Sell me Reagan

2011-04-20 19:15:54

#1

Macbeth: Banned; +2,444|5860

I've been reading about the Reagan years and looking at the economic data, some of his foreign policy decisions, and social policy and it seems Reagan was pretty shitty.

So could anyone here actually explain to me, in your own words and not links and copy paste, why Reagan was a great president or ''zomg best President since Lincoln!!111" as a lot people hold him up to be. Because it seems to me old people have an awfully rose tinted view of Reagan and his presidency. I seriously think once everyone from the Reagan years finally die off in the next 100 years and people objectively study the period, Reagan is going to seem like a pretty lousy president.

So yeah, sell me the Reagan years.

2011-04-20 19:33:51

#2

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5632|London, England

Compared to the high unemployment, the recession, the oil crisis and superinflation of the 70s, his time as President was marked by high growth. He cut taxes so the rich loved him. The rich control the media and have the time to write books so they've been merrily building up the Myth of Reagan for the past twenty years. Now Republicans believe that cutting taxes always leads to increased tax revenue.

Reagan sucked. The person who should receive the lion's share of the credit for the growth experienced in the 80s is Paul Volcker, but it doesn't work like that. Carter gets blamed for shit outside of his control and Reagan was praised for shit outside of his control. It's just the nature of the beast.

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2011-04-20 20:07:23

#3

AussieReaper: ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°); +5,761|6427|what

He was a great President because he told people trickle down economics made sense, and people to this day still believe it.

2011-04-20 20:40:15

#4

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5632|London, England

AussieReaper wrote:
He was a great President because he told people trickle down economics made sense, and people to this day still believe it.

It does make sense.

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2011-04-20 20:54:34

#5

AussieReaper: ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°); +5,761|6427|what

See?

And just a post ago he said "Now Republicans believe that cutting taxes always leads to increased tax revenue."

Reaganomics. LOL

2011-04-20 21:03:46

#6

RTHKI: mmmf mmmf mmmf; +1,742|7011|Cinncinatti

all he said was that it makes sense. doesnt mean it works..

2011-04-20 21:06:58

#7

unnamednewbie13: Moderator; +2,054|7046|PNW

Trickle-down economics as they are generally discussed today should really be called Reaganomics.

2011-04-20 21:24:59

#8

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5632|London, England

RTHKI wrote:
all he said was that it makes sense. doesnt mean it works..

It makes sense because it works. AussieReaper is some mutant form of non-American liberal that watches far too much MSNBC and reads far too much Huffington Post. So because he's uneducated, I'll explain.

Now if you were given the option of decreasing the amount of revenue the government took in you could generally do it two ways (this is an oversimplification of course, there are myriad ways, these are the two easiest to explain and confront): you can cut taxes or you can 'redistribute wealth' down to the poorest sectors of society. Your typical AussieReaper (this word will now be used in place of 'liberal' in all my posts) feels that more money in the hands of the poor is the better solution. Less people going hungry, they get to stick it to their rich daddies, and they get to feel good about themselves and pretend that they actually did something positive in the world. Instead, what they create is inflation and an artificial spending bubble.

Why? Why would it cause inflation? Let's say you had a group of people. Standard curve, you've got:
1 person making $0
2 person making $10k
3 people making $20k
4 people making $30k
5 people making $40k
etc.

Now let's set the poverty line at $20k. This gives us a total of 3 people living below the poverty line. Since we feel that people beneath that line struggle too much to get by and that they need a helping hand. So we'll institute a progressive tax system and redistribute down to the bottom.

We now have:
6 people making $20k
4 people making $30k
5 people making $40k
etc.

Shit, but now prices have risen because people have more money to spend. They didn't just take that money and spend it on price controlled food, they went out and bought tv's, cars, and other consumer goods with the money. Now companies know they can charge more so prices go up...

We now have to reset the poverty line at $30k... but fuck, that means we now have 6 people living in poverty instead of just the 3 people we originally had. How could this happen?

