The Next US President

[Pat494]

You genuinely don't appreciate that it was the deregulatory birds that took flight under Reaganomics that primarily caused the banking crash and worldwide economic disasters of 2008? Even most of the right-wing libertarian economists and analysts who share many of the other political and economic beliefs you so unhesitatingly express here understand that, and most of them have changed their minds, accordingly, about how "great" Reagonomics was.

Somehow, your determination to "Be Right" about everything has blinded you to the information glaringly apparent to anyone with even any pretence of objectivity.

The apparently ever-increasing narrow-mindedness and informational selection-bias underlying your perceptions continue to surprise me.

That's pretty severe criticism Alexa. Perhaps you should set out your views on your favourite President and why. Maybe even have a go at predicting the next one ?
There was in my humble opinion plenty of time after Reagan to change anything that was out of synch with current times. To blame Reagan who was after all just a figure head, years later seems driven by a petty viewpoint.

I list below some of his considerable achievements.

 

[Pat494]

When Ronald Reagan took the oath of office as America’s 40th President on January 20, 1981, the country was experiencing some of bleakest economic times since the Depression. Taxes were high, unemployment was high, interest rates were high and the national spirit was low.

Bringing America back was the new President’s top priority. He shared his vision in his Inaugural Address:


“This Administration’s objective will be a healthy, vigorous, growing economy that provides equal opportunities for all Americans, with no barriers born of bigotry or discrimination. Putting America back to work means putting all Americans back to work. Ending inflation means freeing all Americans from the terror of runaway living costs. All must share in the productive work of this ’new beginning,’ and all must share in the bounty of a revived economy.”

President Reagan had earned a degree in Economics at Eureka college, and even though he would sometimes joke about “two economists having three opinions”, he knew what needed to be done and how to do it. He had a simple, but specific plan, of which he spoke often during the campaign: cut taxes, get control of government spending and get the government out of the way so that the entrepreneurial spirit of the American people could be unleashed. Some skeptics derisively called his plan “Reaganomics,” but President Reagan was undeterred. He knew that only if people had money in their pockets and incentives to invest and build businesses would jobs be created, inflation tamed and interest rates reduced.

Almost as soon as the Inaugural ceremony was over, President Reagan set his sights on Capitol Hill. From day one, he and his team worked tirelessly to get Congress to pass legislation to put the economy back on track. Even a near-fatal assassination attempt did not slow him down. While still recovering, he summoned Congressional leaders to the White House to twist their arms. Ronald Reagan may have been the first President to wear pajamas to a meeting with the bipartisan Congressional leadership. He wanted them to know he meant business.

His efforts paid off. In August 1981, President Reagan signed the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981, which brought reductions in individual income tax rates, the expensing of depreciable property, incentives for small businesses and incentives for savings. So began the Reagan Recovery. A few years later, the Tax Reform Act of 1986 brought the lowest individual and corporate income tax rates of any major industrialized country in the world.

The numbers tell the story. Over the eight years of the Reagan Administration:

20 million new jobs were created
Inflation dropped from 13.5% in 1980 to 4.1% by 1988
Unemployment fell from 7.6% to 5.5%
Net worth of families earning between $20,000 and $50,000 annually grew by 27%
Real gross national product rose 26%
The prime interest rate was slashed by more than half, from an unprecedented 21.5% in January 1981 to 10% in August 1988

Given actual rates of inflation, through 1987, the Reagan tax cuts saved the median-income two-earner American family of four close to $9,000 in taxes from what it would have owed in 1980.

Tax cuts were only one “leg of the stool.” The second, jobs, was equally strong. Not only were there millions of new jobs, but the benefits of job creation were not limited to one segment of society. Employment of African-Americans rose by more than 25% between 1982 and 1988, and more than half of the new jobs created went to women.

Taming the lion called government spending was another key component of the plan – the “third leg of the stool.” Here, too, President Reagan did what he said he would do. During his Administration, growth in government spending plummeted from 10% in 1982, to just over 1% in 1987. With inflation factored in, Federal spending actually went down in 1987 – the first time that had happened in well over a decade.

