Liberal Forum

RichClem » 16 Feb 2014 2:24 pm » wrote:
Don't be freaking stupid. A president doesn't "own" an economy just because he took office.

Did Dubya "own" the 2001 recession that began in March?

Did Clinton "own" the strongly recovering economy as he took office?

Is there any issue you won't utterly bungle?

Cannonpointer » 16 Feb 2014 2:56 am » wrote:CARTER GREW THE ECONOMY MUCH BETTER THAN REAGAN

Reaganomics Won the Day
. . . and the legacy lives on....

In 1982 the Dow Jones industrial average hit a low of 800. After the final pieces of the Reagan tax cuts were installed, the market rocketed upward for 18 consecutive years. From 800, the Dow rose to 10,000 — creating between $15 trillion and $20 trillion in new wealth and industries. The Dow would have to climb to 100,000 by 2020 to match this Herculean performance. By clearing away the wealth destroyers of high tax rates and high inflation, U.S. companies became far more productive, profitable, and valuable.

The economy also created 15 million new jobs under Reagan and grew in real terms by 40 percent. Some have likened this to adding a new California to the U.S. economy.

By the end of the 1980s, in what was a fitting tribute to the Reagan program, almost all industrialized nations had sharply lowered tax rates to regain a competitive position lost to the U.S. in the decade. Reagan would note that "Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery." In this way, Reaganomics saved not just the U.S. economy from worldwide depression, but the entire global economy as well.

The Reagan way was spurned throughout the 1980s as "voodoo economics" (one of George Bush Sr.'s few memorable comments.) Many college textbooks to this day even argue that Reagan's economic policies were flawed because they created record budget deficits. But the textbooks don't mention that as the national debt rose by $2 trillion, national wealth rose by $8 trillion. They also don't mention that the Laffer curve worked: Lower tax rates did generate more tax revenues at the federal, state, and local levels. Federal tax collections rose from $500 billion in 1980 to $1 trillion in 1990.
http://old.nationalreview.com/moore/moo ... 070926.asp

crimsongulf » 16 Feb 2014 2:27 pm » wrote:
Son, I play the game as well or better than you.

snicker

Cannonpointer » 16 Feb 2014 3:25 am » wrote:BUT THERE IS MORE!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of ... ublic_debt

Reagan grew the debt by ALMOST 7 TIMES what Carter grew it by.

Carter added 288 billions to the national debt - which actually REDUCED the debt as a portion of the GDP (due to how much it grew by under his hand, with a democrat congress).

Reagan added 1.873 TRILLIONS to the national debt, which GREW our national debt, as a function of GDP, for the first time since WW!! - TRIPLED THE NATIONAL DEBT as measured in dollars (does not account for inflation), and grew it by a whopping 23.5% as a function of GDP (ACCOUNTS FOR INFLATION)!

In summary, Reagan oversaw a stagnant economy (at least, as measured against Jimmy Carter's or Bill Clinton's), AND he added to our national debt.

The conservatives in the mainstream media and on this board can spin and spin, but they cannot make these numbers go away.

onlyaladd » 16 Feb 2014 4:30 pm » wrote: If you've ever read the shock doctine it is clear that the republican playbook involves borrowing and spending like crazy to temporarily boost the economy. The as the impending recession that follows hits an dem if elected and republicans do nothing but point at the debt and cry bloody murder as if the dems did it. It's a disgusting game and Americans are the losers.

crimsongulf » 16 Feb 2014 4:49 pm » wrote:
You are smarter than that.

Cannonpointer » 16 Feb 2014 3:25 am » wrote:BUT THERE IS MORE!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of ... ublic_debt

Reagan grew the debt by ALMOST 7 TIMES what Carter grew it by.

Carter added 288 billions to the national debt - which actually REDUCED the debt as a portion of the GDP (due to how much it grew by under his hand, with a democrat congress).

Reagan added 1.873 TRILLIONS to the national debt, which GREW our national debt, as a function of GDP, for the first time since WW!! - TRIPLED THE NATIONAL DEBT as measured in dollars (does not account for inflation), and grew it by a whopping 23.5% as a function of GDP (ACCOUNTS FOR INFLATION)!

In summary, Reagan oversaw a stagnant economy (at least, as measured against Jimmy Carter's or Bill Clinton's), AND he added to our national debt.

The conservatives in the mainstream media and on this board can spin and spin, but they cannot make these numbers go away.

AmazonTania » 16 Feb 2014 7:08 pm » wrote:Also, while I'm here I guess I might as well take the time to correct some economic illiteracy.

GDP is normally adjusted for inflation, but the way we get the real GDP is by using what is called a GDP deflator. This will determine whether or not the economic growth gained in a particular period is mostly attributed to inflation or whether or not it is genuine economic growth. The GDP deflator is considered one of the most comprehensive metrics when calculating inflation because it covers a wide array of goods and services in the economy, including the construction/production of this goods and services.

Real GDP = Nominal GDP / GDP Deflator.

Also keep in mind, when using a metric such as the GDP Deflator, you always need to remember that it metrics the level goods and services increase relative to a base year.

For example, during the Carter Administration, nominal GDP grew from 1,992.5 billion from the start of his administration to 3,131.8 billion to the end, which is an increase of 57%. However, the prices of goods and services also increased 52% according to the GDP Deflator indexed for 1977. This means that Real GDP actually grew 49%.

