Ronald Reagan Documentary

[Bonestorm]

Look at the rates twit. Stating he 'backed off' in 81/82 is nothing short of absurd. For the 12 months from Nov 1980 until October 1981, he never dropped rates below 14.7%. Then for three months he dropped them all the way down to 13.3%, 12.3%, 13.2%, then back over 14% until inflation began to die 5 months later and he started dropping rates for good . Compare that to 1980 where he spent a whole THREE months above that 14% level. It is completely absurd to pretend Volcker acted the same.

As for the five percent raise, the bulk of that was a couple weeks before the election (Oct 21st and then again at the November 18th meeting) and would have little impact on the economy prior to the election.

At the beginning of the 1981-1982 recession, the federal funds rate was above 19%. By the end of the recession, it was below 10%. He halved it, but you don't call that backing off. At the same time, you considered raising the rate from about 9% to about 14% from the end of the 1980 recession through November 1980 "backing off."

So cutting the rate in half is not backing off but increasing the rate by 5% is? Weird.

1980-09 10.87
1980-10 12.81
1980-11 15.85

So prior to the election the rate was back where it was prior to Volcker starting the rate hikes... but you did get me, that first 2% raise happened a whole 2.5 weeks before the election. Good catch Dung.... except that is NOT 5%. It is just under 2%.

Except the 1980 recession ended in July. At the time, rates were about 9%. From July through November, when you claim Volker was backing off, rates increased substantially. Here's a chart:

Doesn't look like backing off to me, particularly as compared to the period that you claim Volker "kept rates high." Here's a chart of your "kept rates high" period:

So according to you the top chart, with rapidly increasing rates is "backing off," while the bottom chart is keeping rates high. That makes a lot of sense, SF.

In no way does the data undercut what I stated. It supports it completely.

Actually, it doesn't. At all.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

At the beginning of the 1981-1982 recession, the federal funds rate was above 19%. By the end of the recession, it was below 10%. He halved it, but you don't call that backing off. At the same time, you considered raising the rate from about 9% to about 14% from the end of the 1980 recession through November 1980 "backing off."

So cutting the rate in half is not backing off but increasing the rate by 5% is? Weird.

You are such a dishonest little hack.

1979-05 10.24
1979-06 10.29
1979-07 10.47
1979-08 10.94
1979-09 11.43
1979-10 13.77
1979-11 13.18
1979-12 13.78
1980-01 13.82
1980-02 14.13
1980-03 17.19
1980-04 17.61
1980-05 10.98
1980-06 9.47
1980-07 9.03
1980-08 9.61
1980-09 10.87
1980-10 12.81
1980-11 15.85
1980-12 18.9
1981-01 19.08
1981-02 15.93

As I stated, he had rates initially under Carter up to 17%, he then dropped them by over 6% (closer to 7, but I don't want to listen to you bitch) in one month. As I stated, he then kept rates low until when Dung? When did they go back up above the levels where Volcker started? It was in OCTOBER of 1980. The October meeting was on the 21st. So as I already stated, the first raise was just prior to the election. But it had no chance of effecting the economy prior to the election. That first move was about 2%, the rest of that 5% move came two weeks AFTER the election.

As for the 81/82 recession. Again, trying to say he did the same thing is 100% dishonest. He kept rates over 14% for about 17 of the 20 months. That economic downturn lasted almost two years, not a few months.

Except the 1980 recession ended in July. At the time, rates were about 9%. From July through November, when you claim Volker was backing off, rates increased substantially. Here's a chart:

Here is the month by month DATA....

1980-04 17.61
1980-05 10.98
1980-06 9.47
1980-07 9.03
1980-08 9.61
1980-09 10.87
1980-10 12.81
1980-11 15.85

So yes, he did drop rates BELOW where he first started by July. From a peak of the 17.61% to the July low of 9.03%. Three months... 7.5% in cuts. AS I STATED, the BULK of the increases came WHEN Dung?