So impressive was the Reagan Recovery that at the G7 Economic Summit in 1983, when it was obvious the President’s plan was working, the West German Chancellor asked him to “tell us about the American miracle." That was quite a turnaround from two years earlier, when President Reagan outlined his economic recovery plan to an unconvinced group of world leaders. Now, however, they all wanted to know how he did it, so he told them: reducing tax rates restored the incentive to produce and create jobs, and getting government out of the way allowed people to be entrepreneurs. From there, the free marketplace operated as it was supposed to.

As President Reagan observed with a wry smile, “I could tell our economic program was working when they stopped calling it Reaganomics.” But what really pleased him most about the Reagan Recovery was not the vindication or all the impressive statistics. To him, the success of Reaganomics was what it brought to the American people. Millions had good jobs and were able to keep more of the money for which they worked so hard. Families could reliably plan a budget and pay their bills. The seemingly insatiable Federal government was on a much-needed diet. And businesses and individual entrepreneurs were no longer hassled by their government, or paralyzed by burdensome and unnecessary regulations every time they wanted to expand.

In a phrase, the American dream had been restored.

 

[alexaherself]

That's pretty severe criticism Alexa.

It was a general observation based only partly on the statement to which I directly responded, and (as mentioned later in the post) referring to a number of other threads as well.

Perhaps you should set out your views on your favourite President and why.

I made no comment about my views regarding any President at all. I have no "favourite President" at all: I don't know enough about the subject and don't pretend to.

I made a comment about Reagonomics, specifically, as a major cause of the recent banking crisis. I'd like to think that it was a totally non-controversial comment (especially given the plethora of economists of all political persuasions saying the same thing), but perhaps I was mistaken about that.

Maybe even have a go at predicting the next one ?

Hillary seems to be about "evens favourite" at the moment, I'm sorry to see.

To me (and this is obviously very subjective, as well as not terribly well-informed, at this distance), it seems that within recent memory, the Republicans have never had particularly impressive candidates for the Presidency. (The same could perhaps also be said of the Democrats, admittedly, but it's perhaps not too difficult to see, with hindsight, why Obama might have appeared, to many, a decent contender at the time of his original election?).

There was in my humble opinion plenty of time after Reagan to change anything that was out of synch with current times.

I agree. Plenty of time, but not enough will. The problems weren't yet visible, at that time, to enough people.

To blame Reagan who was after all just a figure head, years later seems driven by a petty viewpoint.

Yes, I take your point about his being "just a figurehead". I referred in my post to "Reagonomics" (I actually think of it more or less as Reagan-and-Thatchernomics, myself), rather than to the individual.

I list below some of his considerable achievements.

I didn't question his achievements, Pat. They're not really relevant to the point I made.

 

[hhiusa]

You genuinely don't appreciate that it was the deregulatory birds that took flight under Reaganomics that primarily caused the banking crash and worldwide economic disasters of 2008? Even most of the right-wing libertarian economists and analysts who share many of the other political and economic beliefs you so unhesitatingly express here understand that, and most of them have changed their minds, accordingly, about how "great" Reagonomics was.

Somehow, your determination to "Be Right" about everything has blinded you to the information glaringly apparent to anyone with even any pretence of objectivity.

The apparently ever-increasing narrow-mindedness and informational selection-bias underlying your perceptions continue to surprise me.

You have complained about the atmosphere here and yet you continue to pick an intellectual fight by being just as incendiary as you claim I am.

There is no effort to strive to "Be Right". You should brush up on your American politics before mixing up your statements. I am not a LIbertarian. Libertarians are not Republicans. Reagan was not a Libertarian. I am a Republican.

You cannot even make a cogent argument. You and @Pat494 keep making fallacious statements without any regard for logic. I point them out and you never learn. That is a slippery slope fallacy to say that a president in the 1980s caused the economic crash in 2008. You obviously fail to see how ridiculous that it is there is a 19 year gap between his presidency the 2008 crash. That sounds like a skapegoat statement.

People are still benefiting from Reagonomic policies. I understand that Europeans being chronic tax addicts, who want the government to nurture them from cradle to grave, would not understand why Americans do not like taxes. Before Reagan, top earning Americans paid up to 70% of their income. The corporate taxes was quite high before as well.

