Would Reagan's Policies Work Today?

creepycoug

https://www.thebalance.com/reaganomics-did-it-work-would-it-today-3305569

And how would you, or could you, square Reagan with Neo-populist conservatism? By that general reference, I mean to loosely capture those who hold to strong economic nationalist (anti-globalist) views, sharing a seeming uneasy alliance with traditional fiscal conservatives and free marketeers. Would Reagan be a RINO or establishment Republican?

One thing Reagan had as part of his policy that is decidedly inconsistent with Trump (and anyone else OK with the Fed spigot on full tilt) was a watchful eye on the money supply and inflation. ( @UW_Doog_Bot come home!!!)

We can't talk about trading all day guys (and DuJour).

creepycoug

Seriously? Not one bit on the Great Communicator? @RaceBannon ? Other old people?


@BearsWiin ? @HoustonHusky ? Maybe we can have a rematch, only instead of discussing Reagan's role, or lack thereof, in hastening the fall of the Soviet Union, we can go to Ronnie's sweet spot: the Economis.

You can't spend all day in the Tug ... it's not good for the soul, all that exposure to the Oregon Bros. And football season is over.

Let's bring it. Someone say Reagan was overrated for Christ's sake.

AtomicPiss

I know his policies would work today but that's not much of an entertaining statement.

And yes, @UW_Doog_Bot come on home.

creepycoug

Well, he would certainly have kept a keen eye on the money supply, something the last several POTUSes have been loath to do.

But our friends of the dismal science have introduced a new theory about free money and the potential for real inflation: who cares? If the economy is letting it rip!, then there's no problem.

Also, yawn, we've been hearing this for years Ronnie. Let it go.

Would Reagan push for higher interest rates today?

creepycoug

DerekJohnson said:

I know his policies would work today but that's not much of an entertaining statement.

And yes, @UW_Doog_Bot come on home.

Prove it bitch Stalin!

HoustonHusky

I skimmed it...a lot of Reaganomics is misunderstood/misinterpreted as focused on only cutting taxes. He really did a ton to deregulate/get govt out of controlling the economy which helped a ton. Highly recommend watching Commanding Heights if you haven't already...fascinating documentary/discussion on the era. Watch Episode 1 as background/lead-in as an overview of what Reagan walked into but Episode 2 focuses on the early 80s economic reforms. Episode 3 would probably be a fascinating rewatch on how we turned everything over to China by falsely assuming they think/behave/act the same as we do...been probably 10 years now since I watched it. I would have a much different perspective now.

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/commandingheights/hi/story/index.html

As will all things there can be some parallels but a blanket view of things is just ignorant. The situations aren't the same. The author does not do the MIT brand justice...

RaceBannon

This a tug subject

creepycoug

RaceBannon said:

This a tug subject

Disagree. Political economy is in our? wheelhouse until Papa says otherwise. We've got the brains and the balls to discuss this without the riff faff chiming in. You are always welcome here. I know you need to go out and Tom Cat in the Tug, but just don't ever bring her home.

creepycoug

HoustonHusky said:

I skimmed it...a lot of Reaganomics is misunderstood/misinterpreted as focused on only cutting taxes. He really did a ton to deregulate/get govt out of controlling the economy which helped a ton. Highly recommend watching Commanding Heights if you haven't already...fascinating documentary/discussion on the era. Watch Episode 1 as background/lead-in as an overview of what Reagan walked into but Episode 2 focuses on the early 80s economic reforms. Episode 3 would probably be a fascinating rewatch on how we turned everything over to China by falsely assuming they think/behave/act the same as we do...been probably 10 years now since I watched it. I would have a much different perspective now.

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/commandingheights/hi/story/index.html

As will all things there can be some parallels but a blanket view of things is just ignorant. The situations aren't the same. The author does not do the MIT brand justice...

I'll watch it for real. Likely next few days as I'm at peak work cycle just now.

Totally agree about deregulation, about which I tend to have very specific mixed feelings. There are those areas where I think you need some rules where the market doesn't necessarily get us there, or on time. But I remember how much it used to cost to fly on a plane. If you're under 45 years old, you don't remember that getting on a plane in the 70s was a huge deal because the tickets were insanely expensive. Deregulation has done wonders for people's mobility. That happened under Ronnie IIRC.