Reagan on the other hand had a nominal GDP growth from 3,167.2 billion to 5,527.3, a 74% increase, however according to the GDP Deflator indexed for 1981, prices increased a total of 38%. This means Real GDP actually grew 74% percent.

In very simple terms, the GDP growth for the Carter Administration is higher annualised simply because of the rate of inflation, which the GDP Deflator accurately captures. GDP averages an annualised rate of 3.3% during the Carter Administration, however you have prices increasing at a rate of 7% or more.Reagan averaged an annualised rate of 3.5%, while prices only increasing by 4.75.

In very simple terms, Reagan's economic growth was actually genuine economic growth, while Carter's was the result of the double digit inflation of the 1970's.

I don't know why I had to calculate this just to demonstrate this fact. I thought this was common knowledge.http://www.bea.gov/iTable/iTableHtml.cfm?reqid=9&step=3&isuri=1&910=x&911=0&903=12&904=1977&905=1989&906=a

AmazonTania » 16 Feb 2014 7:08 pm » wrote:In very simple terms, Reagan's economic growth was actually genuine economic growth, while Carter's was the result of the double digit inflation of the 1970's.

I don't know why I had to calculate this just to demonstrate this fact. I thought this was common knowledge

Cannonpointer » 16 Feb 2014 2:56 am » wrote:I want to give credit where it's due: Glory Hole Clem is the fool who got me to googling and discovering these facts. My own nature is what gets me crowing about it.

Contards, you are on notice: CARTER WAS BETTER FOR THE ECONOMY THAN REAGAN. SO WAS CLINTON - BETTER THAN REAGAN, BUSH AND BUSH. You people suck at business and the economy - and everything else. You even suck off men in public bathrooms.

Reaganomics at 25....

The achievement of Reaganomics can only be fully understood by recalling the miserable state of affairs a quarter-century ago. Newsweek summarized the national mood when it wrote in 1981 that Reagan "inherits the most dangerous economic crisis since Franklin Roosevelt took office 48 years ago."

That was no exaggeration. The economy was enduring a cycle of rising inflation with growing levels of unemployment. Remember 20% mortgage interest rates? Terms like "stagflation" and "misery index" entered the popular vocabulary, and declinists of various kinds were in the saddle. The perception of American economic weakness encouraged the Soviet empire to ever bolder adventures, as reflected by Soviet tanks in Kabul and Communists on the march in Nicaragua and Africa.

The reigning Keynesian policy consensus had no answer for this predicament, and so a new group of economic ideas came to the fore. Actually, they were old, classical economic ideas that were rediscovered via the likes of Milton Friedman and the Chicago School, Arthur Laffer, Robert Mundell, and such policy activists in Washington as Norman Ture and Jack Kemp, among others. These humble columns under our late editor, Robert Bartley, led the parade.

The results have been better than even some of its supporters hoped. The Dow Jones Industrial Average first broke 1,000 in 1972, but a decade later it was barely above 800 -- one of the worst and most enduring bear markets in history. In the 25 years since Reaganomics, however, the Dow has climbed to about 11,000, accounting for an increase in national wealth on the order of $25 trillion. To match that increase in percentage terms, the Dow would have to rise to some 150,000 in the next quarter century. American living standards have risen steadily, and U.S. businesses have created entire industries that didn't exist a generation ago.

Obviously, the economic policy path from 1981 to the present day has not been a straight line.....

The rest of the world, meanwhile, has followed the Gipper down the tax-cut curve. Daniel Mitchell of the Heritage Foundation finds that the average personal income tax rate in the industrialized world is now 43%, versus 67% in 1980. The average top corporate tax rate has fallen to 29% from 48%. This decline in global tax rates has been the economic counterpart to the fall of the Berlin Wall. Most of Eastern Europe has adopted flat tax rates of 25% or lower, and the Russians now have a flat income tax of 13%. In Old Europe, Ireland's corporate and personal income tax rate cuts have helped generate the swiftest economic growth in the EU.
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB1 ... d_outlooks

RichClem » 16 Feb 2014 8:17 pm » wrote:
Did psycho get his restraints tightened again?

AmazonTania » 16 Feb 2014 5:28 pm » wrote:
I don't understand why you are so content on using these metrics incorrectly.

Have you bothered to take an econ class?

[/b][url=http://www.liberalforum.net/viewtopic.php?p=170572#p170572][b]golfboy » 16 Feb 2014 2:36 pm[/b][/url] » wrote:
Still waiting for you to explain why my numbers (from your link the OP), supported by YOUR graph is wrong, and why YOUR numbers contradict YOUR graph.

golfboy » 16 Feb 2014 1:43 pm » wrote: You really shouldn't be talking about people bungling numbers when YOUR bungled numbers conflict with the graph you used to support them.

golfboy » 16 Feb 2014 1:43 pm » wrote: You really shouldn't be talking about people bungling numbers when YOUR bungled numbers conflict with the graph you used to support them.

golfboy » 16 Feb 2014 1:43 pm » wrote: You really shouldn't be talking about people bungling numbers when YOUR bungled numbers conflict with the graph you used to support them.