The Bankruptcy Boys

HUGO STIGLITZ said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_C._Prescott

This right-wing nutjob won it just a few years back. Damo makes an ass of himself once again.
Click to expand...
You didn't link us to what he won it for, nor whether there were other recipients, was there a majority libertarian?... Why is that? My guess is because he sought out just one token for one year in any moment hoping he'd find one he finally fell upon this guy.

The reality is Watermark, that there is only this one among so many only underlines what I proposed, it doesn't dismiss it. Kind of like seeing one black dude in a neighborhood with only one white guy and saying it is now "diverse"...
 
Southern Man said:
No one ever said Reagan didn't grow the deficit. Years of the 'Rat's neglecting the military had to be paid for.

Where is The One on your chart? :pke:
Click to expand...
You mean from when Nixon disembowled it during Vietnam? Again, your just factually wrong. Stick with Engineering SM...you're no historian.

All you're proving here is most of your beliefs in your ideological hero are mythologies as they never happened. Reagan, in the grand scheme of things, as a president, didn't really accomplish a hell of a lot.
 
Southern Man said:
Reagan net policies reduced the tax burden substantially. Although it created a deficit short term it did exactly as predicted within a few short years: grew the economy and along with that, tax revenues. :palm:
Click to expand...
It grew the economy marginally, look at the facts! He wasn't nearly as succesfull as LBJ and what was the cost? A massive amount of debt that still has not been paid off. When the debt is calculated into the equation, he didn't grow the economy at all, it was artificial growth of borrowed money. Again, just more mythology.
 
Southern Man said:
You're wrong. Clinton knew enough to stay out of Greenspan's way and continue what Reagan had started. You're FOS on this.
Click to expand...
Again, you don't know what you're talking about. Greenspan wasn't hired by Reagan to replace Voelker until August of 87 a few months before Reagan's 2nd term ended. It was Reagan who kept Voelker until that time and essentially continued Carter's fiscal policies through most of his 8 years in office. Go look up the facts.....or are you more comfy with your mythologies?
 
Originally Posted by Yurt View Post
what did clinton change? specifics. exactly what did clinton change from reagonomics? and how did this change cause the longest period of growth in modern us history?
Click to expand...

What were the differences?

Well first Clinton increased marginal tax rates on the highest income partially to pre-Reagan levels and started paying down the debt.

He worked out budget cuts with congress that were broad and balanced, instead of trying to gut particular sectors that he was ideologically opposed to, like Reagan very ineffectively did. With the end result that he more effectively cut spending then Reagan did even though his goals were far more modest then Reagan's.

Clinton's increase of tax rates on the higher end forced more capital into circulation with the result that employment rose and standard of living rose. In addition, companies that produced goods were more profitable then they were under Reagan where most growth was in the service industry and not manufacturing. This attracted more investment and put more capital into circulation and created even more wealth. Keep in mind that during Reagan's tenure economic growth occurred almost exclusively at the upper ends of society (which could explain why they cannonise him) very little of it occurred at the lower ends and real jobs creation was marginal and there was no significant rise in the standard of living for most Americans during the Reagan years.

Clinton's shrinking of the debt also had an substantial affect on the economy making payment on Reagan's debt more affordable. The result was a boost in prosperity that extended through the full depths of the economy, not just the upper levels as during the Reagan years. This does make one wonder how much better Clinton would have performed had he not been burdoned with Reagan's debt?

Here's a figure that illustrates the difference between Clinton and Reagan and how Reagan's growth mainly benifited those at the very top. From 1981 to 1993 the median household income (adjusted for inflation) only rose 5.9%. An average of only 0.5%/year. Not to much to sing about. Yet at the same time the mean household income rose 17.5% (1.4%/ year) demonstrating how economic growth during Reagan mainly benefited those at the top.

From 1993 to 2000 median household income rose by 14.7% (2%/yr) while the mean household income rose 17.1% (2.3%) meaning that Clinton's economic policy, unlike Reagans, was a tide that really did lift all boats.

So this little essay not only demonstrates the differences between Clinton and Reagan's economic policy and Clinton's superior performance it also guts some of these mythologies about Reagan. The only conclusion one can draw here is that trickle down economics does not work but trickle up economic does. In other words the comparison between Reagan and Clinton can starkely be made in those two term. Trickle Down vs Trickle Up.

Reagan was great if you sat at the top of the economic ladder. If you were middle class or poor. He didn't do a hell of a lot for you.
 
Last edited:
Pre-Reagan levels were astronomical. The top rate under Clinton was somewhere between 33.5 - 37 (I'm not sure what, exactly), which doesn't compare to the 70% before Reagan. JFK had previously cut them down from 90%.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
You mean from when Nixon disembowled it during Vietnam? Again, your just factually wrong. Stick with Engineering SM...you're no historian.

All you're proving here is most of your beliefs in your ideological hero are mythologies as they never happened. Reagan, in the grand scheme of things, as a president, didn't really accomplish a hell of a lot.
Click to expand...
It doesn't matter who neglected the military. My claim is that Reagan built it back up to where it should be. Now again, where is Obama on your deficit chart?
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Again, you don't know what you're talking about. Greenspan wasn't hired by Reagan to replace Voelker until August of 87 a few months before Reagan's 2nd term ended. It was Reagan who kept Voelker until that time and essentially continued Carter's fiscal policies through most of his 8 years in office. Go look up the facts.....or are you more comfy with your mythologies?
Click to expand...
Voelker didn't continue Carter's fiscal policies, but implemented Reagan's. And Greenspan continued those policies through the Carter years.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
It grew the economy marginally, look at the facts! He wasn't nearly as succesfull as LBJ and what was the cost? A massive amount of debt that still has not been paid off. When the debt is calculated into the equation, he didn't grow the economy at all, it was artificial growth of borrowed money. Again, just more mythology.
Click to expand...
Again, you refuse to acknowledge the fact that Reagan's policies were carried through the Bush 43 and Clinton terms. Clinton could pay down the debt because the costs of military expansion and managing the Cold War were no longer needed.
 
Southern Man said:
Again, you refuse to acknowledge the fact that Reagan's policies were carried through the Bush 43 and Clinton terms. Clinton could pay down the debt because the costs of military expansion and managing the Cold War were no longer needed.
Click to expand...
That's because they weren't. Some of the policies of the Fed were continued under Greenspan this is true but you can ignore the facts all you want until the cows came home, it is an inarguable fact that Clinton made radical changes from Reagan era fiscal policy and he grew the economy significantly more then Reagan did and he did so by reducing debt that had occurred under Reagan and Bush1.

What you insist on believing about Reagan is pure mythology and is completely divorced from reality.
 
I suggest you bunch of economic illiterates take a look at who were the top companies at Reagan's start and Clinton's end. That will tell you who should get the credit.
Say the top 10 in the fortune 500
 
Mott the Hoople said:
That's because they weren't. Some of the policies of the Fed were continued under Greenspan this is true but you can ignore the facts all you want until the cows came home, it is an inarguable fact that Clinton made radical changes from Reagan era fiscal policy and he grew the economy significantly more then Reagan did and he did so by reducing debt that had occurred under Reagan and Bush1.

What you insist on believing about Reagan is pure mythology and is completely divorced from reality.
Click to expand...

What inarguable facts? The economy grew under Clinton in spite of his liberal policies, since they weren't huge and hence not so damaging. You have to look at Carter and Obama if you want to see huge damaging policies.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top