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.

DerekJohnson

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]