Oh yeah, it was the October 21 and November 18th Fed meetings. So two weeks prior to the election and two weeks after. It is exactly as I stated. While there was a rise from the bottom in July, it didn't get back above where Volcker started trying to combat inflation until WHEN dung? Volcker started in August of 1979. The rate then was 10.94%. It was at 10.84% in September of 1980. So he didn't start going after inflation again until WHEN Dung... oh yeah... that Oct 21st meeting.

Doesn't look like backing off to me, particularly as compared to the period that you claim Volker "kept rates high." Here's a chart of your "kept rates high" period:

Again, here is the actual DATA...

1980-10 12.81
1980-11 15.85
1980-12 18.9
1981-01 19.08
1981-02 15.93
1981-03 14.7
1981-04 15.72
1981-05 18.52
1981-06 19.1
1981-07 19.04
1981-08 17.82
1981-09 15.87
1981-10 15.08
1981-11 13.31
1981-12 12.37
1982-01 13.22
1982-02 14.78
1982-03 14.68
1982-04 14.94
1982-05 14.45
1982-06 14.15
1982-07 12.59
1982-08 10.12
1982-09 10.31
1982-10 9.71
1982-11 9.2
1982-12 8.95
1983-01 8.68
1983-02 8.51

Let's see if you can COUNT... how many months did Volcker leave rates above 14% under Carter and how many above 14% for Reagan?

Now... take a look at the inflationary data on a monthly basis....

1981 11.8 11.4 10.5 10.0 9.8 9.6 10.8 10.8 11.0 10.1 9.6 8.9
1982 8.4 7.6 6.8 6.5 6.7 7.1 6.4 5.9 5.0 5.1 4.6 3.8

Can you see why he began lowering rates in 1982 Dung... or do I need to spell it out for you. It had nothing to do with the recession and everything to do with the fact that inflation was dropping.

 

[christiefan915]

I love Ronald Reagan Jr., I will have to check it out, thanks!

I like him, too. I think he's the best of the bunch.

 

[christiefan915]

LMAO I love Top's posts most of the time. The "no that was your mother" ones are the best, but this one was pretty good.

He had a great one the other day in response to bravo, (paraphrasing) "go reline your dentures, grandpa".

 

[sedan]

Oh what would you know? You were still shitting yellow in your diaper back then. Talk about hackery, it fucking hillarious that you refuse to recognize the historical fact that the period of stagflation was inherited by Carter from the Nixon/Ford administrations and that it was the policies implemented by Carter's Fed Chair Paul Voelker (which Reagan adopted and continued) that ended it but what ever dude. Keep drinking the kool-aid.

Remember these?

 

[The Dude]

Thanks for the burn compliment. But it was directed an grampaw facist alias. Is bravo old too? He said he was retired, I figured he was just an unemployable wingnut ex navy deck mopper.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Remember these?

LOL I sure do. He came out with that right after he pardoned Nixon. It didn't work, did it? LOL

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Sorry Dixie. That's another Grover Norquist and gang mythology. There was a 60% increase in government spending during Reagan's tenure and all Reagan had to do to reign in congress was to simply use his veto power so your argument doesn't wash. Reagan grew increased government by 3% of GDP as compared to the 1.3% increase under Carter and Ford.

Then lets talk about regulation. Some deregulation had begun under Carter, such as, abolishing the civil aeronautics board and the deregulation of oil prices. Reagan halted that momentum. Cost of regulation grew substantially under Reagan. Cost that the executive branch of government are responsible for. Not congress.

Reagan also signed into law 43 environmental bills into law including, Superfund Amendment and Reauthorization Act, Safe Drinking Water Ammendments, Clean Water Act, Ammendments, Comprehensive Response, Compensation and Liability Act. Reagan easily could have vetoed these bills and the would not have been able to obtain a super majority in congress to become law but he didn't. He signed them into law and grew both the size of government and the scope of regulation and that's just one example of where Reagan grew the size, scope and cost of the executive branch of Government when he easily could have reigned that growth in by simply exercising his veto power.