The part that I think is the biggest challenge for any fiscal conservative is how to preserve the status of free market economis. The Trump era has shown the conservative a new economis direction, where protectionism (labor and product) is not a bad thing and is in fact lauded as a value wrapped in the flag of nationalism (ok, a little Tuggy there).

You are probably around my age and know full well that Republicans of that day would have some trouble with the party today. Reagan, and Bush I, were free market guys. That means labor and capital.

This discussion can be better had here than in the Tug. I'm sure of it.

RaceBannon

creepycoug said:

RaceBannon said:

This a tug subject

Disagree. Political economy is in our? wheelhouse until Papa says otherwise. We've got the brains and the balls to discuss this without the riff faff chiming in. You are always welcome here. I know you need to go out and Tom Cat in the Tug, but just don't ever bring her home.

If a comment on getting 20 dollar bills into people's hands rather than worrying who is on it triggered your snowflake audience there is no chance in hell they are tough enough for RR talk

RaceBannon

Reagan significantly increased public expenditures, primarily the Department of Defense, which rose (in constant 2000 dollars) from $267.1 billion in 1980 (4.9% of GDP and 22.7% of public expenditure) to $393.1 billion in 1988 (5.8% of GDP and 27.3% of public expenditure); most of those years military spending was about 6% of GDP, exceeding this number in 4 different years. All these numbers had not been seen since the end of U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War in 1973.[30] In 1981, Reagan significantly reduced the maximum tax rate, which affected the highest income earners, and lowered the top marginal tax rate from 70% to 50%; in 1986 he further reduced the rate to 28%.[31] The federal deficit under Reagan peaked at 6% of GDP in 1983, falling to 3.2% of GDP in 1987[32] and to 3.1% of GDP in his final budget.[33] The inflation-adjusted rate of growth in federal spending fell from 4% under Jimmy Carter to 2.5% under Ronald Reagan. This was the slowest rate of growth in inflation adjusted spending since Eisenhower. However, federal deficit as percent of GDP was up throughout the Reagan presidency from 2.7% at the end of (and throughout) the Carter administration.[10][33][34] As a short-run strategy to reduce inflation and lower nominal interest rates, the U.S. borrowed both domestically and abroad to cover the Federal budget deficits, raising the national debt from $997 billion to $2.85 trillion.[35] This led to the U.S. moving from the world's largest international creditor to the world's largest debtor nation.[6] Reagan described the new debt as the "greatest disappointment" of his presidency.[36]

According to William A. Niskanen, one of the architects of Reaganomics, "Reagan delivered on each of his four major policy objectives, although not to the extent that he and his supporters had hoped", and notes that the most substantial change was in the tax code, where the top marginal individual income tax rate fell from 70.1% to 28.4%, and there was a "major reversal in the tax treatment of business income", with effect of "reducing the tax bias among types of investment but increasing the average effective tax rate on new investment". Roger Porter, another architect of the program, acknowledges that the program was weakened by the many hands that changed the President's calculus, such as Congress.[3][37]

creepycoug

RaceBannon said:

creepycoug said:

RaceBannon said:

This a tug subject

Disagree. Political economy is in our? wheelhouse until Papa says otherwise. We've got the brains and the balls to discuss this without the riff faff chiming in. You are always welcome here. I know you need to go out and Tom Cat in the Tug, but just don't ever bring her home.

If a comment on getting 20 dollar bills into people's hands rather than worrying who is on it triggered your snowflake audience there is no chance in hell they are tough enough for RR talk

No snowflakes on this board fucko. We? just brush our teeth twice a day. You'll get used to it.

creepycoug

RaceBannon said:

Reagan significantly increased public expenditures, primarily the Department of Defense, which rose (in constant 2000 dollars) from $267.1 billion in 1980 (4.9% of GDP and 22.7% of public expenditure) to $393.1 billion in 1988 (5.8% of GDP and 27.3% of public expenditure); most of those years military spending was about 6% of GDP, exceeding this number in 4 different years. All these numbers had not been seen since the end of U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War in 1973.[30] In 1981, Reagan significantly reduced the maximum tax rate, which affected the highest income earners, and lowered the top marginal tax rate from 70% to 50%; in 1986 he further reduced the rate to 28%.[31] The federal deficit under Reagan peaked at 6% of GDP in 1983, falling to 3.2% of GDP in 1987[32] and to 3.1% of GDP in his final budget.[33] The inflation-adjusted rate of growth in federal spending fell from 4% under Jimmy Carter to 2.5% under Ronald Reagan. This was the slowest rate of growth in inflation adjusted spending since Eisenhower. However, federal deficit as percent of GDP was up throughout the Reagan presidency from 2.7% at the end of (and throughout) the Carter administration.[10][33][34] As a short-run strategy to reduce inflation and lower nominal interest rates, the U.S. borrowed both domestically and abroad to cover the Federal budget deficits, raising the national debt from $997 billion to $2.85 trillion.[35] This led to the U.S. moving from the world's largest international creditor to the world's largest debtor nation.[6] Reagan described the new debt as the "greatest disappointment" of his presidency.[36]

