Were Raeganomics really all that bad?

[tan-z]

Who are you to say how people should be paid? This kind of blind arrogance is dangerous to say the least. The free market determines how much money people make based on supply and demand. It's none of yours or my business how much money people make or how they make it (as long as it's not illegal of course).

Oh dear......

Listen, we had a free market here in england over a hundred years ago and it was probably one of the worst times in this countries history, the working classes were treated like shit by their employees who payed them horrifically low wages and conspired against them and their efforts to get better conditions. Anyone who claims to be in support of the 'free'-market is kidding themselves. Free-markets haven't existed in any western countries for years and for good reason. Just look at somewhere like chile, they were pretty much screwed over by the chicago boys and their rhetoric about 'free'-markets, it was only until they got a healthy dose of socialism that things started working out for the better.

And frankly if I see someone being payed criminally low amounts of money but with no other option than to take that job then yes it is my business and societies business for that matter. The 'free'-market method of determining how much people should and shouldn't earn is inhuman.

 

[cleverlymadeup]

well let's see tax revenue was down due to the rich not paying as much, people weren't spending money cause they were broke from high taxation so the economy took a dive

Nothing you're saying is correct. I'm not sure where you're getting these ideas.

actually that IS how recessions happen, maybe you should learn some basic economics

you seriously believe that the super rich pay a lot in taxes? sorry but they don't, see they can hire enough accountants that know the loopholes they can receive and there by get away with not paying taxes. yes you heard me right there are a bunch of the super rich that don't pay any taxes what so ever.

sure some of it is donations here and there but the majority of them get paid a ton of money that's free and clear of any tax thanks to stuff like reganomics. Bush Jr was big proponent of that type of taxation he continually cut the taxes and gave more breaks to the super rich than he did to the middle or lower class, who are the ones that really needed it.

seriously go find out how much some people that make 100 million plus a year get taxed, i'll tell you right now it's no where near 50 million a year

You are talking about tax evasion, which is illegal. How in the world will taxing people more prevent tax evasion? It might even encourage it. You're not making any sense.

WRONG that's NOT tax evasion. there are tons of loopholes for the super rich to get out of not paying taxes. them earning a small salary and then having $20 million in tax free bonuses is not tax evasion it's just the way they get paid so they only "earn" smaller amounts of money

i really think you need to give your head a shake and go find out what these people actually get away with

 

[The Infamous Scamola]

Spoiler: Press me I'm Irish.

What the demotivator says, pretty much. Reagan's economic policies are one of the causes of this little recession we've got going on now.

 

[BonsaiK]

I lived through Reagaonomics. It was a disaster for the US from what I can remember. I can't recall at the time one single media commentator of ANY political persuasion having anything good to say about it, not once.

 

[Monshroud]

What? You've been on the forums long enough to know you need to put sufficient detail in your OP...

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?

Well if memory serves, the idea was by shrinking regulations and giving tax breaks to the rich and big business, they would spend the money they weren't putting into taxes which would create jobs to create more product, which would lead to more employment and development. Hence why it was called 'trickle down economics'.

The problem was that the rich and big business didn't spend their money on more product, they invested the money in other ways or just saved it, so it didn't work out as intended.

This is why the middle-class and poor have only negative things to say about it. In theory it was supposed to help them, all they saw was the rich getting richer and they got no benefit...

 

[cobra_ky]

actually Reagonomics was what caused all the financial issues of the early 90s and the big crash the market had, it was also behind the one this decade as well

you're blaming the wrong republicans, actually.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramm-Leach-Bliley_Act
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodity_Futures_Modernization_Act_of_2000

 

[VanityGirl]

Honestly, I'd say tax everyone equally. There's a reasoning behind my argument and it's selfish at best.
It seems a lot of people have resentment for the rich, which is understandable if you look at people like, I don't know, Paris Hilton.
But could you really hate on someone who has climbed through the ranks and become a successful person on their own merit? Would it honestly be ok to then tax that person to oblivion? I think not.
I say this because, while my mother's not rich, she's been climbing a corporate ladder for a long, long time. When she becomes a VP, I'm sure she'll get more money. Now, considering my mother has been working for about 25 years and maybe start making some serious moolah(not millions) in 5-10 years, I don't think she deserves to get taxed to death.

Seriously, not everyone in the world is a rich little douchebag who never had to work for their money.
I want my mother to do well so that she can finally have the things she wants for putting me and my brother through school. I don't want her to have to worry about being taxed too much.

