Liberal Forum

tharock220 » 18 Feb 2014 4:03 pm » wrote:
We can use whatever years you want. You're not going to find anyway to spin it. Inflation adjusted income grew better under Reagan than it did under Carter, if it did at all.

That post was to goofy, not to you, and no - we cannot. We cannot - Goofy REFUSES to pick one set of data.

Goofy insists on leaving his options open. He wants to be able to argue 1976 - 1980 when the numbers favor him that way, and use 1977 - 1981 when the numbers favor him THAT way. I insist on using only one set of numbers - and he gets to pick (see the OP, as I predicted Goofy's tricks in advance).

And yes, I CAN find a way to spin it - already have.

Reagan had a couple of trillion borrowed dollars - almost two thirds of the economy he inherited - to fall back on. When you are stealing food out of the mouths of the unborn, it's not that hard to produce some good numbers.

Cannonpointer » 18 Feb 2014 3:58 pm » wrote: Here ya go, tard. The PART TIME jobs are in blue, son:

.

Well my gosh, they look really good! How many jobs were created under Reagan?

And to whom do you attribute the two recessions, if not Carter? If you blame Reagan, what specific Reagan policy caused them?

In particular the 1982 recession, worst since the Great Depression? Did Reagan cause that? If not, who or what?

RichClem » 18 Feb 2014 4:06 pm » wrote:
Well my gosh, they look really good! How many jobs were created under Reagan?

Don't you mean to ask how many jobs were cut in half and divided between desperate workers?

RichClem » 18 Feb 2014 4:06 pm » wrote: In particular the 1982 recession, worst since the Great Depression?

Link? Show us on the jobs chart.

Cannonpointer » 18 Feb 2014 3:51 pm » wrote: Your chart makes Carter look pretty damned good for working families, as regards inflation-adjusted dollars. Thanks for that.

Ignoring the fact that inflation adjusted income plummeted during two years of his presidency by more than any time in recorded US history.

Which part of my post was a straw man? Was it where I said Reagan took over a 3.2 trillion dollar economy and borrowed 1.8 trillion against it?

How much did GDP increase over that period, and why haven't you ever cited those stats?

Was it where I complained that he was known for backwards engineering his numbers, using smoke and mirrors and - dare I use this phrase? - voodoo economics?

Ignoring the huge economic boom while he was president; the 20 million jobs created, the huge boom in GDP and the $4,000 increase in Americans' incomes.

Cannonpointer » 18 Feb 2014 3:59 pm » wrote: I'm happy to argue Carter's numbers with you.
Will you agree to use 76-80, or 77-81. Choose, and we can dialogue. Continue to dance, and we cannot.

I'm not the guy dancing, it was you who is making contradictory claims.

RichClem » 18 Feb 2014 4:10 pm » wrote:
How much did GDP increase over that period, and why haven't you ever cited those stats?

Much less than the national debt. He borrowed "prosperity" into existence, and stuck the precious, precious unborn with the tab.

The man was a monster.

Cannonpointer » 18 Feb 2014 4:09 pm » wrote: Don't you mean to ask how many jobs were cut in half and divided between desperate workers?

So once again you want us to accept your psychotic opinion while you reject the best Economics/ business publications in the country?

No, I want actual statistics about job creation under Reagan.

Or f*** off.

golfboy » 18 Feb 2014 4:11 pm » wrote: I'm not the guy dancing, it was you who is making contradictory claims.

Okay, I apologize.

Which years shall we debate? 76-80, or 77-81? Choose, and we can dialogue.

Cannonpointer » 18 Feb 2014 4:12 pm » wrote: Much less than the national debt. He borrowed "prosperity" into existence, and stuck the precious, precious unborn with the tab.

The man was a monster.

Thanks for confirming once again how shamelessly dishonest the moonbat left is.

Cannonpointer » 18 Feb 2014 4:05 pm » wrote:
That post was to goofy, not to you, and no - we cannot. We cannot - Goofy REFUSES to pick one set of data.

Goofy insists on leaving his options open. He wants to be able to argue 1976 - 1980 when the numbers favor him that way, and use 1977 - 1981 when the numbers favor him THAT way. I insist on using only one set of numbers - and he gets to pick (see the OP, as I predicted Goofy's tricks in advance).

