Reaganomics was a bad idea

[Moving Forward Inc]

When he Ronald Reagan entered office, the GDP was 3.108 Trillion dollars.
When he left office, the GDP was 5.4397 Trillion dollars.
In 8 years he had raised the GDP by 2.3317 Trillion dollars, which is over Two thirds.

Source

So, was Reaganomics worth it? "Absolutely!".

I'm just going to deal with GDP, for right now.

Looking at the source you cited:

President	Term(s)	GDP1/T	GDP2/T	$(T/yr)	Years
Kennedy	1961-1963	.5391	.6569	.039	3
Johnson	1963-1969	.6569	.9734	.063	5
Nixon	1969-1974	.9734	1.4859	.093	5.5
Ford	1974-1977	1.4859	2.0136	.211	2.5
Carter	1977-1981	2.0136	3.1038	.273	4
Reagan	1981-1989	3.1080	5.4397	.291	8
Bush (I)	1989-1993	5.4397	6.5829	.286	4
Clinton	1993-2001	6.5829	10.2339	.456	8
Bush (II)	2001-2009	10.2339	13.8636	.454	8
Obama	2009-2011	13.8636	15.0940	.615	2
Overall	1961-2011	.5391	15.0940	.291	50

Now, obviously I've made some assumptions, and worked within certain limitations - the limits of the data are a 50 year period, and I've based the $ (T/yr) figure on actual years of the presidency - so Obama gets 2 years until 2011, Nixon:Ford is split 5.5:2.5, Kennedy gets a rounded 3 years, etc.

What's interesting is that - with 50 years of data, and with 1986 (half of that period) dropping almost halfway through Reagan's term - the increase in GDP (in trillions of dollars, per year) is identical for the average Reagan year, and the average overall year.

It's all very well to think of Reagan as revolutionary - but in terms of building GDP, he was absolutely average.

Very good.
Then again, you could consider the massive drop in Inflation that occurred during his term, and the massive raise during jimmy carters term.
This means that his money was worth a lot more, and apparently lowering inflation benefits the economy so you could say he takes credit for some of the money after him, and credit for the fact that he had to make this money over the massive rise of inflation Jimmy Carter caused.

[No Water No Moon]

I'm just going to deal with GDP, for right now.

Looking at the source you cited:

President	Term(s)	GDP1/T	GDP2/T	$(T/yr)	Years
Kennedy	1961-1963	.5391	.6569	.039	3
Johnson	1963-1969	.6569	.9734	.063	5
Nixon	1969-1974	.9734	1.4859	.093	5.5
Ford	1974-1977	1.4859	2.0136	.211	2.5
Carter	1977-1981	2.0136	3.1038	.273	4
Reagan	1981-1989	3.1080	5.4397	.291	8
Bush (I)	1989-1993	5.4397	6.5829	.286	4
Clinton	1993-2001	6.5829	10.2339	.456	8
Bush (II)	2001-2009	10.2339	13.8636	.454	8
Obama	2009-2011	13.8636	15.0940	.615	2
Overall	1961-2011	.5391	15.0940	.291	50

Now, obviously I've made some assumptions, and worked within certain limitations - the limits of the data are a 50 year period, and I've based the $ (T/yr) figure on actual years of the presidency - so Obama gets 2 years until 2011, Nixon:Ford is split 5.5:2.5, Kennedy gets a rounded 3 years, etc.

What's interesting is that - with 50 years of data, and with 1986 (half of that period) dropping almost halfway through Reagan's term - the increase in GDP (in trillions of dollars, per year) is identical for the average Reagan year, and the average overall year.

It's all very well to think of Reagan as revolutionary - but in terms of building GDP, he was absolutely average.

Very good.
Then again, you could consider the massive drop in Inflation that occurred during his term, and the massive raise during jimmy carters term.
This means that his money was worth a lot more, and apparently lowering inflation benefits the economy so you could say he takes credit for some of the money after him, and credit for the fact that he had to make this money over the massive rise of inflation Jimmy Carter caused.

...

I did say I was just going to deal with GDP "for right now". I've doing other stuff, here - and I'm not just pulling links - I'm isolating all the data from your citations, doing the calculations, and then putting it into a coherent form.