Best of intentions my little AussieReaper friends.

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2011-04-20 21:30:29

#9

AussieReaper: ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°); +5,761|6427|what

Jay wrote:
RTHKI wrote:
all he said was that it makes sense. doesnt mean it works..
It makes sense because it works. AussieReaper is some mutant form of non-American liberal that watches far too much MSNBC and reads far too much Huffington Post. So because he's uneducated, I'll explain.

Actually I hold a Bachelors degree in Information Technology and took Macroeconomic/microeconomic and a plethora of other courses at University to receive majors in business information systems and management.

But whatevs.

I'd like to have you explain how Keynesian economics is flawed...

2011-04-20 21:35:04

#10

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5632|London, England

Now what happens when you cut tax rates? Well, the rich get richer I suppose. Right? Well, how do they get richer? Do they just rub their #1 Dime and seas of gold coins magically appear? No? Well damn. How do they make themselves richer? Oh, right, they invest.

See, spending isn't really the lifeblood of an economy no matter how much Keynesian AussieReapers might want you to believe it. The lifeblood of any economy is investment. This is the thing that leads to new inventions, to the expansion of factories and all the other day to day crap that lets companies operate. The investors take on the burden of risk that companies on their own would not normally want to take. They're the ones that buy up High Yield Bonds, buy new stock offerings, and help refinance older stocks. This is the engine with which the modern economy is harnessed.

The offshoot of investment is a demand for increased profits. This forces companies to run more efficiently, to turn a profit, and to maximize their labor force. It also means that talented individuals are sought to fill positions in every company instead of letting leaches and retards worm their way into CEO chairs. (This is why you'll never see the bullshit nepotism practiced in privately held corporations tolerated in public ones.)

So, because they're generating higher profits, they expand, and when they do, they hire more workers. Because they've hired more workers, they have more customers too. Along with this, the CEO then buys his yacht which someone has to build, and someone has to maintain, and a yacht club needs to be built to give it a home etc.

This is 'trickle down economics' or 'supply side economics'. It's too bad AussieReapers hate corporations and CEOs and rich people more than they hate poverty or less people might actually be in poverty.

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2011-04-20 21:40:34

#11

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5632|London, England

AussieReaper wrote:
Jay wrote:
RTHKI wrote:
all he said was that it makes sense. doesnt mean it works..
It makes sense because it works. AussieReaper is some mutant form of non-American liberal that watches far too much MSNBC and reads far too much Huffington Post. So because he's uneducated, I'll explain.
Actually I hold a Bachelors degree in Information Technology and took Macroeconomic/microeconomic and a plethora of other courses at University to receive majors in business information systems and management.

But whatevs.

I'd like to have you explain how Keynesian economics is flawed...

Keynesian economic theory was raped and pillaged in the 1970s after it could neither explain nor fix the hyperinflation the United States experienced. An economy is far too large and complex for any group of politicians or experts to effectively steer it. This is the primary flaw in any big government idea. It simply doesn't work. You can't control peoples actions, they aren't pieces on a chess board to be moved around at their controllers leisure. People are irrational and stubborn and they will rebel if you try to get in the way of that.

And am I supposed to be impressed by your degrees? I hold a Bachelors in Electrical Engineering with a minor in International Transportation and Trade.

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2011-04-20 21:44:39

#12

AussieReaper: ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°); +5,761|6427|what

So what do you suggest happen with the US economy as it currently sits? Cut taxes for the richest some more? Cause they invest, right? Is your plan to just keep cutting taxes, because they aren't exactly paying much as it is... and that wonderful investment isn't going to help when it's just as easy to invest into another country. Since you know, that's what they do.

Wheras, if you cut taxes for the middle income earners, they spend that money. Into products. Goods and services. Which creates an increase in demand for the companies selling afforementioned goods and services. Who in turn make profit due to the demand. Which is just as good as investment. The two are not mutually exclusive. And when a company turns a profit, omg guess what happens, you'll see greater investment.

