Why America Abandoned the Greatest Economy in History

signalmankenneth

Verified User
During Reagan's presidency, the federal debt held by the public nearly tripled in nominal terms, from $738 billion to $2.1 trillion. This led to the U.S. moving from the world's largest international creditor to the world's largest debtor nation.

Under Reagan is when we abandoned the Greatest Economy in History and been paying the price ever since?!!

If there is one statistic that best captures the transformation of the American economy over the past half century, it may be this: Of Americans born in 1940, 92 percent went on to earn more than their parents; among those born in 1980, just 50 percent did. Over the course of a few decades, the chances of achieving the American dream went from a near-guarantee to a coin flip.

What happened?

One answer is that American voters abandoned the system that worked for their grandparents. From the 1940s through the ’70s, sometimes called the New Deal era, U.S. law and policy were engineered to ensure strong unions, high taxes on the rich, huge public investments, and an expanding social safety net. Inequality shrank as the economy boomed. But by the end of that period, the economy was faltering, and voters turned against the postwar consensus. Ronald Reagan took office promising to restore growth by paring back government, slashing taxes on the rich and corporations, and gutting business regulations and antitrust enforcement.

The idea, famously, was that a rising tide would lift all boats. Instead, inequality soared while living standards stagnated and life expectancy fell behind that of peer countries. No other advanced economy pivoted quite as sharply to free-market economics as the United States, and none experienced as sharp a reversal in income, mobility, and public-health trends as America did. Today, a child born in Norway or the United Kingdom has a far better chance of outearning their parents than one born in the U.S.

This story has been extensively documented. But a nagging puzzle remains. Why did America abandon the New Deal so decisively? And why did so many voters and politicians embrace the free-market consensus that replaced it?

Since 2016, policy makers, scholars, and journalists have been scrambling to answer those questions as they seek to make sense of the rise of Donald Trump—who declared, in 2015, “The American dream is dead”—and the seething discontent in American life. Three main theories have emerged, each with its own account of how we got here and what it might take to change course. One theory holds that the story is fundamentally about the white backlash to civil-rights legislation. Another pins more blame on the Democratic Party’s cultural elitism.

And the third focuses on the role of global crises beyond any political party’s control. Each theory is incomplete on its own. Taken together, they go a long way toward making sense of the political and economic uncertainty we’re living through.

“The American landscape was once graced with resplendent public swimming pools, some big enough to hold thousands of swimmers at a time,” writes Heather McGee, the former president of the think tank Demos, in her 2021 book, The Sum of Us. In many places, however, the pools were also whites-only. Then came desegregation.

Rather than open up the pools to their Black neighbors, white communities decided to simply close them for everyone. For McGhee, that is a microcosm of the changes to America’s political economy over the past half century: White Americans were willing to make their own lives materially worse rather than share public goods with Black Americans.

From the 1930s until the late ’60s, Democrats dominated national politics. They used their power to pass sweeping progressive legislation that transformed the American economy. But their coalition, which included southern Dixiecrats as well as northern liberals, fractured after President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Richard Nixon’s “southern strategy” exploited that rift and changed the electoral map. Since then, no Democratic presidential candidate has won a majority of the white vote.

Crucially, the civil-rights revolution also changed white Americans’ economic attitudes. In 1956, 65 percent of white people said they believed the government ought to guarantee a job to anyone who wanted one and to provide a minimum standard of living. By 1964, that number had sunk to 35 percent. Ronald Reagan eventually channeled that backlash into a free-market message by casting high taxes and generous social programs as funneling money from hardworking (white) Americans to undeserving (Black) “welfare queens.”

In this telling, which has become popular on the left, Democrats are the tragic heroes. The mid-century economy was built on racial suppression and torn apart by racial progress. Economic inequality was the price liberals paid to do what was right on race.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/mar...n&cvid=e9c74860800a41ada03db5d26abd65df&ei=13

e632a1db77d9572f2e193871d25b7ea1.gif


ReagansEconomicLegacy_1_60.jpg
 
The wealthy wanted more to go to themselves and corporations. Regan provided it bigly. Every Repub has done the same creating the worst wealth gap in America history. They actually were able to convince half of Americans that regulations are evil. How stupid is that? Regulation are the only counter that we have over the despoiling of the land and the complete taking over of employment rights. The wealthy never, ever have enough.
 
The wealthy wanted more to go to themselves and corporations. Regan provided it bigly. Every Repub has done the same creating the worst wealth gap in America history. They actually were able to convince half of Americans that regulations are evil. How stupid is that? Regulation are the only counter that we have over the despoiling of the land and the complete taking over of employment rights. The wealthy never, ever have enough.

