Debunking the Reagan Myth

[ribozyme]

economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2008/01/paul-krugman–1.html (Found it here)

nytimes.com/2008/01/21/opinion/21krugman.htm
クルグマン・パル:

Historical narratives matter. That’s why conservatives are still writing books denouncing F.D.R. and the New Deal; they understand that the way Americans perceive bygone eras, even eras from the seemingly distant past, affects politics today.
…

Bill Clinton knew that in 1991, when he began his presidential campaign. “The Reagan-Bush years,” he declared, “have exalted private gain over public obligation, special interests over the common good, wealth and fame over work and family. The 1980s ushered in a Gilded Age of greed and selfishness, of irresponsibility and excess, and of neglect.”

…

But where in his remarks was the clear declaration that Reaganomics failed?

For it did fail. The Reagan economy was a one-hit wonder. Yes, there was a boom in the mid-1980s, as the economy recovered from a severe recession. But while the rich got much richer, there was little sustained economic improvement for most Americans. By the late 1980s, middle-class incomes were barely higher than they had been a decade before — and the poverty rate had actually risen.

…

As usual, another enlightening article by クルグマン-先生.

I wonder why people want to follow the pathway to increased inequality and resentment. Why do people yen for the Gilded Age? Why does the GOP want to recapitulate that epoch and lionize people who want to further that agenda?

Also I thought the GOP was pro-family. Clinton was right: " “have exalted private gain over public obligation, special interests over the common good, wealth and fame over work and family." I am quizzical.

Regarding inequality, here’s a chart from クルグマン-先生.

“Next, incomes. These are inflation-adjusted after-tax income for the richest 1 percent and the middle quintile, from the Congressional Budget Office, both expressed as indexes with 1979=100. Big gains for the rich, not so much for the middle class”
krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/20/reaganomics/

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[steveandersen]

That is why I like the Economist
As a non-US based magazine they’re not emotionally tied to US politics and can afford to be a little more objective.

I remember the recession of the early 80s.
The runaway big government spending
The deficits
The scandals
I remember the post Reagan bust that transformed George HW Bush from a man with popularity so high that none of the big names in the Democratic party would run against him to a man who lost handily to an little known governor from a small state. (anyone remember the song “Hard Times” that used samples of the president’s voice?)

It is interesting the mention of the Gilded Age.
Since it was the progressive elements of the Republican Party such as TR who sought to break up the monopolies and reform eh tax codes that ended the Gilded Age.

 

[Ignatius]

As a non-US based magazine they’re not emotionally tied to US politics and can afford to be a little more objective.

The economist, objective? That’s hilarious. That’s as unlikely as them being accurate. The recently predicted continued growth! Have you looked at the Tokyo exchange today?

 

[system]

“The Reagan-Bush years,” he declared, “have exalted private gain over public obligation, special interests over the common good, wealth and fame over work and family. The 1980s ushered in a Gilded Age of greed and selfishness, of irresponsibility and excess, and of neglect.”

Wow! Clinton said that? He’s right.

I’m impressed.

The Reagan - Thatcher duo was the end of a fair deal for anyone but the rich. Their legacy is still harming the world.

 

[Muzhik]

You need to check out this site:

Generational Dynamics

and this PDF file that’s on the site:

A Bubble That Broke The World

It’s a PDF of a book published back in 1933 that describes why the Great Depression occurred. You could say almost the same conditions exist today – just change some of the names.

<><

 

[roanoker]

You state that the GOP is not pro-family. Are you actually implying that the democrats are? Do you not understand that it is the dems who are pro-choice, and who fought so hard against a partial birth abortion ban? Not the GOP-the democrats! How in the world can you prefer them over the GOP in regards to family values.
As for Reagan, he beat the Russians and ended the cold war. For that alone he should be sainted. The president has very little effect on the national economy-one way or the other…

 

[MelanieAnne]

Something that is missing here are facts.

Reagan got the lowered taxes he advocated, but he had less control, as President, over Congressional spending. (For those that need a refresher on how government works ~ go back to school and pay attention to the classes you slept through before! Congress, not the President, is ultimately in charge of government spending.)

The Democrats were in charge of Congress during the Reagan years, and therefore they were in charge of spending. So while lowered taxes actually increased tax receipts (an effect that ALWAYS happens when tax rates decrease but which is routinely ignored by Democrats, especially those running for high office and want to run on “tax cuts for the rich”) spending increased not only to match the increase in tax receipts, but to exceed it. So REAGAN was not responsible for the resulting deficits, the Democrat congress was, a fact that Dems like to forget, and they hope the rest of us forget too. (Perhaps they ~ and Krugman ~ think we’re too stupid to know or to remember?)

So, all of this Krugman stuff is a good story. It’s a total fairy tale and geared to those who are gullible enough to believe it at face value. But that’s all it is. It’s not serious journalism. It’s not fact. It’s a story that he wants you to believe. The problem is, when you believe this kind of story, the people involved don’t always live “happily ever after”. It would be nice if people would stop “drinking the koolaid”.

 

[system]

Something that is missing here are facts.

Facts were clear as a bell in post #4.

 

[anthony022071]

< Historical narratives matter. That’s why conservatives are still writing books denouncing F.D.R. and the New Deal; >

That’s also why progressives are still denouncing the Reagan years.

< they understand that the way Americans perceive bygone eras, even eras from the seemingly distant past, affects politics today.

