cawacko
Well-known member
Reagan had a whole econonic supply side philosophy of limited gov't. Trump has nothing close. He's overall platform is a populist one
Debate Thread
- Thread starter Seahawk
- Start date
Reagan had a whole econonic supply side philosophy of limited gov't. Trump has nothing close. He's overall platform is a populist one
MAGA MAN
Let's go Brandon!
You're supporting him now?
MAGA MAN
Let's go Brandon!
Show me, from his website.
cawacko
Well-known member
You're saying his website trumps all and what he says in his campaign is irrelevant
Billy Batts
Verified User
Good lord are there Baggers comparing Reagan to Trump? That has to be some kind of joke First Reagan was not a laughing stock, Second he had a solid record of Governor of California, and head of the Screen Actors guild (AFL-CIO Union) to run on, Neither Trump nor Clinton hold those type of credentials.
Baggers claim "Cutting taxes to grow the economy is exactly what Reagan did...” That is the Rush Limbaugh narrative that does not jive with the facts.
Reagan first year in office (1981) he introduced “The Economic Recovery Act”. This was supposed to reduce unemployment by lowering taxes on the Upper brackets (Milton Freedman won a Nobel Prize in economics for the theory).
In a nut shell Friedman’s theory went like this; if the government cut taxes on the wealthy, it would jump-start the economy as the wealthy would place their tax savings back into investments. New factories fitted with new technologies would produce goods at lower cost, taming inflation. And the newly hired workers would tame unemployment. It would, in effect, square the economic circle, fixing both inflation and unemployment at the same time.
Just the opposite happened unemployment rose to around 10%. Reagan saw his error, and with Congress passed TEFRA (Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act) in 1982. After TEFRA the economy began to slowly recover. TEFRA was the remedy to ERTA (tax cuts). In fact, TEFRA was the largest peacetime tax increase ever signed into law by any presidents.
Reagan supported a five-cent-per-gallon gasoline tax and higher taxes on the trucking industry. Along with raising Social Security tax.
Baggers claim "Cutting taxes to grow the economy is exactly what Reagan did...” That is the Rush Limbaugh narrative that does not jive with the facts.
Reagan first year in office (1981) he introduced “The Economic Recovery Act”. This was supposed to reduce unemployment by lowering taxes on the Upper brackets (Milton Freedman won a Nobel Prize in economics for the theory).
In a nut shell Friedman’s theory went like this; if the government cut taxes on the wealthy, it would jump-start the economy as the wealthy would place their tax savings back into investments. New factories fitted with new technologies would produce goods at lower cost, taming inflation. And the newly hired workers would tame unemployment. It would, in effect, square the economic circle, fixing both inflation and unemployment at the same time.
Just the opposite happened unemployment rose to around 10%. Reagan saw his error, and with Congress passed TEFRA (Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act) in 1982. After TEFRA the economy began to slowly recover. TEFRA was the remedy to ERTA (tax cuts). In fact, TEFRA was the largest peacetime tax increase ever signed into law by any presidents.
Reagan supported a five-cent-per-gallon gasoline tax and higher taxes on the trucking industry. Along with raising Social Security tax.
Actually, Hillary tried during the debate to compare Trump to Reagan. IDK what she was thinking with that, but I don't think it is a good strategy.
EDIT: Milton Friedman won "for his achievements in the fields of consumption analysis, monetary history and theory and for his demonstration of the complexity of stabilization policy."
Huh? I don't think Friedman would have promoted this "cost-push" theory of inflation since he was a monetarist.
EDIT 2:
OIC, you are grinding an axe but don't know what you are talking about.
Last edited:
Billy Batts
Verified User
I am not positive, but I believe she was talking about withdrawing from NATO. Reagan (or any of his predisposes) would not even consider that.
Legion Troll
A fine upstanding poster
Isn't he being audited?
It was on tax policy. She called it "Trumped Up Trickle Down."
USFREEDOM911
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
It's a different suit and different jewelry, you terminally ignorant moron.
You just go right ahead and keep telling yourself that; seeing as how you'll say any lie to protect the "V".
Also, you are clearly wrong about Friedman. There's no way THE monetarist was promoting the cost push theory of inflation.
"inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon." - Milton Friedman and Anna Schwartz A Monetary History of the United States, 1867–1960
MAGA MAN
Let's go Brandon!
Not irrelevant, but codified in his website
Billy Batts
Verified User
Which is why I said in a nutshell (broad terms) if you would like to narrow it and discuss the Laffer curve, other economist in 1970s who response to Keynesian economic policy - have at it. (Friedman, won the Nobel Prize in 1976, helped interpret and polarize supply-side economics, which Reagan and other lawmakers applies to U.S. public policy in the second half of the 20th century.) There is your clarification.
You seem intelligent no need to act like a jerk off. I am not a jerk off, and I don't think you are jerk off. So let the lames bandy those type of slogans around. otherwise you go on the lame list. Capisce?
