Were Raeganomics really all that bad?
- Thread starter Inarticulate_Underachiever
- Start date
Recommended Videos
What the hell is 'Raeganomics'?
I've never heard of it.
and If it's a mis-spelling of something... I probably still haven't heard of it.
I've never heard of it.
and If it's a mis-spelling of something... I probably still haven't heard of it.
It's actually Reaganomics, U.S Prez Ronald Reagan's economic plan.Greyfox105 said:
Edit: It failed because of the few got rich and the rest (Middle class Americans) was pushed farther into the ground.
If I could remember what Reaganomics were, aside from an economic policy implemented by Ronald Reagan, I could tell you.
Well I've heard plenty of people say Reaganomics ruined the western business sectors and completely buggered up the economy but if people benefitted from it could it have really been as bad as people say?D_987 said:
Whether you agree with the principles that Reagan used or not, your argument is just plain silly. Apply the same logic to the holocaust.Inarticulate_Underachiever said:
"I mean, it gave the jews their like, own country, so in the end its a good thing, right?"
Wrong.
The concept of very low taxes and minimal government involvevement in the daily lives of citizens is great. The concept of increasing the military while fighting overseas adventures against drugs, granting pardons and citizinship to all illegal immigrants, and spending more than the government brings in are not great.
Being born in 1992 I have only a small idea of what Reagonomics is but from what I heard it gave tax breaks to the rich which is a STUPID IDEA!
It was an abject failure. It took Keynesian deficit finance, and applied it incorrectly (that is to say, it spent more money than the government made during an economic boom! FAIL. As is a low interest rate! High interest for boom, low for bust, you incompetent fuck!)
I hate it when people make comments like this, IRL or on the internet. It just shows how ignorant people are when it comes to principles of economics and free market capitalism.wouldyoukindly99 said:
It's none of our business how much people make! What right does anyone have to limit anyone else's potential? That includes the government.
Whatever happened to the concept of equality? Nowadays equality is being replaced with the idea of "fairness". Equality is objective, fairness is subjective. Equality is obvious. Fairness depends on someone to decide what "fair" is and then take action to punish or reward someone to make sure things remain "fair". I'll take equality over fairness any day.
I make $5 a day. If I'm taxed 10% of my income, so should the guy who makes $5 million a day.
Reagonomics are sound economic principles and policies that people should emulate. Anyone who understands the principles of economics and the capitalist free market system can speak to this.
So your idea of equality is letting people who make more money pay less taxes and the ones who make less pay more? Taxes should be directly proportional to income.Novan Leon said:
And if you want to talk about limiting people's potential how about the fact that my family can barely pay our bills, because they're so high, even though they work 50+ hours a week? My parents are honest, hard-working people; why can't their taxes be lowered?
'Reaganomics' and supply-side economics, while related, are not the same. The goal of 'Reaganomics' was to reduce taxes and government spending simultaneously, alongside significant deregulation of business and financial systems, in an effort to stimulate business spending and growth. While the Reagan Administration was successful in reducing the tax burden, especially on high earners, spending, especially on defense and foreign aid, skyrocketed, leading, predictably, to huge deficits.
It's ironic that this era is pointed to as a vindication of supply-side economics (typically in opposition to Keynesian policies) when these policies were in fact a massive increase in government spending coupled with tax cuts, a classic Keynesian prescription for growth (of course, at the cost of mounting debt).
The Laffer Curve is another concept that frequently surfaces during discussions of Reagan's economic policy. In a nutshell, it's an economist's attempt to graph government revenue as a function of the income tax rate. The Laffer model argues that in certain conditions (i.e. excessive taxes) a reduction in tax rates will result in an increase in government revenue, as the increased incentive to produce (reduced taxes are an effective wage/profit hike) increases production more than enough to compensate for the reduced rate of taxation.
http://www.cynicalnation.com/img2/laffer.gif
Looking at this graph, we can see that this makes sense for an economy at point B, a high rate of taxation, but will backfire, at least from a revenue perspective, at the equilibrium point or point A.
In short, we weren't at point B in 1980, hence the deficits.
It's ironic that this era is pointed to as a vindication of supply-side economics (typically in opposition to Keynesian policies) when these policies were in fact a massive increase in government spending coupled with tax cuts, a classic Keynesian prescription for growth (of course, at the cost of mounting debt).
The Laffer Curve is another concept that frequently surfaces during discussions of Reagan's economic policy. In a nutshell, it's an economist's attempt to graph government revenue as a function of the income tax rate. The Laffer model argues that in certain conditions (i.e. excessive taxes) a reduction in tax rates will result in an increase in government revenue, as the increased incentive to produce (reduced taxes are an effective wage/profit hike) increases production more than enough to compensate for the reduced rate of taxation.
http://www.cynicalnation.com/img2/laffer.gif
Looking at this graph, we can see that this makes sense for an economy at point B, a high rate of taxation, but will backfire, at least from a revenue perspective, at the equilibrium point or point A.
In short, we weren't at point B in 1980, hence the deficits.
One can definitely argue about that. It's off-topic, so I'll keep it short. The Soviet Union was economically defunct from years of questionable policies and political and military overextension. While this was certainly worsened by attempts to match the Reagan Administration's enormous military spending, the proximate cause of the collapse was the loosening of the Brezhnev doctrine (which asserted the right of the Soviet Union to intervene directly in satellite states to maintain sympathetic regimes there). This lead to revolutions all across Central and Eastern Europe in 1989, which, of course, was the collapse of the Soviet Union.farson135 said:
How is 10% of $5,000,000 less than 10% of $5? Explain that to me.wouldyoukindly99 said:
Your story is heartbreaking but your argument is an appeal to emotion. You're advocating inequality (taxing some people more than others) based purely on emotional grounds. If you wanted to reduce taxes for everyone, that would be a different matter entirely.
There's also a practical argument, which Wouldyoukindly's story leads to. Under a flat-tax system, the amount of revenue the government can raise is capped at a certain level, because taxing an income of $20k 20% leaves only $16k, while that same tax rate on $100k leaves $80k. Taking 20% from the poor family may make the difference between eating thrice daily and twice, while taxing the richer family at the same rate makes the difference between a Beemer and a Honda. The amount of the money taken may be greater, but its effect is much smaller. A progressive tax regime (one which taxes higher income brackets at a higher rate) allows higher revenues without wiping out poor taxpayers.Novan Leon said: