Cannonpointer » 17 Feb 2014 4:41 pm » wrote:
Okay, so your argument, as I see it, is that Reagan merely enriched the corporatocracy with all of his borrowing from the unborn - by-passing the hoi palloi (Ike warned us about this scoundrel, did he not?).
Um, sure...
It got better because it got better?
Yeah. It got better because it got better. There weren't any underlying factors that cause the improvement of the economy. The economy wasn't experiencing and frictional or structural unemployment. The issue with the economy derived mainly from a monetary perspective.
Does every new baby need a job?
No, but now that you've asked, you should know that when people refer to population growth in terms of labour, they are usually referring to something called 'non institutional civilian population.' This involves individuals who are above the age of 16 (working aged people), living in the United States, who are not institutionalized (criminal, mental, or other type of facility) and who are also not on active duty in the military.
So, yes, people above the age of 16 generally need a job. And if there are more people entering the non-institutional civilian population than there are jobs being created, that is not a good thing.
Did his amnesty, which brought millions out of the underground economy and onto the official roles, have any effect that you are failing to consider?
Feel free to spot the amnesty trend...
Did his tax incentives to hire part timers have any effect that you are failing to consider?
Hm, maybe. I'm not ruling it out. Part-Time is in Bold BTW
I'm not really seeing much a defense of Reagan. What policies of his do you argue had anything to do with this alleged economic recovery?
Reagan removed the price controls implemented by the Nixon administration.
That's about it. Reagan was more focused with fighting inflation, if he wasn't fighting the Soviet Union.
I do not have your education in economics. On the other hand, I have never met a professional economist who would openly declare the Federal Reserve to be a criminal enterprise - so economists are about as high in my esteem, ultimately, as climatologists. Both are more educated than I and more able than I to sling official slogans and make arguments that sound truthy, but neither can ultimately be trusted not to be spinning ****.
Who is calling the Federal Reserve a criminal enterprise?
Let me just give you an example. You say "the economy" experienced "better growth." Okay. But do you and I REALLY even share a common meaning of the phrase, "the economy?" When I see "the economy" spoken of in the media, they are invariably talking about the stock market. And if you REALLY listen, when they talk about how "the economy" is doing, they are REALLY talking - very specifically - about how rich people are doing. They even go so far as to declare the economy "recovered" when that "recovery" is admittedly "jobless."
Looking at the economy entails looking more at GDP. I don't just look at the unemployment rate. I look at the people who are in the labour force, as well as the people who have left it. I look at the types of jobs created. I look at the type of jobs lost. I look at industrial production. I look at everything, or, at least the issues that are relevant. During the 1980's, the problems with the economy were high unemployment and high inflation.
The reason why the economy was bad under Carter (and the 1970's) was because there were more than 6 financial quarters of shrinking GDP, while inflation was average 7 - 9% annually, which shouldn't happen (not to say that it shouldn't happen, but it's unusual). The unusual part is when the economy experiences high unemployment and high inflation. High unemployment is a cure for high inflation, as slow growth in the economy reduces demand for goods and services to keep prices from rising. As a result, businesses are not as profitable, hence, they lay workers off and they buy less good and services.
This didn't happen at all during the 1970's, hence, why it's called Stagflation. And also, why the reforms of the 1980's took place.
Reagan borrowed, every year, close to what Carter borrowed in four. SOME of that money to Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Northrup, General Dynamics, etc., found its way into the economy via wages, no? Reagan did not yet destroy EVERY union - there were still some people making good wages off his military bloat.
The entire purpose of stimulus (fiscal stimulus anyway) is to get money to flow throughout the economy. None of this military spending made its way into the economy. It would have been no different if the Government decided to purchase 1 million shares of Berkshire Hathaway. All they would have been doing was enriching a few shareholders. And sure, that money would have also flow through the economy, but the multiplier effect would have been near nil...