So your "It's congresses fault" argument just doesn't hold water.

Well Mott, I am sorry you weren't aware of this, and somewhat embarrassed for you, because I think most people do... but the president doesn't write legislation, he only signs it into law after Congress passes it. One of the things Reagan was adamant and consistent in asking Congress for, was the line-item veto, so that he could remove undesirable parts of a bill and keep the good. They never gave it to him, and since Congress was controlled by the opposition, most anything Reagan wanted, came at a price. Again, I am sorry you don't comprehend that when the opposition controls Congress, they don't just give the president anything he wants and not get something in return, it just doesn't happen in the reality of the world we all live in, Mott.

 

[Bonestorm]

You are such a dishonest little hack.

1As I stated, he had rates initially under Carter up to 17%, he then dropped them by over 6% (closer to 7, but I don't want to listen to you bitch) in one month. As I stated, he then kept rates low until when Dung? When did they go back up above the levels where Volcker started? It was in OCTOBER of 1980. The October meeting was on the 21st. So as I already stated, the first raise was just prior to the election. But it had no chance of effecting the economy prior to the election. That first move was about 2%, the rest of that 5% move came two weeks AFTER the election.

Your claim is that Volker backed off until after the 1980 election. It's not true. The target rate increased from about 9% to about 14% prior to the election. On November 7, 1980, a few days after the election, he increased the target rate again, and continued to do so during the lame duck period.

Here's that chart again:

If Volker "backed off" until after the election there would not have been a 5% increase between August and November.

As for the 81/82 recession. Again, trying to say he did the same thing is 100% dishonest. He kept rates over 14% for about 17 of the 20 months. That economic downturn lasted almost two years, not a few months.

You're so full of shit. In response to the 1980 recession, Volker shaved 8 percentage points off the rate. In response to the 1981 recession he shaved 7 percentage points off the rate. In 1980, the economy turned around immediately. In 1981, it didn't. While Volker increased the rate in 1981 after cutting it significantly, likely in the belief that, like in 1980 the economy would turn around, he further cut the rate. During the 1980 recession, Volker cut the rate by 8%. During the 1981-82 recession he cut the rate by 10%. It's just that the 1981-82 recession lasted longer.

So yes, he did drop rates BELOW where he first started by July. From a peak of the 17.61% to the July low of 9.03%. Three months... 7.5% in cuts. AS I STATED, the BULK of the increases came WHEN Dung?

Oh yeah, it was the October 21 and November 18th Fed meetings. So two weeks prior to the election and two weeks after. It is exactly as I stated. While there was a rise from the bottom in July, it didn't get back above where Volcker started trying to combat inflation until WHEN dung? Volcker started in August of 1979. The rate then was 10.94%. It was at 10.84% in September of 1980. So he didn't start going after inflation again until WHEN Dung... oh yeah... that Oct 21st meeting.

Your claim that got this all started was that Volker backed off until after the 1980 election at the behest of Jimmy Carter who told Volker what to do and that Volker was such pushover that he did whatever Jimmy told him to do. As an initial matter, if that were true Jimmy probably could have prevented Volker from increasing the rate to 17+% during an election year as an initial matter. Jimmy also could have forced Volker to keep the rates at 9% going into the election, but that didn't happen.

Prior to the September 16, 1980 Fed meeting, the effective federal funds rate was 10.5-11%. By the October 21 meeting you mentioned above, the effective federal funds rate was 12.5-13%. That's 3.5 to 4% points above the 9% rate at the end of July 1980. By my figuring, that's before the election and the 3.5 to 4% is more than half of the 5% increase that I mentioned occured prior to the 1980 election. So, your claim that Volker "didn't start going after inflation again until the Oct. 21 meeting" is just plain false.