According to William A. Niskanen, one of the architects of Reaganomics, "Reagan delivered on each of his four major policy objectives, although not to the extent that he and his supporters had hoped", and notes that the most substantial change was in the tax code, where the top marginal individual income tax rate fell from 70.1% to 28.4%, and there was a "major reversal in the tax treatment of business income", with effect of "reducing the tax bias among types of investment but increasing the average effective tax rate on new investment". Roger Porter, another architect of the program, acknowledges that the program was weakened by the many hands that changed the President's calculus, such as Congress.[3][37]

That part ought to get somebody's attention.

Any chance Slo Jo pushes us back to 70? Can you fucking imagine?

HoustonHusky

creepycoug said:

HoustonHusky said:

I skimmed it...a lot of Reaganomics is misunderstood/misinterpreted as focused on only cutting taxes. He really did a ton to deregulate/get govt out of controlling the economy which helped a ton. Highly recommend watching Commanding Heights if you haven't already...fascinating documentary/discussion on the era. Watch Episode 1 as background/lead-in as an overview of what Reagan walked into but Episode 2 focuses on the early 80s economic reforms. Episode 3 would probably be a fascinating rewatch on how we turned everything over to China by falsely assuming they think/behave/act the same as we do...been probably 10 years now since I watched it. I would have a much different perspective now.

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/commandingheights/hi/story/index.html

As will all things there can be some parallels but a blanket view of things is just ignorant. The situations aren't the same. The author does not do the MIT brand justice...

I'll watch it for real. Likely next few days as I'm at peak work cycle just now.

Totally agree about deregulation, about which I tend to have very specific mixed feelings. There are those areas where I think you need some rules where the market doesn't necessarily get us there, or on time. But I remember how much it used to cost to fly on a plane. If you're under 45 years old, you don't remember that getting on a plane in the 70s was a huge deal because the tickets were insanely expensive. Deregulation has done wonders for people's mobility. That happened under Ronnie IIRC.

The part that I think is the biggest challenge for any fiscal conservative is how to preserve the status of free market economis. The Trump era has shown the conservative a new economis direction, where protectionism (labor and product) is not a bad thing and is in fact lauded as a value wrapped in the flag of nationalism (ok, a little Tuggy there).

You are probably around my age and know full well that Republicans of that day would have some trouble with the party today. Reagan, and Bush I, were free market guys. That means labor and capital.

This discussion can be better had here than in the Tug. I'm sure of it.

Its a much different conversation now than 20 years ago...I was a big free market guy and still am, but under the stipulation that we all play by the same rules. China's behavior the last 10 years has thrown that out the window...stealing IP and entire businesses...trashing their own environment and using essentially slave labor to build most thing, having the govt subsidize businesses/industries to bankrupt Western competitors. Its something that wasn't even part of the discussion back in the 1970s, 80s, 90s and even 2000s...it was inconceivable at the time that a country would behave that way. But they did.

It is only an opinion, but I have a feeling Reagan would have been a lot more like Trump towards China that most people think.

RaceBannon

HoustonHusky said:

creepycoug said:

HoustonHusky said:

I skimmed it...a lot of Reaganomics is misunderstood/misinterpreted as focused on only cutting taxes. He really did a ton to deregulate/get govt out of controlling the economy which helped a ton. Highly recommend watching Commanding Heights if you haven't already...fascinating documentary/discussion on the era. Watch Episode 1 as background/lead-in as an overview of what Reagan walked into but Episode 2 focuses on the early 80s economic reforms. Episode 3 would probably be a fascinating rewatch on how we turned everything over to China by falsely assuming they think/behave/act the same as we do...been probably 10 years now since I watched it. I would have a much different perspective now.