 

[yaik7a]

Because many people don?t know what Reaganomics is I will explain it.
Reaganomics (AKA Trickle down economic theory or supply side economics (its actual name)) is basically the premise that if you cut taxes for businesses they will hire more people, increase wages for those who deserve it, and in general create a ?trickle down effect? that will eventually make people better off. This is a slight oversimplification but if you want an in depth guide then read and economics book.
As for the idea of whether or not Reaganomics was good apply this. Were people better off before Reagan came into office or after? The answer in my mind is people were far better off under Reagan than under Carter (I advise you read up about the presidencies of both before you decide)
Of course some are going to rip on Reagan for the debt that he created and I advise those people to read up on the Grace Commission where Reagan tried to make government more efficient. Also people might want to remember he tried to make it federal law that congress had to balance the budget and he also wanted a line item veto that would allow him to stop that useless pork barrel spending. As for the military well we have the most powerful military in the world (that was very much in question when Reagan took office) and none can logically argue about the fact that Reagan?s military policy lead to the downfall of the Soviet Union so his policies worked when they were both implemented and implemented properly.

No Reagan's dishonesty , dirty politics , disregard for freedom and democracy and support for
right wing dictator ships did , and the states is better off with Obama then bush who
started the economic problems with his "Chosen by god" policy's and metal retardation.
just my 2 cents .

 

[axia777]

How is Reagan a fiscal conservative? He ran up the highest deficit in US history (excluding Bush). How is that good? It is not. The only President to recently leave us with a positive deficit was Clinton, end of story, /Thread.

 

[SamuraiAndPig]

How is Reagan a fiscal conservative? He ran up the highest deficit in US history (excluding Bush). How is that good? It is not. The only President to recently leave us with a positive deficit was Clinton, end of story, /Thread.

Agreed. I don't really get why they call themselves "conservatives" when they actually don't conserve. Politcal affiliation aside, that's really just a fact. The corporate principal behind Reaganomics is that if you give companies more money and lower taxes, then they'll use the extra income to create more jobs and better worker benfits, otherwise known as The Buddy System. It works if you have someone making sure they actually do that, ah la labor unions. But Reagan was decidedly against unions, and oversight in general, so coincidentally, during the 80s is when American outsourcing became the new mode of production. It's cheaper to get someone else to make a product and then import it. Of course, that also involves lowering trade taxes, so that's even more money the government loses. Additionally, it moves production jobs out of the US, which is how you end up with places like Flint, Michigan or my own Camden, NJ - going from perfectly viable cities with tons of industry to gigantic slums. The average income here in NJ is around 66,000/year, and the average in the city of Camden is 18,000/year. You can pretty much draw a line from Reaganomics to the production jobs leaving, and with it all of the income and sales tax. And then comes all the crime and social issues, which means the city or county ends up spending more money on crime control than restoring jobs. In the end you just get a big unliveable mess.

 

[Novan Leon]

Oh dear......

Listen, we had a free market here in england over a hundred years ago and it was probably one of the worst times in this countries history, the working classes were treated like shit by their employees who payed them horrifically low wages and conspired against them and their efforts to get better conditions. Anyone who claims to be in support of the 'free'-market is kidding themselves. Free-markets haven't existed in any western countries for years and for good reason. Just look at somewhere like chile, they were pretty much screwed over by the chicago boys and their rhetoric about 'free'-markets, it was only until they got a healthy dose of socialism that things started working out for the better.

And frankly if I see someone being payed criminally low amounts of money but with no other option than to take that job then yes it is my business and societies business for that matter. The 'free'-market method of determining how much people should and shouldn't earn is inhuman.

Drastic changes to the working conditions during the Industrial Revolution were prompted by the organization of labor unions (the people, not the government), who stood up for worker's rights and opposed the factory owners. The labor unions also lobbied the government for laws around safety and human decency (no child labor, no 15 hour work days, etc). While these laws definitely DO have an economic impact, they were created uphold non-economic principles of basic human decency, not to control the marketplace directly. Even then, their necessity is debatable.

Socialism is a failure wherever it is implemented, and our society has been growing more and more socialist over time. No doubt one day it will drag us into the ground as well.

actually that IS how recessions happen, maybe you should learn some basic economics

But everything you said was false. That's the point.

WRONG that's NOT tax evasion. there are tons of loopholes for the super rich to get out of not paying taxes. them earning a small salary and then having $20 million in tax free bonuses is not tax evasion it's just the way they get paid so they only "earn" smaller amounts of money

i really think you need to give your head a shake and go find out what these people actually get away with

Can you give some specific examples of people using a perfectly legal loophole to get out of not paying taxes? This is entirely beside the fact that you still can't explain how increasing taxes would close these loopholes. I don't want to be mean about it, but you're really just spouting nonsense.

What the demotivator says, pretty much. Reagan's economic policies are one of the causes of this little recession we've got going on now.

Can you explain how this works?

I lived through Reagaonomics. It was a disaster for the US from what I can remember. I can't recall at the time one single media commentator of ANY political persuasion having anything good to say about it, not once.

You, and many others on this forum are making the mistake of thinking the "economy during the Reagan era" and "Reaganomics" are the same thing. They're not.