Did you notice that Reagan did nothing revolutionary in terms of GDP increase?

Did you notice that there was a significant jump in GDP increase in the Nixon-Ford era, and then another in the Clinton era?

(There's a third in the Obama data, but it's too early to really do anything meaningful with those numbers).

You said you didn't want to 'take someone's word for it', and you said you 'studied up on this'. You also said you would 'care much more about GDP and inflation' than unemployment and income inequality.

Well - I've put some real work into the numbers you presented - just GDP so far - and, to be honest - you seem pretty dismissive. That seems to contradict your portrayal of yourself as impartial, studying the data, arriving at your own conclusions. Indeed, you seem to be trying to excuse a conclusion, rather than objectively reach one.

And if that's the case - there's really no point in me doing the number-crunching, is there? If you're not actually interested, if you've got a conclusion that you're going to defend regardless of where the evidence leads - is there any point?

Let me know. If you're not actually being objective here, and that was just a pretense under which to present your arguments - be upfront about it. From my point of view, it's a lot easier to just debate your points, than to actually try to create the kind of learning-platform I was creating.

[Keronians]

Very good.
Then again, you could consider the massive drop in Inflation that occurred during his term, and the massive raise during jimmy carters term.
This means that his money was worth a lot more, and apparently lowering inflation benefits the economy so you could say he takes credit for some of the money after him, and credit for the fact that he had to make this money over the massive rise of inflation Jimmy Carter caused.

...

I did say I was just going to deal with GDP "for right now". I've doing other stuff, here - and I'm not just pulling links - I'm isolating all the data from your citations, doing the calculations, and then putting it into a coherent form.

Did you notice that Reagan did nothing revolutionary in terms of GDP increase?

Did you notice that there was a significant jump in GDP increase in the Nixon-Ford era, and then another in the Clinton era?

(There's a third in the Obama data, but it's too early to really do anything meaningful with those numbers).

You said you didn't want to 'take someone's word for it', and you said you 'studied up on this'. You also said you would 'care much more about GDP and inflation' than unemployment and income inequality.

Well - I've put some real work into the numbers you presented - just GDP so far - and, to be honest - you seem pretty dismissive. That seems to contradict your portrayal of yourself as impartial, studying the data, arriving at your own conclusions. Indeed, you seem to be trying to excuse a conclusion, rather than objectively reach one.

And if that's the case - there's really no point in me doing the number-crunching, is there? If you're not actually interested, if you've got a conclusion that you're going to defend regardless of where the evidence leads - is there any point?

Let me know. If you're not actually being objective here, and that was just a pretense under which to present your arguments - be upfront about it. From my point of view, it's a lot easier to just debate your points, than to actually try to create the kind of learning-platform I was creating.

Quick question, is that table based on real GDP, or nominal GDP?

[No Water No Moon]

...

I did say I was just going to deal with GDP "for right now". I've doing other stuff, here - and I'm not just pulling links - I'm isolating all the data from your citations, doing the calculations, and then putting it into a coherent form.

Did you notice that Reagan did nothing revolutionary in terms of GDP increase?

Did you notice that there was a significant jump in GDP increase in the Nixon-Ford era, and then another in the Clinton era?

(There's a third in the Obama data, but it's too early to really do anything meaningful with those numbers).

You said you didn't want to 'take someone's word for it', and you said you 'studied up on this'. You also said you would 'care much more about GDP and inflation' than unemployment and income inequality.

Well - I've put some real work into the numbers you presented - just GDP so far - and, to be honest - you seem pretty dismissive. That seems to contradict your portrayal of yourself as impartial, studying the data, arriving at your own conclusions. Indeed, you seem to be trying to excuse a conclusion, rather than objectively reach one.

And if that's the case - there's really no point in me doing the number-crunching, is there? If you're not actually interested, if you've got a conclusion that you're going to defend regardless of where the evidence leads - is there any point?

Let me know. If you're not actually being objective here, and that was just a pretense under which to present your arguments - be upfront about it. From my point of view, it's a lot easier to just debate your points, than to actually try to create the kind of learning-platform I was creating.

Quick question, is that table based on real GDP, or nominal GDP?

I pulled my numbers from the source the other posted cited - which apparently pulls the numbers from here.

