Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
Oh quit playing games. I just posted the facts. You can believe them or go drink your kool aid. Go bite someone elses ankles.
Ronald Reagan Documentary
- Thread starter Mott the Hoople
- Start date
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
Uhhh I thik your confused. We were discussing the HISTORICAL FACT, that Carter inherited the period of stagflation that Nixon created. Not Reagans response to those conditions.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
They are available at the same site listed above, you just have to pull them up via an excel spreadsheet.
Sure... again, all are located at the same links...
Inflation rate when Reagan took office....10.3%
Inflation rate end of first term..... 4.3%
http://www.miseryindex.us/irbyyear.asp
Unemployment when Reagan took office... 7.5%
Unemployment end of first term... 7.2% (it rose to a peak of 10.8% as a result of the Volcker plan Reagan allowed and the subsequent recession that plan created, then receded back to the 7.2% level by the start of Reagan's second term)
http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000
GDP growth year before Reagan took office... -0.3%
GDP growth end of first term .... 7.4% (again, recession caused by inflation killing plan was in between these two numbers.)
http://www.bea.gov/national/
Included above.
LMAO... yet another trying to give credit where it is not due.... yes Carter appointed Volcker... but look what Carter did to Volcker during 1979/80. At first Volcker initiated his plan of dramatically rising interest rates and the economy started pulling back as it should. Then he did quick reversal and dropped rates in 1980. Yes, the Fed is supposed to be independent. But if you think that happened just by chance during the election year you are mistaken. It wasn't until Reagan took office that Volcker was allowed to stick to his plan and put an end to the high inflationary environment of Carter.
All you have to do to see Carters lack of spine is to look at what happened to GDP growth on a quarterly basis. It contracted over 7% in the second quarter of 1980. Then suddenly Volcker reversed policy and dropped rates back down. The economy responded to the stimulus how? with higher GDP growth in the 3rr and 4th quarters, as well as the first quarter of 1980 (not to mention inflation remaining high) until Reagan allowed Volcker to continue killing inflation.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
LMAO... you haven't shown a single fact that relates to the economy that CARTER inherited. That economy is the one that came from FORD. Not Nixon. You see, FORD was in between the two. The economy as Ford left it was NOT one of double digit inflation. It was one where inflation was at 5.2% and falling. It was not one of low growth, it was one where GDP growth was 5.4% the year prior to Carter taking office. THOSE are the FACT mutt. THEY ARE BASED ON ACTUAL DATA.
Your 'facts' are you sitting here telling us how 'you lived it man, you lived it'.
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
nip, nip, nip, nip, nip.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
Easy Mutt, Dung is allowed to have his own conversation with me. Trust me, at least he will debate it based on ACTUAL data.
You continue to pretend stagflation occurred from Nixon, through Ford and onto Carter, yet you have NO DATA to support such an absurdity? Why is that Mutt? If it is an historical fact as you keep proclaiming, shouldn't you be able to provide the data that backs up your claim?
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
Yes, that does explain the 'facts' you have provided quite well.
I wasn't quibbling with the inflation numbers, though I was curious whether these are all items numbers versus core inflation numbers.
Right. So Reagan's first term started and ended where Carter's started and ended, but Reagan presided over 10.8% unemployment whereas Carter presided over 5.6% unemployment.
I asked for quarterly data. Fourth quarter 1976, growth was at 2.6%. Fourth quarter 1980, growth was at 7.6%. Fourth quarter 1984, growth was at 3.9%. During Carter's term, we went through a mild recession that lasted six months and ended July 1980, towards the end of Carter's term. During Reagan's term we went through a severe recession that ended in the middle of Reagan's term. The difference between Carter and Reagan is that Carter had worse timing.
This is nonsense. I also find it mighty convenient that your argument rests on premises that are neither provable nor disprovable: (1) that Carter pressured Volker to decreased rates in response to the early 1980 recession (2) the Volker was a pussy and relented to the demands of the president notwithstanding his independence and (3) that Reagan "allowed" Volker to do whatever he wished whereas Carter did not.
In any event, Volker was appointed in August 1979. He increased interest rates aggressively through the end of the year and into early 1980. As the economy went into recession, he eased up and decreased rates. When the economy recovered, he increased rates again, only to do the same thing in response to the 1981-1982 recession by lowering rates substantially in the midst of the recession.
By the way, SF, here is a chart of the effective federal funds rate from the beginning of Carter's term through the end of Reagan's first term:
As I said, Volker ramped up rates in August 1979, decreased them during the early 1980s recession, ramped them up again, and decreased them again in response to the 1981-1982 recession. The idea that Reagan allowed Volker to do as he pleased while Carter did not just isn't borne out. Volker acted the same under both presidents. Reagan just got the benefit of having a recession occur in the middle of his first term and with his increased deficit spending (6% of GDP in 1983, the highest level since 1946) enjoyed a growing economy thereafter.