And if the middle are earning more, they spend more. And invest more.

If the rich are earning more, what happens, they invest in corporations that are interested in shareholders only because that's the only reason the rich invested in the first place. For greater share prices. None of which helps anyone other than the richest 1%.

Of course this is just a bleeding heart liberal point of view...

2011-04-20 21:46:17

#13

AussieReaper: ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°); +5,761|6427|what

Jay wrote:
And am I supposed to be impressed by your degrees? I hold a Bachelors in Electrical Engineering with a minor in International Transportation and Trade.

No. And your qualifications don't impress me either. Not that I care what you studied.

Just thought I'd try to disprove you're pathetic "So because he's uneducated, I'll explain." stance. Which was ignorant, incorrect and baseless.

2011-04-20 21:48:47

#14

AussieReaper: ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°); +5,761|6427|what

Jay wrote:
Keynesian economic theory was raped and pillaged in the 1970s after it could neither explain nor fix the hyperinflation the United States experienced. An economy is far too large and complex for any group of politicians or experts to effectively steer it. This is the primary flaw in any big government idea. It simply doesn't work. You can't control peoples actions, they aren't pieces on a chess board to be moved around at their controllers leisure. People are irrational and stubborn and they will rebel if you try to get in the way of that.

Wow. And to think, all those economic systems in place to control interest rates, fiscal and monetary policy are totally useless then! Because, people are stubborn! lol

2011-04-20 21:51:04

#15

Spark: liquid fluoride thorium reactor; +874|6949|Canberra, AUS

There's a difference between tweaking some knobs - which is what that is - and trying to directly control the economic activity of a populace tbh.

The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
^{~ Richard Feynman}

2011-04-20 21:51:41

#16

lowing: Banned; +1,662|6925|USA

Macbeth wrote:
I've been reading about the Reagan years and looking at the economic data, some of his foreign policy decisions, and social policy and it seems Reagan was pretty shitty.

So could anyone here actually explain to me, in your own words and not links and copy paste, why Reagan was a great president or ''zomg best President since Lincoln!!111" as a lot people hold him up to be. Because it seems to me old people have an awfully rose tinted view of Reagan and his presidency. I seriously think once everyone from the Reagan years finally die off in the next 100 years and people objectively study the period, Reagan is going to seem like a pretty lousy president.

So yeah, sell me the Reagan years.

It would help by you telling us why you think he was shitty? What did you see in the economic data, foreign policy decisions and social policy that makes you draw that conclusion?

You can't merely say, "he was shitty, now explain to me in detail what made him so great".

THe country prospered under Reagan, his foreign policy was, he was not taking any shit from anyone, and his social policy was NOT to support the leeching class. SO basically, if you worked for a living, you prospered. If you were a leech, you would say he was "shitty". If you were a liberal you hated him if you were a conservative, you loved him. If you were Libya or France or USSR, you hated him, if you enjoyed watching the Berlin Wall come crashing down, you loved him. All a point of perspective.

2011-04-20 22:01:19

#17

lowing: Banned; +1,662|6925|USA

AussieReaper wrote:
So what do you suggest happen with the US economy as it currently sits? Cut taxes for the richest some more? Cause they invest, right? Is your plan to just keep cutting taxes, because they aren't exactly paying much as it is... and that wonderful investment isn't going to help when it's just as easy to invest into another country. Since you know, that's what they do.

Wheras, if you cut taxes for the middle income earners, they spend that money. Into products. Goods and services. Which creates an increase in demand for the companies selling afforementioned goods and services. Who in turn make profit due to the demand. Which is just as good as investment. The two are not mutually exclusive. And when a company turns a profit, omg guess what happens, you'll see greater investment.

And if the middle are earning more, they spend more. And invest more.

If the rich are earning more, what happens, they invest in corporations that are interested in shareholders only because that's the only reason the rich invested in the first place. For greater share prices. None of which helps anyone other than the richest 1%.