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/commandingheights/hi/story/index.html

As will all things there can be some parallels but a blanket view of things is just ignorant. The situations aren't the same. The author does not do the MIT brand justice...

I'll watch it for real. Likely next few days as I'm at peak work cycle just now.

Totally agree about deregulation, about which I tend to have very specific mixed feelings. There are those areas where I think you need some rules where the market doesn't necessarily get us there, or on time. But I remember how much it used to cost to fly on a plane. If you're under 45 years old, you don't remember that getting on a plane in the 70s was a huge deal because the tickets were insanely expensive. Deregulation has done wonders for people's mobility. That happened under Ronnie IIRC.

The part that I think is the biggest challenge for any fiscal conservative is how to preserve the status of free market economis. The Trump era has shown the conservative a new economis direction, where protectionism (labor and product) is not a bad thing and is in fact lauded as a value wrapped in the flag of nationalism (ok, a little Tuggy there).

You are probably around my age and know full well that Republicans of that day would have some trouble with the party today. Reagan, and Bush I, were free market guys. That means labor and capital.

This discussion can be better had here than in the Tug. I'm sure of it.

Its a much different conversation now than 20 years ago...I was a big free market guy and still am, but under the stipulation that we all play by the same rules. China's behavior the last 10 years has thrown that out the window...stealing IP and entire businesses...trashing their own environment and using essentially slave labor to build most thing, having the govt subsidize businesses/industries to bankrupt Western competitors. Its something that wasn't even part of the discussion back in the 1970s, 80s, 90s and even 2000s...it was inconceivable at the time that a country would behave that way. But they did.

It is only an opinion, but I have a feeling Reagan would have been a lot more like Trump towards China that most people think.

Reagan was Trump before Trump and got all the shit that Trump got

This GOP misty eyed wish for the next Reagan has to fucking stop

Or enjoy a fill of Bidens

TUG TUG TUG TUG TUG

creepycoug

HoustonHusky said:

creepycoug said:

HoustonHusky said:

I skimmed it...a lot of Reaganomics is misunderstood/misinterpreted as focused on only cutting taxes. He really did a ton to deregulate/get govt out of controlling the economy which helped a ton. Highly recommend watching Commanding Heights if you haven't already...fascinating documentary/discussion on the era. Watch Episode 1 as background/lead-in as an overview of what Reagan walked into but Episode 2 focuses on the early 80s economic reforms. Episode 3 would probably be a fascinating rewatch on how we turned everything over to China by falsely assuming they think/behave/act the same as we do...been probably 10 years now since I watched it. I would have a much different perspective now.

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/commandingheights/hi/story/index.html

As will all things there can be some parallels but a blanket view of things is just ignorant. The situations aren't the same. The author does not do the MIT brand justice...

I'll watch it for real. Likely next few days as I'm at peak work cycle just now.

Totally agree about deregulation, about which I tend to have very specific mixed feelings. There are those areas where I think you need some rules where the market doesn't necessarily get us there, or on time. But I remember how much it used to cost to fly on a plane. If you're under 45 years old, you don't remember that getting on a plane in the 70s was a huge deal because the tickets were insanely expensive. Deregulation has done wonders for people's mobility. That happened under Ronnie IIRC.

The part that I think is the biggest challenge for any fiscal conservative is how to preserve the status of free market economis. The Trump era has shown the conservative a new economis direction, where protectionism (labor and product) is not a bad thing and is in fact lauded as a value wrapped in the flag of nationalism (ok, a little Tuggy there).

You are probably around my age and know full well that Republicans of that day would have some trouble with the party today. Reagan, and Bush I, were free market guys. That means labor and capital.

This discussion can be better had here than in the Tug. I'm sure of it.

Its a much different conversation now than 20 years ago...I was a big free market guy and still am, but under the stipulation that we all play by the same rules. China's behavior the last 10 years has thrown that out the window...stealing IP and entire businesses...trashing their own environment and using essentially slave labor to build most thing, having the govt subsidize businesses/industries to bankrupt Western competitors. Its something that wasn't even part of the discussion back in the 1970s, 80s, 90s and even 2000s...it was inconceivable at the time that a country would behave that way. But they did.

It is only an opinion, but I have a feeling Reagan would have been a lot more like Trump towards China that most people think.

Agreed on China. Also agreed Reagan's people would have pushed a China agenda if for no other reason than because it's a communist country. He would have seen the warped reality of trying to do "free trade" with a dishonest country whose economic principles are anathema to our own. I totally agree with that. I honestly believe he would have reacted to China in today's context.