You can read all about it at the link below, if you wish, on pages 20-22:

https://research.stlouisfed.org/publications/review/81/08/Targeting_Aug_Sep1981.pdf

Let's see if you can COUNT... how many months did Volcker leave rates above 14% under Carter and how many above 14% for Reagan?

Volker was appointed in August 1979. He served under Carter for a total of 16 months. Rates decreased for only 4 of those months, (and really is was one big drop). For the first 14 months of Reagan's first term, rates decreased substantially 7 times. Can you COUNT?

Now... take a look at the inflationary data on a monthly basis....

1981 11.8 11.4 10.5 10.0 9.8 9.6 10.8 10.8 11.0 10.1 9.6 8.9
1982 8.4 7.6 6.8 6.5 6.7 7.1 6.4 5.9 5.0 5.1 4.6 3.8


Can you see why he began lowering rates in 1982 Dung... or do I need to spell it out for you. It had nothing to do with the recession and everything to do with the fact that inflation was dropping.

What does this have to do with your claim that Volker was a pushover that took orders from Carter while Reagan, in his grand magnificence, let him do whatever he wished?

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Well Mott, I am sorry you weren't aware of this, and somewhat embarrassed for you, because I think most people do... but the president doesn't write legislation, he only signs it into law after Congress passes it. One of the things Reagan was adamant and consistent in asking Congress for, was the line-item veto, so that he could remove undesirable parts of a bill and keep the good. They never gave it to him, and since Congress was controlled by the opposition, most anything Reagan wanted, came at a price. Again, I am sorry you don't comprehend that when the opposition controls Congress, they don't just give the president anything he wants and not get something in return, it just doesn't happen in the reality of the world we all live in, Mott.

So Dixie....what you're telling me is that the President can't veto legislation? LOL

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Remember these?

Yeah, in 1974 we had double digit inflation.... guess what it was when Ford left office.... 5.2%

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

LOL I sure do. He came out with that right after he pardoned Nixon. It didn't work, did it? LOL

This is where you show you have no fucking clue... you just spout off what you want to believe. The following is what happened to the inflation rate. So keep LOL... you ass clown

1974 9.4 10.0 10.4 10.1 10.7 10.9 11.5 10.9 11.9 12.1 12.2 12.3 11.0
1975 11.8 11.2 10.3 10.2 9.5 9.4 9.7 8.6 7.9 7.4 7.4 6.9 9.1
1976 6.7 6.3 6.1 6.0 6.2 6.0 5.4 5.7 5.5 5.5 4.9 4.9 5.8
1977 5.2

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Your claim is that Volker backed off until after the 1980 election. It's not true. The target rate increased from about 9% to about 14% prior to the election. On November 7, 1980, a few days after the election, he increased the target rate again, and continued to do so during the lame duck period.

LMAO.... you can look at the chart and GUESS what you think the numbers were... or you can look at the ACTUAL MONTHLY DATA THAT I POSTED THAT SHOWS YOU WHAT IT WAS.

As I posted already... the Fed rate stayed BELOW where rates were prior to Volcker taking over UNTIL OCTOBER 21st. Just prior to the election you dishonest hack. AND it did not go over 14% PRIOR to the election. The November meeting was the third week of the month... TWO WEEKS AFTER THE ELECTION. You dishonest hack.

If Volker "backed off" until after the election there would not have been a 5% increase between August and November.

LMAO.... see the above you dishonest hack.

You're so full of shit. In response to the 1980 recession, Volker shaved 8 percentage points off the rate. In response to the 1981 recession he shaved 7 percentage points off the rate.

No you dishonest HACK. I am not full of shit. I posted the EXACT monthly DATA. You keep ignoring that. You also pretend that it is the same when the rates were different. There is a difference between a high point of 17% that you take eight points off of and starting at 19% and taking off 7. There is also a difference in the amount of time you leave the rates high.

THREE months above 14% was all Carter could stomach.

