If you knew how the government worked, you would know that The Congress passes
budgets. The Democratically controlled Congress (particularly the House)
outspent Reagan's proposed spending budgets 7 out of 8 years. As the Reagan tax
cuts kicked in, tax REVENUES rose, and roughly doubled. A country nearly on life
support in 1981 with sky high interest rates, staggering inflation, high
unemployment, and general malaise / stagflation of the Carter era becamse a
thundering economy by the middle-late 1980s. Similarly, the tax REVENUES have
been rising sharply since 2002.
Ever been to the racetrack? Been around knowledgeable, serious players?
Everyone reads the same information (Racing Form, past performances)
and come to all kinds of different conclusions on how a race will be run
and what the past predicts for the future. The debates are pretty
intense but when the race is over those who were wrong shrug it off and
go right back at it. Just like economists. Figures don't speak but
pundits do and being right is *all* important (even for wannabe
economists on Usenet). And when wrong? Well..., that never happens,
does it? Its all a matter of personal perspective.
Seems the starting point for proving anything is up for grabs. Everyone
has favorites. I see you like to ridicule Carter but don't mention the
oil problems (Arab oil embargo). Those to the left like to credit FDR
with creating the middle class and Reagan policies with eroding it. It
*does* seem to be eroding.
And when the economy is booming the criteria for giving credit depends
on who's giving it. Like Reagan being responsible for the good Clinton
Since we're currently in the process of killing for oil (and eroding the
Constitution in the process) while friends of Bush and the military
industrial complex get rich (Bush finally admitted it was all about oil)
it might be interesting to note what Carter had to say about oil back in 77.
The oil embargo began before Carter. I don't ridicule him for that, I merely
that his policies (actually lack of of thereof) caused a lot of people pain and
fortunately the USA has not seen anything like that 1970s extremely high
and inflation anytime since.
If you consider greatly extending a depression for over a decade while people
in Keysnian policies to be "creating the middle class," than so be it. FDR did
important thing, he gave Americans pride and hope however.
Since middle class incomes nearly doubled during the Reagan years and
much less than the Carter years, imagine if those policies *hadn't* been
Reagan inherited an economy that was by far the worst since the Depression, with
unemployment 7.4% and rising. Prime rates were around 21% (!). Poverty rates
high and still rising. The next years would see a remarkable turn around,
unemployment plummeted and pooverty rates dropped. High taxes prevent people
doing better and the lower taxes that followed helped middle, upper, and lower
classes. 82% of the job creation during the Reagan economy years were in high
high paying occupations.
Don't be so quick to dismiss what happened. Reagan ran on a theme of cutting
tax rates, and he did succeed getting the Democratic Congress to (begrudgingly)
those reductions in the early years. (Unfortunately, the same Congress's
would not be reigned in). Reducing tax rates means more money is available in
economy for investing in technology, investing in workers, investing in
etc. That provides a powerful economic multiplier effect over time. If taxes
1980s or 1990s were still at 1970s levels, the expansions could never have
(The 1980s expansion was the greatest in history, followed by the 1990s). Yes
were still cyclical downturns, yet these have been relatively very minor
those in prior history.
That is a very loaded statement. If we were "killing for oil," oil prices would
decreased. Also, there dooesn't appear to be too much oil in Afghanistan
has the US been stealing oil out of Iraq, despite overturning the dictator regime
I recall Carter's approach to the failing economy was to wear a cardigan.
My bet is on economic expansion through less government and lower tax rates, no
party may be in charge.. It's not a US phenomenon either, Japan's economy was
a tailspin when they rose tax rates a number of years back, and Russia
discoovered that their
economy boomed (and they collected more taxes) after they reduced their income
arouond 5-7 years ago, despite the international "experts" that told them to do
My bet is the rich (who got all the tax breaks) will *continue* to sit
on the money and within a couple of decades there will be no more middle
class. Plenty of war, though, for friends of Bush. Had a look at Wall
Street this week?
Do you believe history repeats? Here's some interesting stuff I
stumbled across while cleaning my garage from a book entitled "My Four
Years in Germany" (1917) written by a former Ambassador to Germany,
James W. Gerard.
"The war against Denmark in 1864, against Austria, Bavaria, etc., in
1866 and against France in 1870 enormously increased both the pride and
prestige of the Prussian army."