I would like to know what group you think has a concensus on the 2008 recession. British politics only has far-left Labour and center Tories. Reaganomics saw a decrease in the amount of people below the poverty line near the end of his term. It also saw a decrease in unemployment neaar the end of his term.

Decrease government spending - always a good thing in the general sense. You should be spending ourselves into oblivion and then raise taxes to compensate.
Decrease capital gains
Decrease income tax
Deregulate financial markets - capitalism should not be constrained.
Mop up the money supply in order to decrease inflation. This is one of the four means by which we affect supply.

Supply-side economics makes far more sense. Entrepreneurs are diamonds in the rough compared to employees who are like grains of sand in the Sahara. It makes more sense to design policy to benefit the entrepreneurs who hire the employees. The simple laws of supply and demand dictate that something or someone that is rarer will be higher demand than something that is ubiquitous like an employee. If there is more demand than supply, it is more valuable than something which has more supply than demand, namely a workforce.

Lastly, the main cause of the recession was ignorance and stupidity of the consumer populace. Even the poor are greedy. The banks were only half of the problem. If people bought houses responsible and did not jump into a mortgage they knew they could not afford, then there would be no underwater mortgages. The problem really stemmed from the poor and lower middle class greedy folk. They were not buying a house to live in for the next 30 years or to grow old in it. They were buying a house they could not afford in order to hopefully sell it for the equity in it in a few years. This is never a sound decision, even in a good market. The wealthy may have been greedy, but at least they were vigilant enough to not do something that ill-advised.

 

[Atilla]

What surprises me and this goes to many presidents and company CEOs, people claim achivements which really have nothing to do with them.

To manage in a crises is a totally different ball game to managing or leading in good times.

After the stagnation/inflation and massive unemployment of the 70s, not forgetting the oil shock too, after a decade and with 3m + unemployed (higher number than what we had in the last 7 years) recovery was more to do with the economic cycle of necessity rather than some clever leadership skills of leaders.

Post - First World War was building led too. Hitler revived Germany after great recession by building his war machine and housing. Same for Raegon building his war machine to kick USSR into submission on number of nuclear war heads leading to the START treaty.

PSBR ballooned under Thatcher and depth of recession was far greater than in Europe. Recovery was export led and had nothing to do with her policies. Will not start the debate about selling national industries dirt cheap but the same goes for Bush who wrecked a marvellous economy which Clinton handed over in super shape.

I think Obama's done a great job of managing the crises and leading out but each to their own.

The big bang was more of a big wipe out as it happens. If we could pay back the trillions of debt in the next 30 years it took to develop I'll be well impressed.


I think we are all in the pooh house and everyone is trying to find their little corner of paradise to avoid the stink in paying up for our past errors.


Where is Alan Greenspan now? How does he feel about his management of the Fed. All this garbage was packaged under his watch.


I think Corbyn talks a lot of sense too. His not right on everything but he is right when he says the US messed up big time with Iraq, Syria and Libya.

Obama managed to pull Iran out of the axis of evil nonsense but I doubt this is the end once the new US president gets to stir up some new grand plan.

 

[Pat494]

Decrease government spending - always a good thing in the general sense. You should be spending ourselves into oblivion and then raise taxes to compensate.
Decrease capital gains
Decrease income tax
Deregulate financial markets
Mop up the money supply in order to decrease inflation. This is one of the four means by which we affect supply.

Supply-side economics makes far more sense. Entrepreneurs are diamonds in the rough compared to employees who are like grains of sand in the Sahara. It makes more sense to design policy to benefit the entrepreneurs who hire the employees.

I can see the obvious that people like paying less taxes. Well yes but the infrastructure ( roads, railways, bridges etc.) just haven't had the money spent on them to keep them in a good state of repair.
Every year the forest fires in Cali wipe out a few hundred homes and the drought is ruining their agriculture. All because the richest state of the union has some of the meanest people like cowboy and politicians. You gotta pay your taxes. We all have to. OK some goes to welfare but not all.

The other point I would like to make is that there are so many crooks in the USA like Bernie Madoff that the financial system needs regulating or it would go haywire as in 1928/9. The honest have nothing to fear. Over regulation is a bad thing too. It stifles business.