Of course this is just a bleeding heart liberal point of view...

I guess Aussie, you are one of those few people that ask the poor for a job then?..and not the "evil rich"

Last edited by lowing (2011-04-20 22:01:56)

2011-04-20 22:04:55

#18

AussieReaper: ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°); +5,761|6427|what

lowing wrote:
I guess Aussie, you are one of those few people that ask the poor for a job then?..and not the "evil rich"

The poor pay taxes. The rich don't. The rich companies don't either.

G.E. paid no taxes on $5.1 billion in profits

As Washington worries about the United States' growing deficit problem, there's mounting evidence the government is failing to collect taxes from wealthy individuals and corporations. A piece in today's New York Times by David Kocieniewski outlines how G.E. skirted paying any taxes on $5.1 billion in profits in 2010--in addition to claiming a $3.2 billion tax credit.

The main reason G.E. is so adept at avoiding paying taxes, Kocieniewski writes, is because it's compiled an all-star team of in-house tax professionals plucked from the Internal Revenue Service, the Treasury Department, and "virtually all the tax-writing committees in Congress."

G.E.-- whose slogan is "Imagination at Work"-- has in-house, Kocieniewski writes, what is considered by many to be the best tax law firm in the world. Their secret to success is a familiar one, though G.E. appears to have perfected it: "fierce lobbying for tax breaks and innovative accounting that enables it to concentrate its profits offshore."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_thelookou … in-profits

You want to avoid paying taxes? Just have to lobby your way through and then concentrate profits offshore.

Ah, the system works.

(oh and that $3.2 billion tax credit should come in handy). Who's money was that again? Oh yeah, the tax payers! lol

Last edited by AussieReaper (2011-04-20 22:06:07)

2011-04-20 22:15:36

#19

lowing: Banned; +1,662|6925|USA

AussieReaper wrote:
lowing wrote:
I guess Aussie, you are one of those few people that ask the poor for a job then?..and not the "evil rich"
The poor pay taxes. The rich don't. The rich companies don't either.

G.E. paid no taxes on $5.1 billion in profits
As Washington worries about the United States' growing deficit problem, there's mounting evidence the government is failing to collect taxes from wealthy individuals and corporations. A piece in today's New York Times by David Kocieniewski outlines how G.E. skirted paying any taxes on $5.1 billion in profits in 2010--in addition to claiming a $3.2 billion tax credit.

The main reason G.E. is so adept at avoiding paying taxes, Kocieniewski writes, is because it's compiled an all-star team of in-house tax professionals plucked from the Internal Revenue Service, the Treasury Department, and "virtually all the tax-writing committees in Congress."

G.E.-- whose slogan is "Imagination at Work"-- has in-house, Kocieniewski writes, what is considered by many to be the best tax law firm in the world. Their secret to success is a familiar one, though G.E. appears to have perfected it: "fierce lobbying for tax breaks and innovative accounting that enables it to concentrate its profits offshore."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_thelookou … in-profits

You want to avoid paying taxes? Just have to lobby your way through and then concentrate profits offshore.

Ah, the system works.

(oh and that $3.2 billion tax credit should come in handy). Who's money was that again? Oh yeah, the tax payers! lol

Didn't ask about taxes......I asked who you went to ask for a job? was it the poor, or the rich?

You really gotta link me to a source that explains how the majority of the tax revenue for the US is paid by poor people. THAT, I gotta read!

I am glad GE keeps their money, everyone on the planet tries to find ways to pay less taxes...LEt me guess, you try to find ways to pay more taxes right?

Plenty of money coming in for the govt. to do what it is supposed to do...manage the infrastructure of a nation. I am not interested in paying more taxes or for corporations to pay more taxes for the sole purpose of wealth redistribution. Sorry.

If you hadn't noticed, companies that can not escape paying ridiculously high taxes, move away from them. They kinda take their jobs along with them. Good thing you rely on the poor more than you do the rich huh? Cuz you would be fucked then.

