Reganomics & 'trickle down economics'

[fdiron]

If you are a crazed democrat, please do not reply to this thread.  My questions is- Did Reganomics and 'trickle down economics' work? Also, what was the cause of the slumping economy in the early 80s?

 I am a freshmen college student who works part-time, and there are lots of Regan and Bush bashers at my part-time job.  Unfortunately my ignorance of 70s and 80s economic policies has hindered me in offering a valid argument that Regan & Bush 'plunged the U.S. into one of its darkest economic periods' as my co-workers like to state.

[easymo]

"what was the cause of the slumping economy in the early 80s?"

Jimmy Carter.

[midnight Target]

Do I qualify as a "Crazed Democrat"?

easymo.....your slip is showing dude! Don't you remember the "fight inflation" buttons during Ford's administration? Carter may have been inept, but the economy was in a frazzel before he came along.

Admittedly he didn't help it much. I think you will find the recession of the early 80's to be mostly "bad feelings" by the American people. We (in general) were pretty low on ourselves at that time, and I think the economy reflected that feeling.

Reagan and Bush had nothing to do with the slumping economy of the early 80's, they were responsible for the crash of the early 90's. Reagan spent us into a debt that was unprecedented in history. Yes he buried Russia with this plan, but it did contribute to the recession of 91-92.

[easymo]

You will never sell that one to me, tah gut.  I was there. Just starting out, with 3 babies to feed.  Everything was going O.K.  Then Jimmy got in, and people just flat stopped buying thing.

He was a fine, decent man. But he had no business being anywhere near the White House.

[H. Godwineson]

The economy functions best and produces the most prosperity when it is left alone.  Government attempts to "diddle with it" usually only produce pork-barrel legislation that gets Congressmen reelected.

Besides, the economic cycle is going to slide up and down regardless of who is in office.  

The "economic crisis" which led to George Bush's political downfall in 1992 wasn't nearly as bad as the press and the democrats made it out to be.  According to economic reports that came out AFTER the election was over, the economy had grown by nearly 5% in the last quarter of 1992.  Vigorous growth by anybody's standards.

I remember Peter Jennings hosting a special report on the economic crisis during the 1992 election period in which he interviewed some families of auto-mobile workers who were worried about the POSSIBILITY of losing their jobs due to rumored lay-offs.  As he opened the program, he was standing in the driveway of their home, which contained two late-model automobiles.  The home itself cost at least 200,000 dollars.  Inside it was packed with expensive amenities.

I can understand being worried about a possible layoff.  A lot of industries at that time were down-sizing and reorganizing.  But come on!  A recession in this country doesn't mean what it does in a third-world country.  

My parents and grand-parents lived through the Great Depression.  To hear Clinton describe the depression of the early 1990's as the worst depression in the nation's history was to hear the height of political pomposity.

Regards, Shuckins

[miko2d]

It is very hard to separate the effects of any particular cause when everything else is changing a lot.

 Of course it may well be that Hayek- inspired Reagan's and Thatcher's reversal of Keynesian "central planning/spending" economic policies were the major factor in the incredible growth of US and British economies in the late 80s and through the 90s, continuing today.
 But at the same time technology  changed drastically. Computers became commonplace, many other technologies too that caused productivity increases. How does anyone ever separate the effects?

midnight Target: Reagan spent us into a debt that was unprecedented in history.
 That is a liberal mantra exploiting the common american ignorance about financial matters - and based on the fact that US does not track current and capital spending separately.
 Everyone knows how much debt increased in Reagan's years. Nobody asks how much our net worth increased in the same years.

 When I bought a house, I spent my family into a debt that was unprecedented in history (of my family, et least). But did my net worth really change? Not a bit. I owed money to the bank but I own the house worth the same amount.
 While my financial situation did not really change with the purchase of a house and assuming a huge debt, the house did allow me to expand my family (added a dog and a baby), grow a lot of vegetables in my back yard, open a home business for my wife and improve our quality of life significantly.
 If you just look at my liabilities and ignore my assets, your picture will be very far from reality.

 Many private companies carry a lot of debt but nobody worries untill that debt exeeds their capital assets. That's why they borrow money - in order to buy capital assets, expand and grow. Without borrowing there would hardly be any growth in private sector.

 During Reagan's years our debt did grow. But most of it was spent on what should be classified as capital improvements. Our assets - roads, briges, airports, other infrastructure, military hardware, etc. grew too. And most of those were helpfull in ensuring the productivity growth of the following decades.

 miko

[Otto]

Ronald Reagan firing the Air Controllers....  It brings tears of joy to my eyes everytime I think about it....  Those were the days...... 'sigh'

[fdiron]

Just did some checking on my own.  Regan lead the United States into its second largest growth period ever.  From 1983 to 1989 there was an average economic growth of about 3.1%.

The website I got this info from also said that the democratics were unwilling to reduce budget spending so Regan introduced a large tax cut in order to combat this.

Oh yeah, Regan contributed a large part to the downfall of USSR, preventing nuclear war blah blah blah.

The more I research this period of time, the more I realise how much better Regan and Bush were than 'slick willy'.

[airspro]

I suppose you all never heard of INFLATION ? Figure that into your comutations .

[midnight Target]

Carter cannot be blamed for the double-digit inflation that peaked on his watch, because inflation started growing in 1965 and snowballed for the next 15 years. To battle inflation, Carter appointed Paul Volcker as Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, who defeated it by putting the nation through an intentional recession. Once the threat of inflation abated in late 1982, Volcker cut interest rates and flooded the economy with money, fueling an expansion that lasted seven years. Neither Carter nor Reagan had much to do with the economic events that occurred during their terms.

Go



here

for the real truth

[GRUNHERZ]

Yes Target thanks for that unbiased review.

That piece of trash comes from this left wing propaganda  website:

http://www.korpios.org/resurgent/LiberalFAQ.htm

[capt. apathy]

If you are a crazed democrat, please do not reply to this thread. My questions is- Did Reganomics and 'trickle down economics' work? Also, what was the cause of the slumping economy in the early 80s?

interesting way to get answers.

let me rephrase your question-

does the republican economic system work?  please only republicans reply.

of course republican believe voodoo economics work. if they didn't believe that, they would be democrats.

[fdiron]

Capt. Apathy, did you not read the part about crazed democrats not being allowed to post?

[midnight Target]

Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Yes Target thanks for that unbiased review.

That piece of trash comes from this left wing propaganda  website:

http://www.korpios.org/resurgent/LiberalFAQ.htm

Grunherz my friend, sometimes even Rush Limbaugh gets his facts straight. The source may be less important than the content. Look at the facts in the report and try to show how they are wrong.