand is that Reagan took office after a decade plus period of economic malaise. A malaise that was only conquered by massive Government spending and reduction in interest rates. Also, the boomer generation was coming of age, making babies and demanding things like houses, cars, furniture, fast food and entertainment. The economy was ripe for growth and just needed fertilizer, which Reagan dumped by the bucket load. The era of deficit spending had begun.
.
No, that is not how it went.
The Carter administration mostly held the line on US Federal debt. But Federal Government spending was still increasing, so to make up the difference there was a lot of money printing.
Reagan's (Volker's) "miracle" was not really that. All they did was to end the money printing and let interest rates seek their level in a free market. Government spending levels did not change much under Reagan. But the government was also borrowing (selling more bonds) and due to that activity, interest rates spiked upwards.
Facts will disagree.....big increase in deficit spending during Reagan. 5% deficits. In today's dollars that's $1.25 trillion. Funny how we bash the deficit spending today but say it was OK 40 years ago even though it was relatively the same. Ya just can't make up this kind of hypocrisy.
.
The Carter administration had higher taxes and more money printing to keep the US Government budget deficit in check.
The Reagan administration had lower taxes, less money printing, and higher interest rates. As such, the budget deficit naturally widened. Also, Regan waged and "won" the Cold War (which required a lot of spending).
Note this Federal Budget chart (as a percentage of gross GDP), especially 1943 (WW2), 2009 (housing bubble aftermath), and 2020 (Covid-19 pandemic).
Comments
Not sure what the crime level has to do with national prosperity unless it was simply a matter of good people having more and bad people taking more.
Poverty increase during Reagan? Consider the fact that his budget reforms (tax cuts demanded by the voters) are always going to increase poverty among the poor as they lose the taxpayer handout and are forced to steal or find a job.
Your last chart shows the unemployment rate peaked as Reagan took office in 1981. It started dropping and continued dropping until he left office in 1989. Reaganomics obviously created jobs.
Michael Novack best sums up how Reaganomics brought prosperity:
"The main lesson of the Reagan/Thatcher economic revolution (was) that cuts in tax rates for entrepreneurial people raise up the poor far more effectively than welfare programs. They also produce higher real tax revenues than ever, and create more new jobs (and even whole new industries) than ever. Welfare democracy is a regressive, reactionary idea."
Maybe a good lesson for the next playbook?
No Way Out: Stimulus and Money Printing Are the Only Path Left
The point is, and you'd see it if you removed the poop sunglasses, is that crime is lower today than during Reagan, unemployment is lower than under Reagan, and poverty is lower than under Reagan. That is the time period YOU stated as having national prosperity, yet clearly economic and societal conditions were worse than today.
What you should understand is that Reagan took office after a decade plus period of economic malaise. A malaise that was only conquered by massive Government spending and reduction in interest rates. Also, the boomer generation was coming of age, making babies and demanding things like houses, cars, furniture, fast food and entertainment. The economy was ripe for growth and just needed fertilizer, which Reagan dumped by the bucket load. The era of deficit spending had begun.
Knowledge is the enemy of fear
Reaganomics - Wikpedia
Prosperity: During the Reagan administration (1981-1989), real GDP growth averaged 3.5%, compared to 2.9% during the preceding eight years. The annual average unemployment rate declined by 1.7 percentage points, from 7.2% in 1980 to 5.5% in 1988, after it had increased by 1.6 percentage points over the preceding eight years.
Increased crime? Not a measure of prosperity but obviously a result of the increased prosperity of others and an administration determined to provide taxpayers (and business) needed tax cuts and relief from taking care of those who refused to work. Economics cannot dictate HOW those feeding at the trough continued to pay their bills. Prosperity provided job opportunities, but apparently many chose crime over a job.
No Way Out: Stimulus and Money Printing Are the Only Path Left
Not only do they have to keep rolling the debt over, but they have to continue to create even MORE of it.
The only way to keep rates low is for the Fed to keep buying the debt back, monetizing the debt, creating more inflation.
The alternative is a market bust. Pick your poison.
I knew it would happen.
.
No, that is not how it went.
The Carter administration mostly held the line on US Federal debt. But Federal Government spending was still increasing, so to make up the difference there was a lot of money printing.
Reagan's (Volker's) "miracle" was not really that. All they did was to end the money printing and let interest rates seek their level in a free market. Government spending levels did not change much under Reagan. But the government was also borrowing (selling more bonds) and due to that activity, interest rates spiked upwards.
PS: A lot more crime goes unreported now than years ago. People have the perception that authorities won't do much about it, so the victims don't report everything.
.
Facts will disagree.....big increase in deficit spending during Reagan. 5% deficits. In today's dollars that's $1.25 trillion. Funny how we bash the deficit spending today but say it was OK 40 years ago even though it was relatively the same. Ya just can't make up this kind of hypocrisy.
Knowledge is the enemy of fear
Heh the spending was perfectly fine 4-8 years ago when it was almost twice the pace as it is now. Time to bankrupt this baby like another Atlantic City casino. 🍿RGDS!
.
The Carter administration had higher taxes and more money printing to keep the US Government budget deficit in check.
The Reagan administration had lower taxes, less money printing, and higher interest rates. As such, the budget deficit naturally widened. Also, Regan waged and "won" the Cold War (which required a lot of spending).
Note this Federal Budget chart (as a percentage of gross GDP), especially 1943 (WW2), 2009 (housing bubble aftermath), and 2020 (Covid-19 pandemic).
.