And yes, I CAN find a way to spin it - already have.

Reagan had a couple of trillion borrowed dollars - almost two thirds of the economy he inherited - to fall back on. When you are stealing food out of the mouths of the unborn, it's not that hard to produce some good numbers.

That's not spin. That's silliness. Inflation prevented Carter's borrowing. Nobody wanted bonds.

RichClem » 18 Feb 2014 4:12 pm » wrote:
So once again you want us to accept your psychotic opinion while you reject the best Economics/ business publications in the country?

No, I want actual statistics about job creation under Reagan.

Or f*** off.

Here ya go, Clemtard.

The PART TIME jobs are in blue:

tharock220 » 18 Feb 2014 4:13 pm » wrote:
That's not spin. That's silliness. Inflation prevented Carter's borrowing. Nobody wanted bonds.

No, son. Statesmanship prevented it.

Like every president before him, he reduced our WWII debt as a percentage of GDP.

Then came your boy. That's when voodoo economics took root, and the food of tomorrow's babies was put on the table.

Cannonpointer » 18 Feb 2014 4:14 pm » wrote: Here ya go, Clemtard.

The PART TIME jobs are in blue:

.

A chart is not strictly speaking "stats," but beyond that, I see a strong trend upward in job creation beginning at the time his tax cuts took full effect.

Looks to me like 16 million full time jobs were created, more if one credits Reagan for the continuing positive trend into the first year of the Bush presidency.

Is massive job creation somehow a bad thing, psycho?

Cannonpointer » 18 Feb 2014 4:15 pm » wrote:
No, son. Statesmanship prevented it.

Like every president before him, he reduced our WWII debt as a percentage of GDP.

Then came your boy. That's when voodoo economics took root, and the food of tomorrow's babies was put on the table.

Again with the strawmen. The postwar boom just allowed the economy to grow faster than the national debt. That's not really relevant to the conversation. You're dancing around the inflation and income issues.

tharock220 » 18 Feb 2014 4:19 pm » wrote:
Again with the strawmen. The postwar boom just allowed the economy to grow faster than the national debt. That's not really relevant to the conversation. You're dancing around the inflation and income issues.

Hey, put yourself in m place, pal. You contards lack empathy.

YOU are dancing around the gas shortage! YOU are dancing around the fact that we had only recently switched to a fiat currency. YOU are dancing around the fact that Reagan BORROWED PROSPERITY from the precious, precious unborn!

Silverfox » 18 Feb 2014 4:34 am » wrote:
You don't need to change the entire methodology to change the result. I believe the concept of "discouraged" workers was introduced under Reagan. The inclusion of the military was under Reagan. The number of hours work required before someone is deemed "fully employed" was reduced. There were also changes to the CPS calculations in 82, 83, 85 and 86.

Incorrect of a couple of counts.

No one said you needed to change the entire methodology, but there were no changes in the methodology at all. The unemployment rate is calculated the same way it has always been, so you are wrong when you claim that Reagan changed the way the unemployment rate was calculated. The inclusion of the military was based on a presidential commission, that has concluded that active military in specific bases should be part of the labour force. As a result, this dropped the unemployment rate by one-tenth of one percent. That's one basis point. Hardly anything dramatic or game changing. Today, we still count the civilian unemployment rate, so you are also wrong when you suggest that these changes benefits future presidents.

I also don't see how the part-time effects the unemployment rate, since the unemployment is merely the number of unemployed / total labour force. If you are talking about some other subset of unemployment, that's fine, but I don't believe anyone address any other unemployment rate besides the headline number.

Also, what proof do you have that changes were made to the household survey in all of those years. The only notable change in the that would made adjustments to the unemployment rate occurred in 1983, which was the inclusion of the military in the labour force, as I discussed. No other changes were made to the CPS, or the unemployment rate. This can easily be shown using FRED Archival Economic Database, which keeps records of vintage statistical methodologies.



Notice the unemployment rate is in lock step before 1983, and then the different in the unemployment rate by one basis point. That one basis point is the result of the only change that occur during the Reagan Administration. Whatever changes you believed happened under this administration had close to zero effect on the unemployment rate.