Last edited by lowing (2011-04-20 22:37:00)

2011-04-20 22:41:07

#20

AussieReaper: ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°); +5,761|6427|what

lowing wrote:
Didn't ask about taxes......I asked who you went to ask for a job? was it the poor, or the rich?

That is such a stupid argument. You don't go looking through the wanted ads and ask your employer how much money they make. And working for a small business you can be paid more than working for a large one. This has nothing to do with Reagan anyway. Since we're talking about Reaganomics. You know, tax policy...?

lowing wrote:
You really gotta link me to a source that explains how the majority of the tax revenue for the US is paid by poor people..

Serious? The majority of tax revenue in the US is collected from the top 1% because they are taxed at a higher rate. But they should be since they have all the income. The top 1% control about 40% of all wealth in the US and should be taxed accordingly.

lowing wrote:
I am glad GE keeps their money, everyone on the planet tries to find ways to pay less taxes...LEt me guess, you try to find ways to pay more taxes right?

GE more than just kept their money. They got $3bn of tax payer money given to them. Since they are so good at keeping profits offshore...

lowing wrote:
Plenty of money coming in for the govt. to do what it is supposed to do...manage the infrastructure of a nation. I am not interested in paying more taxes or for corporations to pay more taxes for the sole purpose of wealth redistribution. Sorry.

But you're in a huge defecit right now. The US has had to increase the debt ceiling limit because of this. How are you even arguing that there is plenty of money coming in for the government when they are in such a mess that a government shutdown was threatened?

You need to raise taxes now or continue to go into defecit.

Last edited by AussieReaper (2011-04-20 22:47:50)

2011-04-20 22:56:24

#21

AussieReaper: ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°); +5,761|6427|what

lowing wrote:
Plenty of money coming in for the govt. to do what it is supposed to do...manage the infrastructure of a nation.

Where did that $1.5 trillion defecit come from I wonder? Oh well, as you said, plenty of money coming in!

2011-04-21 00:03:54

#22

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,816|6380|eXtreme to the maX

Jay wrote:
Shit, but now prices have risen because people have more money to spend.

So we should keep people poor so the rich can buy stuff for a lower price?
OK.

Fuck Israel

2011-04-21 00:11:10

#23

unnamednewbie13: Moderator; +2,054|7046|PNW

AussieReaper wrote:
lowing wrote:
Plenty of money coming in for the govt. to do what it is supposed to do...manage the infrastructure of a nation.
Where did that $1.5 trillion defecit come from I wonder? Oh well, as you said, plenty of money coming in!

Fact: US government never wastes money on petty stuff.

2011-04-21 00:49:10

#24

lowing: Banned; +1,662|6925|USA

AussieReaper wrote:
lowing wrote:
Plenty of money coming in for the govt. to do what it is supposed to do...manage the infrastructure of a nation.
Where did that $1.5 trillion defecit come from I wonder? Oh well, as you said, plenty of money coming in!

how many guesses do you need?

2011-04-21 00:50:19

#25

Spark: liquid fluoride thorium reactor; +874|6949|Canberra, AUS

Dilbert_X wrote:
Jay wrote:
Shit, but now prices have risen because people have more money to spend.
So we should keep people poor so the rich can buy stuff for a lower price?
OK.

um

you have completely missed the point

not that galt's model is exactly flawless, but yeah.

The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
^{~ Richard Feynman}

BF2S Forums Sell me Reagan

AussieReaper wrote:

RTHKI wrote:

Jay wrote:

RTHKI wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

Jay wrote:

RTHKI wrote:

Jay wrote:

Jay wrote:

Macbeth wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

lowing wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

lowing wrote:

lowing wrote:

lowing wrote:

lowing wrote:

lowing wrote:

lowing wrote:

Jay wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

lowing wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

lowing wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Jay wrote:

Board footer