This post should get cowboy a jumping - probably burst his levis

 

[Pat494]

If Trump gets his hands on the levers of power, then Gawd help us all. He is a nutter that most likely will start a new round of killing in the ME. Might even press the button and goodnight everything.

I can just imagine his first day in The Office, where the Chief of Staff is saying.

" Don't ever press the RED button Mr. President.

What this one says Donald - Wham.

Er yea that one....Run.....

 

[hhiusa]

I can see the obvious that people like paying less taxes. Well yes but the infrastructure ( roads, railways, bridges etc.) just haven't had the money spent on them to keep them in a good state of repair.
Every year the forest fires in Cali wipe out a few hundred homes and the drought is ruining their agriculture. All because the richest state of the union has some of the meanest people like cowboy and politicians. You gotta pay your taxes. We all have to. OK some goes to welfare but not all.

This is tossed salad of incoherent statements. Droughts are typical for desert-like regions. They are cyclical. Fires burns and that is why we have fire departments. Now who is stating the obvious. A few hundred homes have burned. That is also why we have fire insurance. Additionally, those people knew the risks that entailed with living in a fire prone area. I don't think it has ruined agriculture either. I do not have any trouble finding and buying what I want.

The other point I would like to make is that there are so many crooks in the USA like Bernie Madoff that the financial system needs regulating or it would go haywire as in 1928/9. The honest have nothing to fear. Over regulation is a bad thing too. It stifles business.

This post should get cowboy a jumping - probably burst his levis

You continue to cherry pick statments, not I. You have not addressed supply-side economics very thoroughly. You have not responded to anything else I stated. That is fine as I think you are better at spewing ad hominems than making sense.

 

[Pat494]

This is tossed salad of incoherent statements. Droughts are typical for desert-like regions.

The droughts are so regular that they can be anticipated. Surely water can be brought in ?

Fires burns and that is why we have fire departments. Now who is stating the obvious. A few hundred homes have burned. That is also why we have fire insurance. Additionally, those people knew the risks that entailed with living in a fire prone area.


Putting relatively cheap 100 m towers along the ridge lines that emit a fine mist of water, would solve that problem, but no the state is too mean to finance them, Fire insurance after the event is a bit late.


I don't think it has ruined agriculture either. I do not have any trouble finding and buying what I want.



That's nice, cowboy has got his carrots etc. while the big export businesses of olives etc. wither in the heat.

You continue to cherry pick statments, not I. You have not addressed supply-side economics very thoroughly. You have not responded to anything else I stated. That is fine as I think you are better at spewing ad hominems than making sense.



rubbish - so binned it. :innocent:

 

[hhiusa]

This is tossed salad of incoherent statements. Droughts are typical for desert-like regions.

The droughts are so regular that they can be anticipated. Surely water can be brought in ?

Fires burns and that is why we have fire departments. Now who is stating the obvious. A few hundred homes have burned. That is also why we have fire insurance. Additionally, those people knew the risks that entailed with living in a fire prone area.


Putting relatively cheap 100 m towers along the ridge lines that emit a fine mist of water, would solve that problem, but no the state is too mean to finance them, Fire insurance after the event is a bit late.


I don't think it has ruined agriculture either. I do not have any trouble finding and buying what I want.



That's nice, cowboy has got his carrots etc. while the big export businesses of olives etc. wither in the heat.

You continue to cherry pick statments, not I. You have not addressed supply-side economics very thoroughly. You have not responded to anything else I stated. That is fine as I think you are better at spewing ad hominems than making sense.



rubbish - so binned it. :innocent:

The feasibilty of those options are more far-fetched than your political views. Continually misting thousands of square miles to prevent fires once a year. Absolutely "daft". This may seem unfathomable to someone in the UK where it rains like the Genesis flood. It does remind of the time 760 people died in the UK during a heat wave. Ever hear of air conditioning?

 

[Pat494]

The feasibilty of those options are more far-fetched than your political views. Continually misting thousands of square miles to prevent fires once a year. Absolutely "daft". This may seem unfathomable to someone in the UK where it rains like the Genesis flood. It does remind of the time 760 people died in the UK during a heat wave. Ever hear of air conditioning?

I was proposing setting up the misting masts near the houses at risk obviously.

 

[hhiusa]

I was proposing setting up the misting masts near the houses at risk obviously.