Does any of that change what Volcker and Carter did and how it benefited Reagan? You know - the thing we were discussing.

We were discussing how Carter's economy is supposedly better than the Reagan economy. And what exactly did Carter do? All he did was increase government spending and introduced a voluntary wage, both of which were largely unsuccessful. He didn't even try to eliminate the prices controls implemented by his predecessor. His only useful attribute was deregulating heavily regulated industries, which would have most likely been unregulated by his successor anyway.

How did Reagan benefit from anything Carter did? The only thing he really did was appoint Paul Volcker. So I guess Carter deserves brownie points for recognising someone who knew what he was doing...

Yes, the dollar became much stronger under Reagan, having spent the previous decade weakening (so he inherited a weak dollar, as I said). In fact, the strengthening of the dollar became a problem - hence the Plaza Accord. Because he ran up high deficits (due to the military buildup and tax cuts) and because of what Volcker was doing, interest rates were high. The value of the dollar rose accordingly.

Check the DXY when he came to power. http://www.tradingeconomics.com/charts/united-states-currency.png?s=dxy&d1=19700101&d2=19891231

No, you said he benefited from a weak dollar. Now that we've established that we are not talking about the GBP/USD, if you wouldn't mind answering the questions:

1) What weak dollar? The dollar index was already in the 90's and was above the historical average when Reagan entered the office.

2) First, you were implying that his economic success is only attributed to a weak dollar. Now you are suggesting that the strengthening of the dollar was a problem...

Which is it?

You appear very confident in that multiplier. It seems high to me. Don't they vary depending on circumstances (e.g recession vs expansion) and on the type of investment? Either way, there is a lot of debate around the multiplier for military spending but few would argue that it has no impact on the economy, as you appear to be doing.

It isn't about federal salaries. That money has to go somewhere. It gets spent. Businesses supply the military and other businesses supply them. These businesses employ people. They also buy raw materials. They develop technologies and do research. There is a whole industrial complex that wants feeding. Does this industry have no impact on the economy? Please explain why.

I don't have confidence in the multiplier. I've only stated that it is a generally assumed that the defense spending multiplier is greater than the general spending multiplier. Your ripple effect argument ignores the fact that resources freed from defence and military spending become available in private businesses and households. There have also be empirical studies that shows defence spending has had a spending multiplier of less than one, which means that you will increase overall GDP, but not enough to maintain the private sector portions of GDP, which has a crowding out effect when government purchases increases.

As already explained to Cannonpointer, the effects are near nil.

RichClem » 18 Feb 2014 4:19 pm » wrote:
.

A chart is not strictly speaking "stats," but beyond that, I see a strong trend upward in job creation beginning at the time his tax cuts took full effect.

Looks to me like 16 million full time jobs were created, more if one credits Reagan for the continuing positive trend into the first year of the Bush presidency.

Is massive job creation somehow a bad thing, psycho?

Many of those jobs were not "created." They were just cut in half and divided between two desperate workers.

And many of those jobs were merely DAYLIGHTED - that is, after Reagan gave an amnesty to illegal aliens, their jobs started being counted in the economy instead of being hidden from view.

AmazonTania » 18 Feb 2014 4:26 pm » wrote: The dollar index was already in the 90's and was above the historical average when Reagan entered the office.

FINALLY someone gives Carter his props, instead of cherry picking data!

Cannonpointer » 18 Feb 2014 4:27 pm » wrote: Many of those jobs were not "created." They were just cut in half and divided between two desperate workers.

Thanks for confirming once again that you're not only psychotic, but shamelessly dishonest. Full time jobs rose by 16 million.

As the chart you cited shows.

And many of those jobs were merely DAYLIGHTED - that is, after Reagan gave an amnesty to illegal aliens, their jobs started being counted in the economy instead of being hidden from view.

As if your moonbat opinion has any validity, as you reject the best minds on business and Economics.

Cannonpointer » 18 Feb 2014 4:29 pm » wrote: FINALLY someone gives Carter his props, instead of cherry picking data!

As the psychotic desperately avoids job creation and GDP growth data.