No Reagan's dishonesty , dirty politics , disregard for freedom and democracy and support for
right wing dictator ships did , and the states is better off with Obama then bush who
started the economic problems with his "Chosen by god" policy's and metal retardation.
just my 2 cents .

I might point out that history is against you on this one. Pretty much everyone, including Nobel prize winning economists and people who opposed Reagan, would generally give him positive marks in these areas, particularly the economy.

How is Reagan a fiscal conservative? He ran up the highest deficit in US history (excluding Bush). How is that good? It is not. The only President to recently leave us with a positive deficit was Clinton, end of story, /Thread.

Reagan's deficit was due to the ramping up of the Cold War defense budget. Reagan increased military spending by a huge margin while decreasing government spending in other areas and reducing taxes. This ended up tripling the national debt to about $3 trillion (effectively adding $2 trillion to the deficit), supposedly a short-term necessary evil in the cause of winning the Cold War.

Bush added $2.5 trillion to the national deficit during his eight years in office, which includes the massive increase in defense spending. The CBO estimates for the Obama budget's impact on the deficit in the next eight years is already around $5 trillion.

Any arguments that involve Clinton are up for debate, since the Republicans had complete control of Congress during both Clinton terms.

 

[Samurai Goomba]

How is Reagan a fiscal conservative? He ran up the highest deficit in US history (excluding Bush). How is that good? It is not. The only President to recently leave us with a positive deficit was Clinton, end of story, /Thread.

It's been my experience that Presidents in war-type situations tend to react similarly with regard to spending. Politics don't really enter into the equation. Reagan had the Cold War to worry about, and the Soviets stockpiling atomic bombs. Clinton has some dust war that he started and didn't even win. A skeptic might suggest that it was a rather well-timed war, too, since it happened about the time he was coming under some heavy scrutiny in other areas.

Attempting an objective definition of equality in the context of economics is more trouble than herding cats. One might say that it's equality for workers to be paid the same hourly wage. One could say that all people should have the same standard of living, or that everyone should simply be left alone to fail or prosper. One might say that everyone should pay the same absolute amount, or the same portion of their income, or that it's inherently unequal for wealth to be redistributed at all.

You're buying into the premise that someone needs to make these decisions. This should be left up to each individual to decide for themselves. If I'm willing to pay $100 markup for a toothpick and the toothpick company makes massive profits, that's between me and the toothpick company.

The idea that some overriding authority needs to make decisions about what is right or wrong, fair or unfair, when it comes to our personal decisions, is both ignorant and arrogant.

I agree with the spirit of what you're saying, but no. In economic situations, we DO need watchdog groups (with government authority, otherwise they have no real power). Without somebody keeping big business in line, there's nothing to stop them from collaborating with each other to drive prices up, or building a monopoly. Sure, it's your choice to get ripped off or not on toothpicks when you have OTHER OPTIONS, but if all the toothpick companies are owned by one board of directors, you won't have any choice but to either buy at their price or do without.

And this works even less well with necessities, like water and electricity (which is kind of happening right now anyway, considering GE doesn't have much competition). Many people died in the 1900s because big business jacked up coal prices in the winter, and ice prices in the summer. Not to mention people like Jay Gould playing with the lives of millions of workers just to make a buck.

 

[Novan Leon]

I agree with the spirit of what you're saying, but no. In economic situations, we DO need watchdog groups (with government authority, otherwise they have no real power). Without somebody keeping big business in line, there's nothing to stop them from collaborating with each other to drive prices up, or building a monopoly. Sure, it's your choice to get ripped off or not on toothpicks when you have OTHER OPTIONS, but if all the toothpick companies are owned by one board of directors, you won't have any choice but to either buy at their price or do without.

And this works even less well with necessities, like water and electricity (which is kind of happening right now anyway, considering GE doesn't have much competition). Many people died in the 1900s because big business jacked up coal prices in the winter, and ice prices in the summer. Not to mention people like Jay Gould playing with the lives of millions of workers just to make a buck.

You're right, to an extent. Both price fixing and holding a monopoly are ways to circumvent the free market and establish unilateral control over a segment of a market. If allowed to continue, this would eventually lead to the downfall of the free market system altogether. There definitely should be laws in place to rectify this.

The difference between this, and having someone decide that making $100 million a year salary is wrong and taxing/regulating them accordingly, is the former prevents the circumvention of the free market, while the latter places a subjectively-decided penalty upon people who are too successful within the free market.

 

[tan-z]

Drastic changes to the working conditions during the Industrial Revolution were prompted by the organization of labor unions (the people, not the government), who stood up for worker's rights and opposed the factory owners. The labor unions also lobbied the government for laws around safety and human decency (no child labor, no 15 hour work days, etc). While these laws definitely DO have an economic impact, they were created uphold non-economic principles of basic human decency, not to control the marketplace directly. Even then, their necessity is debatable.

