10 Mar 2014 1:09 pm
Again, we're not talking about your respect for Reagan's economy, we're talking about your thesis which is a comparison of their individual economies. You're losing your initial argument, and you know this. So your response has been to attack the Reagan's policies, but doing so does not support your initial assertion that Carter's economy as better.Cannonpointer » 10 Mar 2014 1:05 pm » wrote:
When you double the national debt to prime the economy instead of being a fiscal conservative like Carter, it will certainly APPEAR that your unborn children's money is "yours." After all, you're spending it, right - and your kid owes it?
That IS what occurred, is it not? I'll be delighted to learn how you feel you can spin the fact that Reagan borrowed, during his tenure, an amount that was half of the entire GDP of the economy he inherited.
Please help me to understand why I should respect the economy of a man who built it on massive government stimulus and massive government debt. He made FDR look like a piker. We're feeling the pain NOW, but you want to brag about the "good times" when the party was still rolling, and ask me what's my major malfunction for talking about the hangover?
http://www.businessinsider.com/gdp-adju ... ion-2011-5
The way the government calculates real GDP is to start with nominal GDP--the actual change in the output of the economy as measured by adding up all the actual sales prices ("nominal")--and then "deflating" this number by subtracting an estimated inflation rate.