[Keronians]

Quick question, is that table based on real GDP, or nominal GDP?

I pulled my numbers from the source the other posted cited - which apparently pulls the numbers from here.

Yeah, I think that's nominal GDP. I really think that a discussion should adjust for inflation.

Loose monetary policy could grow GDP without there being a real growth in the standard of living.

[No Water No Moon]

I pulled my numbers from the source the other posted cited - which apparently pulls the numbers from here.

Yeah, I think that's nominal GDP. I really think that a discussion should adjust for inflation.

Loose monetary policy could grow GDP without there being a real growth in the standard of living.

I was moving onto the inflation source next, but I'm holding off on it for the moment, until I see if it's even worth it.

[Keronians]

Yeah, I think that's nominal GDP. I really think that a discussion should adjust for inflation.

Loose monetary policy could grow GDP without there being a real growth in the standard of living.

I was moving onto the inflation source next, but I'm holding off on it for the moment, until I see if it's even worth it.

Yeah, I understand. People often pretend to be unbiased when they are actually not.

[Sociobiology]

23rd is "one of the highest"?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_inequality-adjusted_HDI

Income equality isn't necessarily what makes an economy great. A third world country can have a high amount of income equality but it's total GDP is still small. Which means that almost everyone is equally as poor, instead of there being a sizable mix of rich, middle class, and poor.

I would take a greater GDP per capita and income mobility any day, than striving towards income equality. Which implies that it becomes next to impossible to rise above the average income.

then it is a good thing I used a measure that uses more than just inequality. Do you know what the HDI measures, It measures your standard of living, It includes GNI per capital, infant mortality, life expectancy, education, literacy, GDP, crime rates, ect.

having more money does not mean much if you will die earlier,go to prison, be illiterate, and your children will die.

why is the child of the top 1% in the US more likely to die than a middle class child in Denmark?
and oddly engouh ineguality means even IF you are in the highest income you and your offspring are still going to die and be sick more often than people making less in other countries.
http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/richard_wilkinson.html

social mobility is important too it is the american dream, and america sucks at it.

to recap the US drops 19 ranks when you take into account how many people actually reach the potential predicted by the HDI. why is the average person in Slovakia healthier, safer, freer, and generally just better off than an American?
http://hdr.undp.org/en/statistics/ihdi/

[Blakk Metal]

Show a place it has worked, please. I'll be waiting.

I'd say India during what the 90s? When the sociallists lost control and the market was no longer so rigid, taxes no so high. Russia after the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Invalid.

So I think I have seen some posts here criticizing Ronald Reagan for fucking up the economy.
I don't always take someone's word for it, so I studied up on this.

Check this shit out guys, according to these charts:

When he Ronald Reagan entered office, the GDP was 3.108 Trillion dollars.
When he left office, the GDP was 5.4397 Trillion dollars.
In 8 years he had raised the GDP by 2.3317 Trillion dollars, which is over Two thirds.

Source

Now of course raising the GDP is very good and all but you haven't really improved the economy as much if the inflation raised while you were in office.
Well while president Reagan was in office and you guys were scratching your heads the Inflation lowered from the 9.37% it was when he entered to 3.76% when he left office, reducing inflation almost 2 thirds.

Source

By this point the liberals are thinking "But what about dealing with the issues of Unemployment or Income Inequality"?
Personally, I would care much more about GDP and Inflation than those 2. But since I'm guessing you are going to whine and moan, here are the facts:

When Ronald Reagan entered office Unemployment was 7.5 %.
When he left, it was 5.4 % . In 8 years, thanks to Ronald Reagan, Unemployed decreased by 2.1%, meaning over 5 million jobs appeared out of thin air.

Source

Now for income equality, when talking about this, we talk in terms of Gini coefficient apparently.
If you don't know what that is, google it.
When Ronald Reagan entered office, income equality was at 0.41 .
When he left, it was 0.43 .
"Oh fuck I'm going to faint he increased income inequality".
Yes, he did. but by sacrificing a small amount of income equality, he raised the GDP, lowered inflation, lowered unemployment. If that answer doesn't satisfy you, this will.