"The nobles of Prussia are always for war. The businessmen and
manufacturers and ship owners desire an increasing field for their
activities. The German colonies were uninhabitable by Europeans. All
his life the glittering Emperor and his generals had planned and thought
of war; and the Crown Prince, surrounded by his remarkable collection of
relics and reminders of Napoleon, dreamed only of taking the lead in a
successful war of conquest. Early in the winter of 1913-14, the Crown
Prince showed his collection of Napoleana to a beautiful American woman
of my acquaintance, and said that he hoped war would occur while his
father was alive, but, if not, he would start a war the moment he came
to the throne."
And from page 79 this jewel of familiarity:
"The fact the Socialists, at the close of the session of the Reichstag,
boldly remained in the Chamber and refused to rise or to cheer the name
of the Emperor indicated a new spirit of resistance to autocracy; and
autocracy saw that if it was to keep its hold upon Germany it must lead
the nation into a short and successful war."
"This is no new trick of a ruling and aristocratic class. From the days
when the patricians of Rome forced the people into war whenever the
people showed a disposition to demand their rights, autocracies have
always turned to war as the best antidote against the spirit of
democracy." [end quotes]
Tax reductions went to *everyone* paying taxes, and also to people who now do
not have to pay any
taxes thanks to higher exclusion rates for the bottom income levels, including
the "earned income
credit." By the way, tax receipts have also increased. Your comment, "sit on
the money," does not
make any sense either, and indicates you think that wealth somehow just moves
instead of being created in an economy.
You didn't make any connections, just rambling unconnected sentences.
Heh, Usenet. You *could* be like a character out of a Woody Allen movie
who pretends to be the owner of a car that was just bumped *or* you
could be an apprentice at some right wing think tank. Maybe a
legitimate think tank fellow (if there is such a thing) with too much
time on his hands. Same for me. We don't know. That's why I used the
race track analogy and it applies here again. We each have our favorite
touts and sources that inform and support our particular leanings so why
get too personal? We can be more efficient (you should appreciate that)
by simply posting links instead of long winded exchanges. ;)
I have a few friends who are quite wealthy (one who recently ran for
public office as a republican) and they don't share your analysis that
the tax breaks were good for *everyone*. Nor have they invested any of
their windfall. Myself, I find *these* analysis's of the tax breaks and
Reaganomics to ring true.
However, the race continues. There is no winners circle in the game of
history and economics. The lead changes, people congratulate themselves
and high five each other but soon the lead changes again.
For example a year ago you no doubt would have been lavishing praise on
the genius of subprime loans and the refinancing craze. Investment banks
bundling mortgages of subprime borrowers and selling them off to
investors such as hedge funds, mutual funds and other institutional
investors. Brilliant. Bookies call that "laying off dangerous bets."
This week the European Central Bank loaned 130 *billion* at 4 percent
and the Federal Reserve added 24 billion in temporary reserves to the
U.S. Banking system. Heh, proof of genius's at work and a system so
brilliant that for the first time we have something that human greed
can't screw it up. And as the housing market collapses there is the
usual chorus of conservatives blaming the consumers. Just like with
credit card debt.
For "Wall Street" see above. As for friends of Bush profiting from war,
I thought it was common knowledge. Haliburton, Kellogg Brown & Root,
Carlyle Group, etc..
One thing I've noticed is that dedicated true blue conservative
economists don't seem to ever make a connection between policy and its
effect on the general population or even democracy itself. Some sort of
narcissism subtly expressed? The backslapping and the transfer of
wealth continues but what lies in store for the recorders of history?
Of course, when I say "true blue conservative economists" I exclude the
Bush's and other Aristocrats and representatives of the ruling class.
Their tactics to undermine democracy and enrich themselves do seem
timeless as per the historical example in my prior post. ;)
Here's a piece that resonates with me that you no doubt will find much
fault with: (meanwhile, on to the next race)
Not sure why a smart person would think sub-prime loans were a good idea
as you imply. What you just did is called a strawman argument. Nice try.
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with the letter 'x')
I'm not a right winger, I am an economist. There is a huge difference.
Wow, alleged anecodoal evidence! So did these "friends" take the money *not*
confiscated by the
government and stuff it under their beds, if it wasn't being invested?
Would you really like to return to Jimmy Carter's America and it's malaise?
Your source conveniently hides the fact that tax REVENUE nearly doubled after
the Reagan tax cuts by
forgetting to point out Congress was spending ludicrously in the 1980s, and
outspent Reagan's budget 7 of
8 fiscal years.
If you get a raise of double your income and increase your spending over three
times by spending
wastefully, it's not your raise's fault that you're going broke.
So you are claiming that the entire subprime mortgage market is not a legitimate
one? Would you call for
What about refinancing? Should homeowners not be permitted to seek a more
favorable rate to pay in your
There will always be market abnormalities and corrections. Look how tiny and
insignificant they are
today compared to decades ago.