As I said, Volker ramped up rates in August 1979, decreased them during the early 1980s recession, ramped them up again, and decreased them again in response to the 1981-1982 recession. The idea that Reagan allowed Volker to do as he pleased while Carter did not just isn't borne out. Volker acted the same under both presidents. Reagan just got the benefit of having a recession occur in the middle of his first term and with his increased deficit spending (6% of GDP in 1983, the highest level since 1946) enjoyed a growing economy thereafter.
I see, so Presidents can have a lasting effect on the economy?
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
ROFLMAO... yes, REAGAN did what it took to kill inflation. That meant he had to take some of the pain, rather than be a spineless hack like Carter and simply try to push the problem into the future. (similar to what your master keeps doing today).
Bottom line is this. Carter failed to address the jobs problem and he lost his a result. By the end of Reagans first term, it was down slightly from where he took it over, but most importantly it was trending down. It subsequently went to 5.2% by the time Bush took office. That is a level your messiah can't seem to reach and one Carter failed to deliver at the end of his term.
and as I TOLD you... the quarterly data is also at the link provided. All you had to do was use the link and BAM... there was the data. (side note... first quarter 1977 GDP growth was at 4.7%) I already mentioned why the GDP growth rate was high at the end of 1980. Carter lacked the spine to fight inflation. When you have a contraction of over 7% in the second quarter of 1980 and then drop interest rates dramatically it is going to spur GDP growth. But dropping rates significantly does what to inflation Dung? Tell me how that helped the middle class Dung? Oh yeah, it fucked them over.
Ok, you can choose to believe what you will. But tell us... what makes the most sense? What I stated or that:
Volcker had so little faith in his plan that he backed off on his own under Carter when the economy turned south, but then when he did it under Reagan and the economy went south he didn't back off? Why would he continue the second time around (or even start again for that matter?) He knew what was going to happen (at the very least he knew it the second time he started it).
so tell us... what about that is nonsense? Do you really expect us to believe that Volcker was that wishy washy under Carter, but suddenly found a spine under Reagan?
all of the above is correct, but you left out the key component... he LET the recession of 81/82 continue until AFTER inflation died.... THEN he dropped rates.
http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h15/data.htm
You can find the data at the above link. He raised rates until the economy contracted in the second quarter. He didn't raise them again until after the election was over and Carter lost. THEN he reimplemented the plan and continued it from throughout 1981 and into 1982.
so let's look at what happened... between September of 1979 and April of 1980 he raised rates from about 11.43% to 17.61%. Then in May of 1980 he dropped rates back to about 11% and then kept going down to 9.03% by July of 1980. Yeah... nothing to due with the upcoming election.... just Volcker suddenly panicking right?
Imagine what happens to GDP when you drop rates by about 8% that quickly. I wonder...
Then the very month the election was decided... Volcker was back at 15.85% and the next month (Dec 1980) the rate was jacked up to 18.9%. The following is a month by month look at the Fed Funds rate... So again, are you suggesting that Volcker didn't have the backbone under Carter to sustain his plan for more than 6 months, but somehow grew a spine under Reagan and kept rates high for almost 2 years?
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
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
If the policies remain in place, of course they can. Which is why the Clinton removal of Glass Steagall killed us, because Bush (and now Obama) failed to put it back in place.
FDR's policy was in place from 1935 until 1999. So it most certainly had a lasting effect.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
Hey dung, just because you are too stupid to go to the link I provided, doesn't mean the data isn't available for everyone. What I stated is correct. He backed off until after the election and THEN got aggressive with raising rates.
No, he didn't. Look at the chart I posted. He backed off during the recession (as he did in 1981-1982) and then progressively raised rates when the recession ended. Unless, of course you think that raising rates by 5% is "backing off."
Edit: And obviously I'm not "too stupid" to go look up the numbers. I just think it's a bit disingenuous for you to claim one thing and then omit the evidence that you have at your fingertips that undercuts your claim. That's the kind of thing a hack would do. And we all know that you aren't a hack.
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
He isn't?
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
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.
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%.
In no way does the data undercut what I stated. It supports it completely.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
He isn't?
Let me guess... the above is more of your 'data' and 'facts'?
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
Go read post #40 again and deny those facts.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
They have already been debunked time and time again. You keep pretending that Ford was never in office. You keep ignoring all of the data that shows you are wrong.
I don't believe you even understand what stagflation actually is. Otherwise you would know the data is wrong.
The only other explanation is that you are just being a complete partisan hack. Which I leave open as a possibility given your proclamation that my sources for data were 'spurious'/'suspicious' when the data came straight from government sites.
So which is it Mutt? Are you ignorant or just a complete hack?