Where I think he may have parted ways with today's Republican party is the acceptance of protectionism, particularly labor. Of course he would have agreed that nobody should be here illegally, but I doubt he'd have raised it up as an election issue. What I wonder is if he were free-market enough to have also held the view that capital and labor should be free to find each other with as few inefficiencies and externalities as possible. That, right there, is where I think we'd see a departure from Trump's part in Reagan. I think he'd have had a different view there.

creepycoug

RaceBannon said:

HoustonHusky said:

creepycoug said:

HoustonHusky said:

I skimmed it...a lot of Reaganomics is misunderstood/misinterpreted as focused on only cutting taxes. He really did a ton to deregulate/get govt out of controlling the economy which helped a ton. Highly recommend watching Commanding Heights if you haven't already...fascinating documentary/discussion on the era. Watch Episode 1 as background/lead-in as an overview of what Reagan walked into but Episode 2 focuses on the early 80s economic reforms. Episode 3 would probably be a fascinating rewatch on how we turned everything over to China by falsely assuming they think/behave/act the same as we do...been probably 10 years now since I watched it. I would have a much different perspective now.

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/commandingheights/hi/story/index.html

As will all things there can be some parallels but a blanket view of things is just ignorant. The situations aren't the same. The author does not do the MIT brand justice...

I'll watch it for real. Likely next few days as I'm at peak work cycle just now.

Totally agree about deregulation, about which I tend to have very specific mixed feelings. There are those areas where I think you need some rules where the market doesn't necessarily get us there, or on time. But I remember how much it used to cost to fly on a plane. If you're under 45 years old, you don't remember that getting on a plane in the 70s was a huge deal because the tickets were insanely expensive. Deregulation has done wonders for people's mobility. That happened under Ronnie IIRC.

The part that I think is the biggest challenge for any fiscal conservative is how to preserve the status of free market economis. The Trump era has shown the conservative a new economis direction, where protectionism (labor and product) is not a bad thing and is in fact lauded as a value wrapped in the flag of nationalism (ok, a little Tuggy there).

You are probably around my age and know full well that Republicans of that day would have some trouble with the party today. Reagan, and Bush I, were free market guys. That means labor and capital.

This discussion can be better had here than in the Tug. I'm sure of it.

Its a much different conversation now than 20 years ago...I was a big free market guy and still am, but under the stipulation that we all play by the same rules. China's behavior the last 10 years has thrown that out the window...stealing IP and entire businesses...trashing their own environment and using essentially slave labor to build most thing, having the govt subsidize businesses/industries to bankrupt Western competitors. Its something that wasn't even part of the discussion back in the 1970s, 80s, 90s and even 2000s...it was inconceivable at the time that a country would behave that way. But they did.

It is only an opinion, but I have a feeling Reagan would have been a lot more like Trump towards China that most people think.

Reagan was Trump before Trump and got all the shit that Trump got

This GOP misty eyed wish for the next Reagan has to fucking stop

Or enjoy a fill of Bidens

TUG TUG TUG TUG TUG

See my response to Houston. I think there would have been a lot of Trump in Reagan (without the bombast and the bad hair and hot wife), but on immigrant labor and protectionist policies I think Reagan would have had another angle on things. He was a free market guy. Maybe I'm wrong.

Also, Reagan would have watched interest rates more closely. The last several presidents have not; and if anything have insisted on keeping it flowing full tilt boogie.

HoustonHusky

creepycoug said:

RaceBannon said:

HoustonHusky said:

creepycoug said:

HoustonHusky said:

I skimmed it...a lot of Reaganomics is misunderstood/misinterpreted as focused on only cutting taxes. He really did a ton to deregulate/get govt out of controlling the economy which helped a ton. Highly recommend watching Commanding Heights if you haven't already...fascinating documentary/discussion on the era. Watch Episode 1 as background/lead-in as an overview of what Reagan walked into but Episode 2 focuses on the early 80s economic reforms. Episode 3 would probably be a fascinating rewatch on how we turned everything over to China by falsely assuming they think/behave/act the same as we do...been probably 10 years now since I watched it. I would have a much different perspective now.

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/commandingheights/hi/story/index.html

As will all things there can be some parallels but a blanket view of things is just ignorant. The situations aren't the same. The author does not do the MIT brand justice...