Billy Batts
Verified User
Oh. Well she is right,it failed in 81 Reagan signed TEFRA in 82 after a poor showing.
Last edited:
Billy Batts
Verified User
I disagree, but for the sake of argument lets say you are right. It does not change the fact Reagan dumped the supply side theory, no matter where he read it, or where he got it.
cawacko
Well-known member
I guess I don't put as much faith that because something is on a candidates website they are going to stick to it anymore than the verbal promises they make.
No, there are no broad terms in which Milton Friedman supported a cost push theory of inflation. Do you even know what I am talking about?
Friedman won for "for his achievements in the fields of consumption analysis, monetary history and theory and for his demonstration of the complexity of stabilization policy." That's verbatim from the nobel org, but maybe you know better?
http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/economic-sciences/laureates/1976/
He did not even agree with Laffer.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply-side_economics
Nobel laureate economist Milton Friedman agreed the tax cuts would reduce tax revenues and result in intolerable deficits, though he supported them as a means to restrain federal spending.[61] Friedman characterized the reduced government tax revenue as "cutting their allowance".
http://www.wsj.com/news/articles/SB1042593796704188064
I thought, in my first edit, you were just misinformed so I politely corrected you. But you are grinding an ax and you are grossly misinformed about your target. I am not going to be polite about that.
LOL, disagree all you want. You are wrong! Friedman did not promote a cost push theory of inflation.
Again...
"inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon." - Milton Friedman and Anna Schwartz A Monetary History of the United States, 1867–1960
Airstrip One
Completely Effed
Sorry to be a jerk, but Milton Friedman's legacy is in his theories on inflation. Saying that he advocated "cost push" is like saying that Keynes was a "supply sider."
https://research.stlouisfed.org/publications/es/07/ES0701.pdf
Friedman was particularly scathing about “cost-push”theories, prevalent in the 1960s and 1970s, that attributed high inflation to autonomous increases in costs rather than to excess demand.
http://hubpages.com/education/Cost-Push-Inflation
Monetarists (beginning with Milton Friedman) argue that cost-push inflation doesn’t really exist. Since inflation is ultimately caused by an increase in the money supply, they say that an increase in production costs alone cannot cause inflation.
http://www.conciseguidetoeconomics.com/book/costPush/
One particularly popular theory among economists antagonistic to the free economy is that inflation is caused by a cost push in the form of a reduction in aggregate or total supply in the economy. In a straightforward analysis wherein aggregate supply and aggregate demand in the economy determine the price level, a reduced supply would have the effect of increasing prices in general. Thankfully though, the world we live in, including the persistent inflation, is not one of reduced supplies but ever greater production. Still, this theory is typically claimed to be applicable in the U.S. during the 1970's--the decade when Keynesian theory was revealed as clashing with actual experience.
The die-hard Keynesians claim that reduced crop yields from poor weather and the Arab oil embargo effected a supply shock on the U.S. economy, thereby driving inflation up into double digits. The problem with this theory is that it also does not fit with the facts:
1970 1979 Increase
Real GDP $2875.8B $3796.8B 32.02%
CPI (1982-84=100) 38.8 72.6 87.11%
Clearly, production was increasing during the 1970's while inflation was also increasing--the inflation must be explained by the demand side. In actual practice Milton Friedman's famous phrase is entirely correct--"Inflation is everywhere and always a monetary phenomenon."
https://research.stlouisfed.org/publications/es/07/ES0701.pdf
Friedman was particularly scathing about “cost-push”theories, prevalent in the 1960s and 1970s, that attributed high inflation to autonomous increases in costs rather than to excess demand.
http://hubpages.com/education/Cost-Push-Inflation
Monetarists (beginning with Milton Friedman) argue that cost-push inflation doesn’t really exist. Since inflation is ultimately caused by an increase in the money supply, they say that an increase in production costs alone cannot cause inflation.
http://www.conciseguidetoeconomics.com/book/costPush/
One particularly popular theory among economists antagonistic to the free economy is that inflation is caused by a cost push in the form of a reduction in aggregate or total supply in the economy. In a straightforward analysis wherein aggregate supply and aggregate demand in the economy determine the price level, a reduced supply would have the effect of increasing prices in general. Thankfully though, the world we live in, including the persistent inflation, is not one of reduced supplies but ever greater production. Still, this theory is typically claimed to be applicable in the U.S. during the 1970's--the decade when Keynesian theory was revealed as clashing with actual experience.
The die-hard Keynesians claim that reduced crop yields from poor weather and the Arab oil embargo effected a supply shock on the U.S. economy, thereby driving inflation up into double digits. The problem with this theory is that it also does not fit with the facts:
1970 1979 Increase
Real GDP $2875.8B $3796.8B 32.02%
CPI (1982-84=100) 38.8 72.6 87.11%
Clearly, production was increasing during the 1970's while inflation was also increasing--the inflation must be explained by the demand side. In actual practice Milton Friedman's famous phrase is entirely correct--"Inflation is everywhere and always a monetary phenomenon."
Last edited: