Liberal Forum

AmazonTania » 17 Feb 2014 5:42 am » wrote: Do you understand how economic stimulus is supposed to work? The idea of economic stimulus (demand-side) is to increase the overall demand for goods and services. Exactly how do you accomplish this by increasing overall government expenditures in the military (the bulk of Reagan's budget increases). Tanks and weapons are not overall goods people purchase in the private sector, so I don't understand how you believe the government spending more on these things would increase the overall aggregate demand for other goods and services in the economy.

Sure, spending added to GDP, but no economist would actually consider it stimulus (no serious economist, anyway). The money never actually made its way into the economy. Notice the Velocity of the money supply, which is the ratio at which money is actually circulating. Velocity of money is essentially flat during the Reagan administration.

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?).

AmazonTania » 17 Feb 2014 5:42 am » wrote: Simply put, the economy grew simply because the economy got better. Government spending wasn't driving it.

It got better because it got better?

AmazonTania » 17 Feb 2014 5:42 am » wrote: Reagan had a better economy. Under Carter, the labour force grew by 10,241 thousand, while the amount of employed persons increased 9,955 thousand and the population grew 11,191 thousand. Employment was not keeping up with population growth (hence, the stagflation).

Does every new baby need a job?

AmazonTania » 17 Feb 2014 5:42 am » wrote: Under Reagan, labour force grew 15,148 thousand with employed persons increasing by 18,399 thousand and the population growing all while the population grew 16,364 thousand.

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?

Did his tax incentives to hire part timers have any effect that you are failing to consider?

AmazonTania » 17 Feb 2014 5:42 am » wrote: The economy overall experienced better economy growth, labour force growth and income growth during the Reagan administration. Granted, you will experience more growth in times of economic recoveries, but that is the point. During a recovery, the economy should look as if it is receiving, not stagnating like what is currently happening.

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?

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 ****.

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."

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.