I'll watch it for real. Likely next few days as I'm at peak work cycle just now.

Totally agree about deregulation, about which I tend to have very specific mixed feelings. There are those areas where I think you need some rules where the market doesn't necessarily get us there, or on time. But I remember how much it used to cost to fly on a plane. If you're under 45 years old, you don't remember that getting on a plane in the 70s was a huge deal because the tickets were insanely expensive. Deregulation has done wonders for people's mobility. That happened under Ronnie IIRC.

The part that I think is the biggest challenge for any fiscal conservative is how to preserve the status of free market economis. The Trump era has shown the conservative a new economis direction, where protectionism (labor and product) is not a bad thing and is in fact lauded as a value wrapped in the flag of nationalism (ok, a little Tuggy there).

You are probably around my age and know full well that Republicans of that day would have some trouble with the party today. Reagan, and Bush I, were free market guys. That means labor and capital.

This discussion can be better had here than in the Tug. I'm sure of it.

Its a much different conversation now than 20 years ago...I was a big free market guy and still am, but under the stipulation that we all play by the same rules. China's behavior the last 10 years has thrown that out the window...stealing IP and entire businesses...trashing their own environment and using essentially slave labor to build most thing, having the govt subsidize businesses/industries to bankrupt Western competitors. Its something that wasn't even part of the discussion back in the 1970s, 80s, 90s and even 2000s...it was inconceivable at the time that a country would behave that way. But they did.

It is only an opinion, but I have a feeling Reagan would have been a lot more like Trump towards China that most people think.

Reagan was Trump before Trump and got all the shit that Trump got

This GOP misty eyed wish for the next Reagan has to fucking stop

Or enjoy a fill of Bidens

TUG TUG TUG TUG TUG

See my response to Houston. I think there would have been a lot of Trump in Reagan (without the bombast and the bad hair and hot wife), but on immigrant labor and protectionist policies I think Reagan would have had another angle on things. He was a free market guy. Maybe I'm wrong.

Also, Reagan would have watched interest rates more closely. The last several presidents have not; and if anything have insisted on keeping it flowing full tilt boogie.

https://www.nytimes.com/1984/09/19/business/reagan-seeks-cut-in-steel-imports-through-accords.html

Trump and Reagan were a lot more alike in policy than people want to admit.

creepycoug

HoustonHusky said:

creepycoug said:

RaceBannon said:

HoustonHusky said:

creepycoug said:

HoustonHusky said:

I skimmed it...a lot of Reaganomics is misunderstood/misinterpreted as focused on only cutting taxes. He really did a ton to deregulate/get govt out of controlling the economy which helped a ton. Highly recommend watching Commanding Heights if you haven't already...fascinating documentary/discussion on the era. Watch Episode 1 as background/lead-in as an overview of what Reagan walked into but Episode 2 focuses on the early 80s economic reforms. Episode 3 would probably be a fascinating rewatch on how we turned everything over to China by falsely assuming they think/behave/act the same as we do...been probably 10 years now since I watched it. I would have a much different perspective now.

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/commandingheights/hi/story/index.html

As will all things there can be some parallels but a blanket view of things is just ignorant. The situations aren't the same. The author does not do the MIT brand justice...

I'll watch it for real. Likely next few days as I'm at peak work cycle just now.

Totally agree about deregulation, about which I tend to have very specific mixed feelings. There are those areas where I think you need some rules where the market doesn't necessarily get us there, or on time. But I remember how much it used to cost to fly on a plane. If you're under 45 years old, you don't remember that getting on a plane in the 70s was a huge deal because the tickets were insanely expensive. Deregulation has done wonders for people's mobility. That happened under Ronnie IIRC.

The part that I think is the biggest challenge for any fiscal conservative is how to preserve the status of free market economis. The Trump era has shown the conservative a new economis direction, where protectionism (labor and product) is not a bad thing and is in fact lauded as a value wrapped in the flag of nationalism (ok, a little Tuggy there).

You are probably around my age and know full well that Republicans of that day would have some trouble with the party today. Reagan, and Bush I, were free market guys. That means labor and capital.

This discussion can be better had here than in the Tug. I'm sure of it.