Bill Clinton knew that in 1991, when he began his presidential campaign. “The Reagan-Bush years,” he declared, “have exalted private gain over public obligation, special interests over the common good, wealth and fame over work and family. The 1980s ushered in a Gilded Age of greed and selfishness, of irresponsibility and excess, and of neglect.” >

The Clinton era was even more excessive in greed and selfishness. I remember how angry,viscious,callous,impatient alot of young people became in their competitive pursuit of money,and how cynical and crassly blatant people became in their materialistic attitude and that “attitude” was promoted by success gurus,advertisers,and popular music. Phrases “white trash” and “trailer trash” became common terms of abuse among young people,aggressive telemarking became common,“Get rich quick” schemes became common. I don’t remember the Reagan era being permeated with the kind of avarice and bad vibes that the the Clinton era was.

< But where in his remarks was the clear declaration that Reaganomics failed?

For it did fail. The Reagan economy was a one-hit wonder. Yes, there was a boom in the mid-1980s, as the economy recovered from a severe recession. But while the rich got much richer, there was little sustained economic improvement for most Americans. By the late 1980s, middle-class incomes were barely higher than they had been a decade before — and the poverty rate had actually risen. >

There’s no question that Reagan had brought the American economy back to health by the mid-1980’s.

< When the inevitable recession arrived, people felt betrayed — a sense of betrayal that Mr. Clinton was able to ride into the White House. >

It wasn’t on account of a recession that Clinton was elected. Consider who the rival candidates for the presidency were. Clinton was relatively young and felt at ease with young people and was able to get their trust,he was appealing to liberals and progressives who came of age in the 1960’s,morally relativistic,indifferent to traditional values,and suave.

 

[MelanieAnne]

Facts were clear as a bell in post #4.

There are no facts in Post # 4, there is only opinion.

And has Fr. Rutler has cautioned… well, I will leave that to the reading of my signature quotes so as not to repeat.

 

[pete_29]

Reagan, a bad president?

Who was better, Clinton?
Clinton made China and North Korea the threats they are today.

Carter?
Carters economy was truly the worst in the past 50 years. I know. I lived through it.

 

[system]

And has Fr. Rutler has cautioned… well, I will leave that to the reading of my signature quotes so as not to repeat.

That just Fr. Rutler’s opinion.

By the way, your nasty comments,

(For those that need a refresher on how government works ~ go back to school and pay attention to the classes you slept through before!

It would be nice if people would stop “drinking the koolaid”.

Are not charitable and they speak louder than any points you would like to make.

It’s an “ad hominem attack”. How can you be taken seriously now? How can you use a rational argument to convince me of your point, when you’ve accused me and others of sleeping through class and drinking the cool aid?

 

[MelanieAnne]

Max, that’s incorrect, I attacked no one. If you feel better for attacking me tho’, well, that says more about you than me. I guess it’s easier to attack the source of information than to refute it? That’s a common tactic of those that lack the facts to back up their opinion.

As for Father Rutler, it wasn’t just his opinion, the statement represents the synthesis of intellectual thought and dialog for over 2000 years. He was speaking of the difference between rational discussion and spouting opinion based on little more than feeling. Unfortunately the latter is often the case today in many venues, not just CAF. Is that your chosen method of expression? If so, that’s too bad.

 

[system]

Max, that’s incorrect, I attacked no one.

Your own words say differently

I guess it’s easier to attack the source of information than to refute it? That’s a common tactic of those that lack the facts to back up their opinion.

Go for it girl! Attack Krugman’s facts and figures. He’s not some opinion spouter, he’s one of the world’s leading economists. I’d like to watch that!

As for Father Rutler, it wasn’t just his opinion, the statement represents the synthesis of intellectual thought and dialog for over 2000 years.

So you are saying that no one in this vast world of intellectual thought disagrees with with what his quote calls, “the right way to use your mind?”

Fat chance!

 

[MelanieAnne]

Your loss Max.

And Max, isn’t it time to do your homework?

 

[system]

Your loss Max.

My loss is not seeing you critique the economics of Paul Krugman.

And Max, isn’t it time to do your homework?

I’m not sure what you’re TRYING to say. There’s no smilies involved so I’ll assume you’re being testy again. I used to assign lots of homework as a teacher…first in a high school, then later, in college. I did lots of homework to get there. I used my mind the “right way” no time for beads

 

[ribozyme]

He was speaking of the difference between rational discussion and spouting opinion based on little more than feeling. Unfortunately the latter is often the case today in many venues, not just CAF. Is that your chosen method of expression? If so, that’s too bad.

What makes you think クルグマン・パル has the characteristics of the latter?

Although Krugman does have a political agenda, he certainly knows what he is talking about. However, he sometimes has to digest information so people who aren’t astute eminent economists such as himself would understand it.

 

[steveandersen]

The economist, objective? That’s hilarious. That’s as unlikely as them being accurate. The recently predicted continued growth! Have you looked at the Tokyo exchange today?

Yes, the markets were down all over the world yesterday
Are you saying that a prediction of growth requires no daily ups and downs in the market? that’s a good one.

Seriously though, objectivity and accuracy are separate items. You know that don’t you?

If the publishers could predict every turn in the economy they wouldn’t be in the magazine business. They would be on their private island phoning in orders to London and New York in between courses of caviar and champagne.

I don’t always agree with them but it is a well-written (a very well written) business magazine. They are economically very conservative. They are going to look at the Regan years from a strictly business perspective.
Your mileage may vary.

But I just can’t go back to Time, Newsweek, US News, et al. The writing styles just aren’t up to the same standard.

 

[Robert_Bay]

GENERAL REMINDER

Participants are strongly reminded that charity is essential to our discussions here.

If you wish to review the subject, please see Charity for specifics, or CAF rules for an overview, both of which are located in the Rules of the Road sub-forum.

Please edit for tone before submitting your posts.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Out of the eight years that Ronald Reagan served as president, only two budgets where his. The others were congressional budgets loaded with pork spending.

Jim