Well done, so you don't support free markets.

Socialism is a failure wherever it is implemented, and our society has been growing more and more socialist over time. No doubt one day it will drag us into the ground as well.

Socialism is a failure? Oh you mean like in russia? Where they had a hellish beuracratic state capitalism? Or in china were they had an oppressive dictatorship? Listen our society is not becoming more and more socialist, in fact I can see a clear move away from socialism. See what you fail to understand is that one of the key aspects of socialism is strong democratic controls over what goes were and what happens in workplaces, basically participatory economics. Frankly I can't see increasing democratisation anywhere, in fact I see more and more taking power away from people.

 

[Fatsmanmcgee]

But how many more did it leave out to dry? That's the more important question.

 

[Horticulture]

You're buying into the premise that someone needs to make these decisions. This should be left up to each individual to decide for themselves. If I'm willing to pay $100 markup for a toothpick and the toothpick company makes massive profits, that's between me and the toothpick company.

The idea that some overriding authority needs to make decisions about what is right or wrong, fair or unfair, when it comes to our personal decisions, is both ignorant and arrogant.

Where did the bit about price controls come from? Perhaps you spliced your response to another post into your quote from mine?

I'm not certain how disputing your claim that there is a single definition of equality in the context of taxation implies an overarching moral assumption on my part. I also don't appreciate your insinuations regarding my motives and qualifications. Insulting me does nothing to advance your arguments.

Exactly. This is why shrinking the size of government and reducing government waste is essential. This is a key tenet of Reaganomics by the way.

I don't think people realize how inefficient and wasteful the government really is. Other than the military, the IRS, and a very very few other select areas, there is almost nothing the government does better than the private sector.

I view the appropriate government role, especially in regard to services, more broadly, but that's well beyond the scope of this topic.

I will note that while the stated goal of Reagan's economic policy was to reduce spending, federal spending under his administration skyrocketed. You've acknowledged this in your post, as well, but the thread's long enough now that it deserves restating.

 

[cleverlymadeup]

actually that IS how recessions happen, maybe you should learn some basic economics

But everything you said was false. That's the point.

actually no it's not, go read up on the recession of the late 80s and early 90s

WRONG that's NOT tax evasion. there are tons of loopholes for the super rich to get out of not paying taxes. them earning a small salary and then having $20 million in tax free bonuses is not tax evasion it's just the way they get paid so they only "earn" smaller amounts of money

i really think you need to give your head a shake and go find out what these people actually get away with

Can you give some specific examples of people using a perfectly legal loophole to get out of not paying taxes? This is entirely beside the fact that you still can't explain how increasing taxes would close these loopholes. I don't want to be mean about it, but you're really just spouting nonsense.

well sorry i'm not up on American tax codes, so i can't pull out the exact ones but they do exist. i've run across articles that have shown how much tax the rich actually earn and pay

however they can easily close loopholes by increasing the tax on things such as gifts and other such devices that allow the rich to get away with paying less tax

 

[Horticulture]

well sorry i'm not up on American tax codes, so i can't pull out the exact ones but they do exist. i've run across articles that have shown how much tax the rich actually earn and pay

however they can easily close loopholes by increasing the tax on things such as gifts and other such devices that allow the rich to get away with paying less tax

One major contribution is made by the relatively low long-term capital gains tax rate in the U.S. It's certainly not a loophole, but it does allow the wealthy significant income at a flat rate of 15%, much lower than what they pay for earned income.

 

[Rooster Cogburn]

Drastic changes to the working conditions during the Industrial Revolution were prompted by the organization of labor unions (the people, not the government), who stood up for worker's rights and opposed the factory owners. The labor unions also lobbied the government for laws around safety and human decency (no child labor, no 15 hour work days, etc). While these laws definitely DO have an economic impact, they were created uphold non-economic principles of basic human decency, not to control the marketplace directly. Even then, their necessity is debatable.

Well done, so you don't support free markets.

Socialism is a failure wherever it is implemented, and our society has been growing more and more socialist over time. No doubt one day it will drag us into the ground as well.

Socialism is a failure? Oh you mean like in russia? Where they had a hellish beuracratic state capitalism? Or in china were they had an oppressive dictatorship? Listen our society is not becoming more and more socialist, in fact I can see a clear move away from socialism. See what you fail to understand is that one of the key aspects of socialism is strong democratic controls over what goes were and what happens in workplaces, basically participatory economics. Frankly I can't see increasing democratisation anywhere, in fact I see more and more taking power away from people.

If you don't mind my asking tan-z, which brand of anarchism do you subscribe to? I'm just curious about what is going on in the different schools.

EDIT: I'm also wondering why someone with Proudhon as an avatar would object to free markets. Even Bakunin would make more sense for that, it seems.