Its a much different conversation now than 20 years ago...I was a big free market guy and still am, but under the stipulation that we all play by the same rules. China's behavior the last 10 years has thrown that out the window...stealing IP and entire businesses...trashing their own environment and using essentially slave labor to build most thing, having the govt subsidize businesses/industries to bankrupt Western competitors. Its something that wasn't even part of the discussion back in the 1970s, 80s, 90s and even 2000s...it was inconceivable at the time that a country would behave that way. But they did.

It is only an opinion, but I have a feeling Reagan would have been a lot more like Trump towards China that most people think.

Reagan was Trump before Trump and got all the shit that Trump got

This GOP misty eyed wish for the next Reagan has to fucking stop

Or enjoy a fill of Bidens

TUG TUG TUG TUG TUG

See my response to Houston. I think there would have been a lot of Trump in Reagan (without the bombast and the bad hair and hot wife), but on immigrant labor and protectionist policies I think Reagan would have had another angle on things. He was a free market guy. Maybe I'm wrong.

Also, Reagan would have watched interest rates more closely. The last several presidents have not; and if anything have insisted on keeping it flowing full tilt boogie.

https://www.nytimes.com/1984/09/19/business/reagan-seeks-cut-in-steel-imports-through-accords.html

Trump and Reagan were a lot more alike in policy than people want to admit.

I do recall there being concern in that era about our ability to keep producing steel and concerns about Korean-imported steel. I don't recall if it was on Reagan's watch, or not, but it probably was.

creepycoug

RaceBannon said:

HoustonHusky said:

creepycoug said:

HoustonHusky said:

I skimmed it...a lot of Reaganomics is misunderstood/misinterpreted as focused on only cutting taxes. He really did a ton to deregulate/get govt out of controlling the economy which helped a ton. Highly recommend watching Commanding Heights if you haven't already...fascinating documentary/discussion on the era. Watch Episode 1 as background/lead-in as an overview of what Reagan walked into but Episode 2 focuses on the early 80s economic reforms. Episode 3 would probably be a fascinating rewatch on how we turned everything over to China by falsely assuming they think/behave/act the same as we do...been probably 10 years now since I watched it. I would have a much different perspective now.

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/commandingheights/hi/story/index.html

As will all things there can be some parallels but a blanket view of things is just ignorant. The situations aren't the same. The author does not do the MIT brand justice...

I'll watch it for real. Likely next few days as I'm at peak work cycle just now.

Totally agree about deregulation, about which I tend to have very specific mixed feelings. There are those areas where I think you need some rules where the market doesn't necessarily get us there, or on time. But I remember how much it used to cost to fly on a plane. If you're under 45 years old, you don't remember that getting on a plane in the 70s was a huge deal because the tickets were insanely expensive. Deregulation has done wonders for people's mobility. That happened under Ronnie IIRC.

The part that I think is the biggest challenge for any fiscal conservative is how to preserve the status of free market economis. The Trump era has shown the conservative a new economis direction, where protectionism (labor and product) is not a bad thing and is in fact lauded as a value wrapped in the flag of nationalism (ok, a little Tuggy there).

You are probably around my age and know full well that Republicans of that day would have some trouble with the party today. Reagan, and Bush I, were free market guys. That means labor and capital.

This discussion can be better had here than in the Tug. I'm sure of it.

Its a much different conversation now than 20 years ago...I was a big free market guy and still am, but under the stipulation that we all play by the same rules. China's behavior the last 10 years has thrown that out the window...stealing IP and entire businesses...trashing their own environment and using essentially slave labor to build most thing, having the govt subsidize businesses/industries to bankrupt Western competitors. Its something that wasn't even part of the discussion back in the 1970s, 80s, 90s and even 2000s...it was inconceivable at the time that a country would behave that way. But they did.

It is only an opinion, but I have a feeling Reagan would have been a lot more like Trump towards China that most people think.

Reagan was Trump before Trump and got all the shit that Trump got

This GOP misty eyed wish for the next Reagan has to fucking stop

Or enjoy a fill of Bidens

TUG TUG TUG TUG TUG

Not quite all the shit. Trump set new records. 87% of it was political; 13% was his mouth.

RaceBannon

Were you there in 79? I know you're old but how old

RR even had the GOPe try to stop him. Look up Ford as co president

The GOP was as full of pussies back then as they are today and it was George Bush 1 leading the never Reagan brigade

Nothing has changed with me

Hey look, you all got what you wanted. No more tweets and Biden is trashing you but in a nice way apparently and if you don't think this is a tug thread don't cry to me when I speak plainly on the matter