SEVENTEEN months above 14% under Reagan.

You fucking dishonest hack.

In 1980, the economy turned around immediately. In 1981, it didn't.

ROFLMAO... again MORON... look at the DATA. IN 1980 he dropped the interest rates by 7% in ONE MONTH. How long did it take him to drop rates by 7% in 1981?

1980-02 14.13
1980-03 17.19
1980-04 17.61
1980-05 10.98
1980-06 9.47
1980-07 9.03
1980-08 9.61
1980-09 10.87
1980-10 12.81
1980-11 15.85
1980-12 18.9
1981-01 19.08
1981-02 15.93
1981-03 14.7
1981-04 15.72
1981-05 18.52
1981-06 19.1
1981-07 19.04
1981-08 17.82
1981-09 15.87
1981-10 15.08
1981-11 13.31
1981-12 12.37
1982-01 13.22
1982-02 14.78
1982-03 14.68
1982-04 14.94
1982-05 14.45
1982-06 14.15
1982-07 12.59
1982-08 10.12

Now look again at the monthly inflation data you dishonest hack

1981 11.8 11.4 10.5 10.0 9.8 9.6 10.8 10.8 11.0 10.1 9.6 8.9
1982 8.4 7.6 6.8 6.5 6.7 7.1 6.4 5.9 5.0 5.1 4.6 3.8

What do you see you dishonest hack?

He lowered rates in 1981 AS THE INFLATION RATE CAME DOWN.

Prior to the September 16, 1980 Fed meeting, the effective federal funds rate was 10.5-11%.

Yes, the actual data was posted above. Now, again... what was the rate when Volcker took office? Before Volcker started his plan? What WAS THAT RATE DUNG?

By the October 21 meeting you mentioned above, the effective federal funds rate was 12.5-13%. That's 3.5 to 4% points above the 9% rate at the end of July 1980.

Yes Dung... It was about 1.8% higher than where rates were when Volcker became Chair.... and that happened, AS I STATED, three weeks prior to the election... when there was little chance of it effecting the economy PRIOR to the election.

By my figuring, that's before the election and the 3.5 to 4% is more than half of the 5% increase that I mentioned occured prior to the 1980 election. So, your claim that Volker "didn't start going after inflation again until the Oct. 21 meeting" is just plain false.

You are again ignoring everything I wrote. Again... the rate was WHAT when Volcker started going after inflation? 10.94%

The rate was what prior to the Oct. 21 meeting? 10.87%

Volker was appointed in August 1979. He served under Carter for a total of 16 months. Rates decreased for only 4 of those months, (and really is was one big drop). For the first 14 months of Reagan's first term, rates decreased substantially 7 times. Can you COUNT?

You truly are a dishonest hack. I have already shown you that the cuts during the 81/82 recession coincide with the decrease in the inflation rate. I have already shown you that rates were ABOVE 14% for 17 months during that time frame. Rates were only above 14% for three months. Do you understand why that matters moron?

 

[Mott the Hoople]

This is where you show you have no fucking clue... you just spout off what you want to believe. The following is what happened to the inflation rate. So keep LOL... you ass clown

1974 9.4 10.0 10.4 10.1 10.7 10.9 11.5 10.9 11.9 12.1 12.2 12.3 11.0
1975 11.8 11.2 10.3 10.2 9.5 9.4 9.7 8.6 7.9 7.4 7.4 6.9 9.1
1976 6.7 6.3 6.1 6.0 6.2 6.0 5.4 5.7 5.5 5.5 4.9 4.9 5.8
1977 5.2

What caused those numbers Freak? Was it Nixon's spending on Vietnam? Were they reactions to Nixons disastrous price controls? Was it the arab oil crises? Was it Carter growing peanuts? Come Freak tell us. LOL

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

What caused those numbers Freak? Was it Nixon's spending on Vietnam? Were they reactions to Nixons disastrous price controls? Was it the arab oil crises? Was it Carter growing peanuts? Come Freak tell us. LOL

Which number Mutt... the 5.2% that Carter inherited? Is that the one you want explained to you?

you seem to be under the delusion that because high inflation occurred in our past that somehow equates to Carter inheriting stagflation. You do realize they are two separate arguments don't you Mutt? Or are you too ignorant for that?