It has worked out well for them, esp. after Citizens United. Not only do they now hold unprecedented wealth, they can use it to buy politicians who favor them keeping it.

In the second quarter of 2023, 69 percent of the total wealth in the United States was owned by the top 10 percent of earners. In comparison, the lowest 50 percent of earners only owned 2.5 percent of the total wealth

Graph:

fSpNDoG.jpg


Source: Wealth distribution in the United States in the second quarter of 2023
 
I've said it in every discussion.

Republi'cans' being terrible at managing the economy and piling on deficits and debts is a very deliberate strategy.

The main push back the right has against Social Program and other 'citizen benefit' programs is 'WE CANNOT AFFORD IT... TOO MUCH DEBT'. So that is why so many people today have never seen a responsible Republi'can' gov't who ran a surplus or even just a balanced budget and did not instead pile on debt.

The Republi'cans' know if they run a responsible gov't that pays down debt or is even just balanced, and then the Dems get power next, it is much harder for them to whip up any citizen anger against spending to help citizens.
 
I've said it in every discussion.

Republi'cans' being terrible at managing the economy and piling on deficits and debts is a very deliberate strategy.

The main push back the right has against Social Program and other 'citizen benefit' programs is 'WE CANNOT AFFORD IT... TOO MUCH DEBT'. So that is why so many people today have never seen a responsible Republi'can' gov't who ran a surplus or even just a balanced budget and did not instead pile on debt.

The Republi'cans' know if they run a responsible gov't that pays down debt or is even just balanced, and then the Dems get power next, it is much harder for them to whip up any citizen anger against spending to help citizens.

Their evil genius is convincing their minions that the debt is the fault of "tax-and-spend" Democrats.
 

[FONT=&]“The American landscape was once graced with resplendent public swimming pools, some big enough to hold thousands of swimmers at a time,” writes Heather McGee, the former president of the think tank Demos, in her 2021 book, The Sum of Us. In many places, however, the pools were also whites-only. Then came desegregation.

Rather than open up the pools to their Black neighbors, white communities decided to simply close them for everyone. For McGhee, that is a microcosm of the changes to America’s political economy over the past half century: White Americans were willing to make their own lives materially worse rather than share public goods with Black Americans.


This shows utter ignorance on the part of whoever wrote it. Public swimming pools closed because of a massive increase in regulations and laws regarding them. There's plenty of idiots on the Left that claim it was due to segregation, but that was never the driving force.

Simple cost of operation killed them off. Having to maintain pool chemistry that had increased in complexity, then public health issues, then things more recently like the ADA-- installing a pool lift for handicapped persons for example--and last but hardly least, the legal implications and costs of running a public pool have simply caused them to close because they are unaffordable. Of course, cost would close those in poorer areas first.

Even today that's true. I've regularly had to go to lower end apartment complexes that were far more upscale say 20 to 40 years ago that have gone into decline where the once community pool for the complex is now filled in with dirt or gravel because operating it has become too expensive for the declining clientele and neighborhood the complex is now in. It wasn't closed because the renters are minorities or whatever, but because if it were kept open the rent would be too high for the existing general nature of the area as it is today.
 
This shows utter ignorance on the part of whoever wrote it. Public swimming pools closed because of a massive increase in regulations and laws regarding them. There's plenty of idiots on the Left that claim it was due to segregation, but that was never the driving force.

Simple cost of operation killed them off. Having to maintain pool chemistry that had increased in complexity, then public health issues, then things more recently like the ADA-- installing a pool lift for handicapped persons for example--and last but hardly least, the legal implications and costs of running a public pool have simply caused them to close because they are unaffordable. Of course, cost would close those in poorer areas first.

Even today that's true. I've regularly had to go to lower end apartment complexes that were far more upscale say 20 to 40 years ago that have gone into decline where the once community pool for the complex is now filled in with dirt or gravel because operating it has become too expensive for the declining clientele and neighborhood the complex is now in. It wasn't closed because the renters are minorities or whatever, but because if it were kept open the rent would be too high for the existing general nature of the area as it is today.

Typical, a thread post on the economy is rebutted with but, but, but, swimming pools were being closed, alright, let’s all be happy cause Reagan saved the swimming pools
 
Because there was profit in selling Americans and America down the river. By the 1980's the American elites were too depraved to resist the temptation.
 
The American people are generally economically illiterate....they tended to trust the Elites as they claimed that there would be some short term pain but that it would all work out for the best. This did not happen, this was never going to happen, but it is hard to know to what degree the Elites convinced themselves that they were not harming America as they booked profits.
 
Back
Top