Jimmy carter (Previous president to Ronald Reagan): In 4 years raised income inequality by 0.01 (Same amount per year average as Ronald Reagan).
George H.W Bush (In office after Ronald Reagan): In 4 years raised income inequality by 0.02 (Double Ronald Reagan).
Bill Clinton (President H.W Bush's Successor): In 8 years raised income inequality by 0.02 (Same as Ronald Reagan).

Source

So, was Reaganomics worth it? "Absolutely!".

Reaganomics is to the economy what steroids are to the body. The damage was long term. For example, during his term, patents began to decrease. The middle class also didn't benefit from your 'economic growth'.

I'm just going to deal with GDP, for right now.

Looking at the source you cited:

President	Term(s)	GDP1/T	GDP2/T	$(T/yr)	Years
Kennedy	1961-1963	.5391	.6569	.039	3
Johnson	1963-1969	.6569	.9734	.063	5
Nixon	1969-1974	.9734	1.4859	.093	5.5
Ford	1974-1977	1.4859	2.0136	.211	2.5
Carter	1977-1981	2.0136	3.1038	.273	4
Reagan	1981-1989	3.1080	5.4397	.291	8
Bush (I)	1989-1993	5.4397	6.5829	.286	4
Clinton	1993-2001	6.5829	10.2339	.456	8
Bush (II)	2001-2009	10.2339	13.8636	.454	8
Obama	2009-2011	13.8636	15.0940	.615	2
Overall	1961-2011	.5391	15.0940	.291	50

Now, obviously I've made some assumptions, and worked within certain limitations - the limits of the data are a 50 year period, and I've based the $ (T/yr) figure on actual years of the presidency - so Obama gets 2 years until 2011, Nixon:Ford is split 5.5:2.5, Kennedy gets a rounded 3 years, etc.

What's interesting is that - with 50 years of data, and with 1986 (half of that period) dropping almost halfway through Reagan's term - the increase in GDP (in trillions of dollars, per year) is identical for the average Reagan year, and the average overall year.

It's all very well to think of Reagan as revolutionary - but in terms of building GDP, he was absolutely average.

Very good.
Then again, you could consider the massive drop in Inflation that occurred during his term, and the massive raise during jimmy carters term.
This means that his money was worth a lot more, and apparently lowering inflation benefits the economy so you could say he takes credit for some of the money after him, and credit for the fact that he had to make this money over the massive rise of inflation Jimmy Carter caused.

Reagan didn't fix the inflation.

[The House of Petain]

I'd say India during what the 90s? When the sociallists lost control and the market was no longer so rigid, taxes no so high. Russia after the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Gonna need more than just your word for it.

Ok. First, could we agree that the theory of trickle-down economics (as known by critics) or supply-side economics argues that economic growth can be most effectively created by lowering barriers for people to produce (supply) goods and services, such as lowering income tax and capital gains tax rates, and by allowing greater flexibility by reducing regulation?

[Blakk Metal]

Gonna need more than just your word for it.

Ok. First, could we agree that the theory of trickle-down economics (as known by critics) or supply-side economics argues that economic growth can be most effectively created by lowering barriers for people to produce (supply) goods and services, such as lowering income tax and capital gains tax rates, and by allowing greater flexibility by reducing regulation?

That, sir, is quite wrong.

[Nightkill the Emperor]

I'd say India during what the 90s? When the sociallists lost control and the market was no longer so rigid, taxes no so high.

No. Capitalists created jobs for the rapidly increasing young middle class, who were also inspired by the destruction of Indian social norms through exposure to other cultures via globalisation. Trickle down economics were not the main factor, the main factor was a liberalisation of trade and economics under the policies of Singh, coupled with the young middle class deciding to actually do something.

Tax cuts had very little to do with it.

[Saiwania]

to recap the US drops 19 ranks when you take into account how many people actually reach the potential predicted by the HDI. why is the average person in Slovakia healthier, safer, freer, and generally just better off than an American?
http://hdr.undp.org/en/statistics/ihdi/

America will never be like Europe, where everything is highly urban and public transportation, bicycles, and walking are the main modes of transport. The US is far more multiracial and very automobile centric and as a result, will never score as high on health no matter what. Denmark only has 5.5 million people vs. the US having 310+ million people, so to try to compare the US to European countries is folly. Both continents have fundamentally different lifestyles. I'm not all that impressed with Slovakia, it only has a GDP per capita of $23,300 which I consider to be pitiful.