I never stated that we had never seen high inflation prior to Carter. I stated that Carter did NOT inherit stagflation as YOU CONTINUE TO PRETEND HE DID.

So again Mutt... is it that 5.2% figure you need explained to you AGAIN?

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Does this mean you are running away again Mutt?

 

[Bonestorm]

LMAO.... you can look at the chart and GUESS what you think the numbers were... or you can look at the ACTUAL MONTHLY DATA THAT I POSTED THAT SHOWS YOU WHAT IT WAS.

As I posted already... the Fed rate stayed BELOW where rates were prior to Volcker taking over UNTIL OCTOBER 21st. Just prior to the election you dishonest hack. AND it did not go over 14% PRIOR to the election. The November meeting was the third week of the month... TWO WEEKS AFTER THE ELECTION. You dishonest hack.

I'm not guessing. I'm going by what the Fed said. Let me quote directly:

In the day’s just prior to the October 21 meeting, the federal funds rate was trading in the area of 12.50 to 13 percent, compared with 10.50 to 11 percent just before the last Committee meeting on September 16.

https://research.stlouisfed.org/publications/review/81/08/Targeting_Aug_Sep1981.pdf


Now, let's back up a bit. You claimed that Volker backed of until after the 1980 election. I said that's not true, his increased the fed funds rate by 5% prior to the election. You said that was untrue and that the bulk of the increase from 9 to 14% occurred after the election. Well, according to the Fed, the rate increased by 3.5 to 4% points before the October 21 meeting. Now, I'm no math whiz, but it is my understanding that 3.5 to 4 is the bulk of 5 and that 1 to 1.5 is not. It is also worth noting that at the August 12, 1980 meeting the Fed adopted a fed funds range of 8 to 14 and did not modify that target.

And, by the way, here is a chart of the effective federal funds rate from July 1980 to election day 1980:

Looks to me like, exactly as I said, the rate increased 5% points, from 9% to 14% between the end of the 1980 recession and the election.

In short, you're full of shit.

LMAO.... see the above you dishonest hack.

You do the same

No you dishonest HACK. I am not full of shit. I posted the EXACT monthly DATA. You keep ignoring that. You also pretend that it is the same when the rates were different. There is a difference between a high point of 17% that you take eight points off of and starting at 19% and taking off 7. There is also a difference in the amount of time you leave the rates high.

THREE months above 14% was all Carter could stomach.

SEVENTEEN months above 14% under Reagan.

You fucking dishonest hack.

You crack me up. You continue to ascribe to Reagan and Carter things that have nothing to do with them. Asserting something over and over and over again doesn't make it so.

ROFLMAO... again MORON... look at the DATA. IN 1980 he dropped the interest rates by 7% in ONE MONTH. How long did it take him to drop rates by 7% in 1981?

Five months. Like I said, he decreased rates more gradually during the 1981-82 recession. You are the guy who thinks the number of months for a given policy is relevant, not me.

Now look again at the monthly inflation data you dishonest hack

1981 11.8 11.4 10.5 10.0 9.8 9.6 10.8 10.8 11.0 10.1 9.6 8.9
1982 8.4 7.6 6.8 6.5 6.7 7.1 6.4 5.9 5.0 5.1 4.6 3.8

What do you see you dishonest hack?

He lowered rates in 1981 AS THE INFLATION RATE CAME DOWN.

I never disputed that. I disputed that he did so because Reagan "allowed" him to whereas Carter did not.

Yes, the actual data was posted above. Now, again... what was the rate when Volcker took office? Before Volcker started his plan? What WAS THAT RATE DUNG?