You think misting water on a blazing fire in low humidity is going to work?

The only method that comes close to being feasible is to mist everywhere the fire would have a chance to start. Once the fire starts, it gains too much momentum.

Again, my rebuttal is things often appear simple. Why did 760 people have to die in a heat wave when we have air conditioning?

 

[Splitlink]

Why did 760 people have to die in a heat wave when we have air conditioning?

From what I understand from your capitalist policies they died because they were too lazy to get enough money to install it.

 

[Pat494]

It seems that cowboy has little to say about the topic this thread was started for.

I do note that a young hopeful has entered the race namely Chelsea Clinton . The bookies aren't hopeful though at odds of 300/1. Burn your bra, girl or something ?

 

[Pat494]

You think misting water on a blazing fire in low humidity is going to work?

The only method that comes close to being feasible is to mist everywhere the fire would have a chance to start. Once the fire starts, it gains too much momentum.

Again, my rebuttal is things often appear simple. ?

The misting towers would be turned on while the fire is approaching. By the time the fire reaches the area it would be thoroughly sodden with water, including the undergrowth. But as the State is too mean to even bring in fresh supplies of water, so the idea won't happen anyway.
That " everyman for himself " philosophy holds the general level back for lack of money, but they did manage some roads !

 

[alexaherself]

This may seem unfathomable to someone in the UK where it rains like the Genesis flood. It does remind of the time 760 people died in the UK during a heat wave. Ever hear of air conditioning?

There's a rumour about that some countries find approaches rather different from those of the US fairly beneficial ...

 

[Pat494]

There's a rumour about that some countries find approaches rather different from those of the US fairly beneficial ...

About the only thing the USA was ahead of the rest was music imho.
Some things like foreign policy they are the worst. Their FP generates dreadful people like ISL. OK so they are ahead in stealth bombers and some military hardware but without someone local to the conflict to use this kit - a bit useless if their guys run at the first shots fired.
Business is doing well but the country is $18 trillion in debt. Their inequality of wealth and income are fuelling nasty racial and poverty problems .
Enviromental problems ? Yea that was mentioned recently.

Noone expects perfection but it can be improved.

 

[Splitlink]

About the only thing the USA was ahead of the rest was music imho.
Some things like foreign policy they are the worst. Their FP generates dreadful people like ISL. OK so they are ahead in stealth bombers and some military hardware but without someone local to the conflict to use this kit - a bit useless if their guys run at the first shots fired.
Business is doing well but the country is $18 trillion in debt. Their inequality of wealth and income are fuelling nasty racial and poverty problems .
Enviromental problems ? Yea that was mentioned recently.

Noone expects perfection but it can be improved.

Be fair, Pat. They did give us Hhiusa.

 

[Pat494]

Be fair, Pat. They did give us Hhiusa.

 

[hhiusa]

About the only thing the USA was ahead of the rest was music imho.
Some things like foreign policy they are the worst. Their FP generates dreadful people like ISL. OK so they are ahead in stealth bombers and some military hardware but without someone local to the conflict to use this kit - a bit useless if their guys run at the first shots fired.
Business is doing well but the country is $18 trillion in debt. Their inequality of wealth and income are fuelling nasty racial and poverty problems .
Enviromental problems ? Yea that was mentioned recently.

Noone expects perfection but it can be improved.

I think you guys are in need of a true right-wing Republican leader as your choices have become left and far-left.

Speaking of music, you are a broken record. The UK has a similar debt-to-GDP ratio. The only reason your debt amount is lower, is because you are 7-times smaller economy. Hey, at least you are on par with one state in the country.

We have been down this road before. The UK is barely more productive than France ($2.8 trillion).
Germany has a much higher GDP per capita. In case you don't know what that is, it is gross domestic product divided by midyear population. That means Germans are more productive than the English. The same amount of people would be more industrious. Maybe this is because they do not have council housing and promote feckless behavior. The Förderweg, a system of federally regulated rent. The other social housing variation is in the form of owner-occupied dwellings wherein units are purchased and recipients are aided in paying their mortgages.

Lastly, there is the US GDP per capita, which is 19.8% than in the UK. Please stop complaining about how expensive university is.