I highly doubt that Denmark is as great as you put it, I'd be willing to bet that the cost of living would be higher over there than most, if not all US states.

[The House of Petain]

Ok. First, could we agree that the theory of trickle-down economics (as known by critics) or supply-side economics argues that economic growth can be most effectively created by lowering barriers for people to produce (supply) goods and services, such as lowering income tax and capital gains tax rates, and by allowing greater flexibility by reducing regulation?

That, sir, is quite wrong.

Er. how is that wrong?

[Tmutarakhan]

I've put some real work into the numbers you presented - just GDP so far - and, to be honest - you seem pretty dismissive. That seems to contradict your portrayal of yourself as impartial, studying the data, arriving at your own conclusions. Indeed, you seem to be trying to excuse a conclusion, rather than objectively reach one.

And if that's the case - there's really no point in me doing the number-crunching, is there? If you're not actually interested, if you've got a conclusion that you're going to defend regardless of where the evidence leads - is there any point?

Do you understand why I find this post of yours ironic?

[Keronians]

That, sir, is quite wrong.

Er. how is that wrong?

Trickle down economics =/= supply side economics.

The latter is a valid macroeconomic theory for promoting growth. The former is a sham.

Reagan talked about supply side economics to sell the trickle down theory.

[Wikkiwallana]

Gonna need more than just your word for it.

Ok. First, could we agree that the theory of trickle-down economics (as known by critics) or supply-side economics argues that economic growth can be most effectively created by lowering barriers for people to produce (supply) goods and services, such as lowering income tax and capital gains tax rates, and by allowing greater flexibility by reducing regulation?

Proponents of these policies claim that if the top income earners are taxed less that they will invest more into the business infrastructure and equity markets, it will in turn lead to more goods at lower prices, and create more jobs for middle and lower class individuals.
-snip-
A major feature of these policies was the reduction of tax rates on capital gains, corporate income, and higher individual incomes, along with the reduction or elimination of various excise taxes.

Supply-side economics is a school of macroeconomic thought that argues that economic growth can be most effectively created by lowering barriers for people to produce (supply) goods and services, such as lowering income tax and capital gains tax rates, and by allowing greater flexibility by reducing regulation. According to supply-side economics, consumers will then benefit from a greater supply of goods and services at lower prices. Typical policy recommendations of supply-side economists are lower marginal tax rates and less regulation.[1]

It seems we can. Proceed.

[Keronians]

Ok. First, could we agree that the theory of trickle-down economics (as known by critics) or supply-side economics argues that economic growth can be most effectively created by lowering barriers for people to produce (supply) goods and services, such as lowering income tax and capital gains tax rates, and by allowing greater flexibility by reducing regulation?

Proponents of these policies claim that if the top income earners are taxed less that they will invest more into the business infrastructure and equity markets, it will in turn lead to more goods at lower prices, and create more jobs for middle and lower class individuals.
-snip-
A major feature of these policies was the reduction of tax rates on capital gains, corporate income, and higher individual incomes, along with the reduction or elimination of various excise taxes.

Supply-side economics is a school of macroeconomic thought that argues that economic growth can be most effectively created by lowering barriers for people to produce (supply) goods and services, such as lowering income tax and capital gains tax rates, and by allowing greater flexibility by reducing regulation. According to supply-side economics, consumers will then benefit from a greater supply of goods and services at lower prices. Typical policy recommendations of supply-side economists are lower marginal tax rates and less regulation.[1]

It seems we can. Proceed.

The two aren't the same...

[Wikkiwallana]

It seems we can. Proceed.

The two aren't the same...

Then please explain the difference. I'm not an economist.

[Blakk Metal]

The two aren't the same...

Then please explain the difference. I'm not an economist.

SSE: "If we make it easier to make stuff,[...]"

TDT: "If we give money to/reduce the taxes of the rich[...]"

[Keronians]

The two aren't the same...

Then please explain the difference. I'm not an economist.