Really? You equate investing with bookies? Interesting, but a strawman fallacy,
So are you saying that the central banking systems should not take action?
Sounds like they are doing
Yeah, if you go ring up huge amounts of credit card debt buying 'stuff' that you
can't pay for, someone
*made* you do it, and it's society's fault!
Isn't everyone nowdays? Economists and Foreign Relations experts from
tax sheltered think tanks.
Calm down, its *anecdotal*. They're just sitting on it mostly via
savings. Does that expand the economy and create jobs. Oh well, live
and learn. *You're* the economist.
You seem to have missed my point about no winners circle. ;)
And set the stage for poor Bush senior to panic and blow it while at the
same time setting the stage for all those retards in the Clinton
administration to build up a surplus. I swear, the more I look into
this economics business the more I find myself thinking about the
parallels to religion. So many preachers, so many interpretations. So
little consensus and so much ridicule.
Is *that* your interpretation? Hmmm, are you saying today that its all
hunky dory? (I guess my presumption of what you would say last year is
correct). BTW, is putting words into peoples mouths part of the job of
Now you're going a little beyond silly. ;)
I think I alluded to that already. Part of my main point.
Actually, its a *perfect* analogy. Bookies "lay off" high risks bets.
Either to other bookies or have a carrier go to the track itself. They
learned the value of this strategy the hard way.
You *do* seem to have trouble understanding what I'm saying. If you
have a spouse I'll bet he/she just *loves* arguing with you.
To borrow some style from you.... So...., you think predatory lending
and lending institutions literally writing the laws that govern them is
just part of the wonderful miracle of the free market system?
I did a quick check of how many helpful (on topic) posts you and Bill
have offered to my favorite newsgroup and found it is none. So..., Bill
is toast (so annoying anyway) and I'll give you a parting shot if you
wish. (matter of respect for others with problems that actually pertain
to the name of the newsgroup)
Hey idiot - I don't normaly post on ...gm or ...toyota. You're
cross-posting, so this is showing up on groups I don't normally post to.
If I had to choose on whether you are dishonest, or stupid, I choose
mostly dishonest, but also a good bit of stupid. Case in point: Citing
one week variation in stock market to make broad conclusions.
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with the letter 'x')
If only! We'd all be in better shape. Unfortunately too few people understand
even basic personal
finances let alone simple macro. I see this even in college students. The best
I can do is make sure that
*my* students are challenged and are much further ahead than their average peers.
Absolutely it does!!! When you save money by putting it in a bank, you enable
that bank to make loans to
others, including homes, businesses, construction, etc. Some of that money
saved or earned through those
investments is placed in a bank again. This is what is known as the multiplier
effect, and it is a very
powerful function of our economy. This is also part of the reason why there is
not some fixed amount of
wealth that must be moved around. Wealth can be and is created, including
expansions of the money supply.
That is why you can use the luxury of hindsight to examine economies over many
decades and see what has
happened and its effects. If "poor Bush senior paniced and blew it" is that
on-par with some of the great
economic failures? Of course he didn't panic and blow anything. We know that
Clinton for the most part
took a laissez faire attitude with monetary policy and that led to good results.
(I really am party
agnostic). His fiscal policies were pretty damned lousy in the first two years,
but his own fiscal
policies (as well as his Treasurer) became much more conservative after the new
Congress was sworn in in
1995, and that led to great results too, for a while.
Usually macro comes after 101.
I didn't put any words into mouths, I merely asked a question. Your response
was only another question.
Not as much as complaining about a "refinancing craze." I'm sure glad I was
able to re-finance my
properties, it has saved me handsomely.
I'll leave to your expertise of how bookies work..... Packaging loans (to the
quasi-government institutions) has enabled millions of homeowoners to own their
properties for decades.
No, I understand what you're saying and it is a series of non-sequiturs.
Complaining about the central
banks doing their job doesn't merit a sarcastic comment aboout "geniuses" or
A strawman question, as it doesn't relate to what I wrote. The people elect
I'm not surprised. How many of yours did you find helpful? It is fascinating
to read complaining about
off-topic in an off topic post :)
Bill knows more about LH cars than almost anyone here and is always eager to
help out, offer suggestions,
and answer questions. You might learn something, if you were interested.
Let's see if I understand this;
Anything bad that happened
during the Clinton presidency is Clintons fault.
But anything bad that happened during the BUSH fiasco
is Clinton's or Congress' fault.
Who writes your material?? .... Rush Limbaugh ?
Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.