Yes Dung... It was about 1.8% higher than where rates were when Volcker became Chair.... and that happened, AS I STATED, three weeks prior to the election... when there was little chance of it effecting the economy PRIOR to the election.

You are again ignoring everything I wrote. Again... the rate was WHAT when Volcker started going after inflation? 10.94%

The rate was what prior to the Oct. 21 meeting? 10.87%

See above, you liar. Prior to the October 21 meeting, the rate was between 12.5 and 13 percent, at least according to the Fed.

You truly are a dishonest hack. I have already shown you that the cuts during the 81/82 recession coincide with the decrease in the inflation rate. I have already shown you that rates were ABOVE 14% for 17 months during that time frame. Rates were only above 14% for three months. Do you understand why that matters moron?

You seem to misunderstand the nature of our dispute. While I take issue with the monthly data you posted because it is imprecise and inaccurate, our dispute is whether Volker was a pushover that Carter told what to do and that Reagan gave free reign. You still haven't produced anything that shows that to be the case. In fact, your argument requires you to cling to the lie that Volker "backed off" in the run up to the 1980 recession. It just ins't true.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Which number Mutt... the 5.2% that Carter inherited? Is that the one you want explained to you?

you seem to be under the delusion that because high inflation occurred in our past that somehow equates to Carter inheriting stagflation. You do realize they are two separate arguments don't you Mutt? Or are you too ignorant for that?

I never stated that we had never seen high inflation prior to Carter. I stated that Carter did NOT inherit stagflation as YOU CONTINUE TO PRETEND HE DID.

So again Mutt... is it that 5.2% figure you need explained to you AGAIN?

So you're telling me that the supply shocks of 73-74 and 78-80 had nothing to do with the stagflation of the 70's? Yea....right. Dude, you simply don't know what you're talking about. You're are completely ignoring the impact that those shocks had on inflation, which is ignorant as hell. From 1972 to 1974 the price of oil rose $3.56/barrel in 1972 to $10.11/barrel in 1974. This was almost solely due to Nixons price/cost fixes, which were disastrous, and regulation of oil production which kept the US largely dependent on imported oil and that left the US as sitting ducks when the Arab oil embargo went down and nearly tripled the cost of oil. The price of oil then leveled off through 75 and 76 to around $12/barrell with the corresponding decrease in inflation that occurred but Nixon's oil production regulations were still kept in place by Ford and that was a situation Carter inherited. Carter did the right when the oil panic of 1978 - 1980 occurred as a result of the Iranian revolution and the second oil panic which drove oil up from $14.85/barrel to $39.50/barrel. When that happened Carter did the right thing even though in the short term it resulted in higher oil prices. Carter phased in oil production deregulation ending the Nixon regulatory era on oil which substantially increased domestic production and substantially decreased our dependence on foreign oil and ultimately stabilized oil prices. It was this policy measure along with the Fed Chair Volckers monetary policy under Carter to increase prime rates to battle inflation that ended up fixing the problem.

Your wanting to throw stats around with out any regard what so ever to the historical conditions as they happened , i.e. the supply shocks of the 1970's, is a big fucking joke. it's completely laughable. You can't even differentiate between cause and affect, what a fucking joke! LOL

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

So you're telling me that the supply shocks of 73-74 and 78-80 had nothing to do with the stagflation of the 70's? Yea....right.

No you fucking idiot... I am telling you that inflation rate was at 5.2% in January of 1977 when Carter took office. I am telling you that you are incorrect to state that Carter inherited stagflation. He did not.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

I'm not guessing. I'm going by what the Fed said. Let me quote directly:

Seriously? You are going to argue about a couple of days? Ok, it was a couple of days prior to the meeting. Wow, you really got me dung. you fucking dishonest little hack.

Just keep posting your little charts and ignoring the ACTUAL data. Good work dishonest little hack.