Well, neither am I, but based just on the definitions Wiki offers, we can observe several key differences:

· Trickle-down economics argues that tax breaks offered to the wealthy (and businesses) will improve the economy as a whole. Supply-side economics, however, argues that tax breaks on all income brackets, be they on individuals or corporations, will benefit the economy as a whole
· Supply-side economics is much more wide in its scope, covering regulation as well, whilst trickle-down economics is much more closely associated with fiscal policy. Reducing regulation leads to more market flexibility, which in turns results in more competition and lower costs, thus lowering prices to end consumers as well
· Supply-side economics argues for targetting a value of money for individual currencies, rather than on the quantity of money, as Keynesians and monetarists argue for. Trickle-down economics covers solely fiscal policy, it doesn't ever talk about monetary policy

Reagan used supply-side economics as a cover for his trickle-down economics.

[Wikkiwallana]

Then please explain the difference. I'm not an economist.

Well, neither am I, but based just on the definitions Wiki offers, we can observe several key differences:

· Trickle-down economics argues that tax breaks offered to the wealthy (and businesses) will improve the economy as a whole. Supply-side economics, however, argues that tax breaks on all income brackets, be they on individuals or corporations, will benefit the economy as a whole
· Supply-side economics is much more wide in its scope, covering regulation as well, whilst trickle-down economics is much more closely associated with fiscal policy. Reducing regulation leads to more market flexibility, which in turns results in more competition and lower costs, thus lowering prices to end consumers as well
· Supply-side economics argues for targetting a value of money for individual currencies, rather than on the quantity of money, as Keynesians and monetarists argue for. Trickle-down economics covers solely fiscal policy, it doesn't ever talk about monetary policy

Reagan used supply-side economics as a cover for his trickle-down economics.

I see, thank you.

[Moving Forward Inc]

Very good.
Then again, you could consider the massive drop in Inflation that occurred during his term, and the massive raise during jimmy carters term.
This means that his money was worth a lot more, and apparently lowering inflation benefits the economy so you could say he takes credit for some of the money after him, and credit for the fact that he had to make this money over the massive rise of inflation Jimmy Carter caused.

And if that's the case - there's really no point in me doing the number-crunching, is there? If you're not actually interested, if you've got a conclusion that you're going to defend regardless of where the evidence leads - is there any point?

Let me know. If you're not actually being objective here, and that was just a pretense under which to present your arguments - be upfront about it. From my point of view, it's a lot easier to just debate your points, than to actually try to create the kind of learning-platform I was creating.

Ok. I skipped the part where you said "looking only at GDP".
I've reread it through, I have no intention of presenting biased information.
The amount (on Reagan's side) is average, and there was a significant jump in the Nixon-Ford area.
I acknowledge that table is some good work on your part.
I didn't get any ideas about Reagan being any good until I took a look at the charts, please continue with your point.

[No Water No Moon]

I've put some real work into the numbers you presented - just GDP so far - and, to be honest - you seem pretty dismissive. That seems to contradict your portrayal of yourself as impartial, studying the data, arriving at your own conclusions. Indeed, you seem to be trying to excuse a conclusion, rather than objectively reach one.

And if that's the case - there's really no point in me doing the number-crunching, is there? If you're not actually interested, if you've got a conclusion that you're going to defend regardless of where the evidence leads - is there any point?

Do you understand why I find this post of yours ironic?

No.

If it's something off-topic, I also don't care, but think you should get over it.

[No Water No Moon]

And if that's the case - there's really no point in me doing the number-crunching, is there? If you're not actually interested, if you've got a conclusion that you're going to defend regardless of where the evidence leads - is there any point?

Let me know. If you're not actually being objective here, and that was just a pretense under which to present your arguments - be upfront about it. From my point of view, it's a lot easier to just debate your points, than to actually try to create the kind of learning-platform I was creating.

Ok. I skipped the part where you said "looking only at GDP".
I've reread it through, I have no intention of presenting biased information.
The amount (on Reagan's side) is average, and there was a significant jump in the Nixon-Ford area.
I acknowledge that table is some good work on your part.
I didn't get any ideas about Reagan being any good until I took a look at the charts, please continue with your point.

Thank you for a response. Now that I know I'm not playing to an empty seat, I'll head into the next part.

Please hold.