RKMBs Forums .::Important::. Politics and Current Events Reaganomics devastated the economy

Reaganomics Devastated the Economy




An interesting counterpoint to the trickle-down argument.

A unexpected title from you!

Add in the deductions company's can use and the rates are not that high. (remember GE paid nothing a year or so ago)

This is something I've been kicking around for awhile now. I'm not going to go so far as to say Carter was right, but I can concede that to HW Bush when he regarded it as "Voodoo Economics."

I think the problem was that Reaganomics was, essentially, the product of not recognizing the changes that the post-WWII era brought on. We were number 1 in the fifties and sixties because--pretty much aside for Peal Harbor--we were untouched by the devastation that the war brought to so much of Europe and Asia. The problem was that they got better. In the face of economic competition, we didn't re-tool and train harder to keep up...metaphorically. We juiced up on economic steroids (Reaganomics).

Taxes went down (not that I'm against that) and spending went up. And, we just have to accept that fact that a lot of that spending was in giveaways to industries and far from laissez faire capitalism. The MIC won big. I'm pretty sure there was that ethanol subsidy history that we didn't learn from that some companies scored big on.

Were there increases in welfare and such? Yeah. "Golden Ages" usually have a really ugly underbelly. It has never been the welfare queens, though. I believe that to be the most insipid of elaborate fictions ever dreamt. We gave companies big tax breaks as they moved overseas and took the good paying jobs with them. People took work for less money and got turned on to the dole to keep up. More government debt loaded onto the corporate handout debt. And, save for the oncoming information age in the mid to late nineties, we keep going back to the juice with predictable results.

Welcome to the utopia that "greed is good" thinking gets you. Fuck that movie and fuck Ayn Rand...in the fucking ass.

On the taxes thing, I do believe that tax receipts and economic growth occurred. And, it worked wonders for JFK. But, it is a pretty understandable outcome when you think of what the rates were at when he came into office. At some point, I'm not afraid to entertain the thought that maybe the plan loses efficacy. There may just be a line between "hey, a little extra money to invest" and "hey, look at this boatload of cash I'm swimming in". We may have crossed that line.

This isn't some crazy rant against greed, though. I don't give a fuck that people are rich. Good for them. Eventually, through them buying that over-priced cutting edge tech that I'll buy a few years later at a fraction of the price, good for me. Somebody had to pay those thousands for that crazy flat screen tv that "all us poor folks" marveled (or rolled our eyes) at. Now, we've got 'em too.

There is a point, however, where we have to acknowledge that they aren't the sole source of job creation. We are all the job creating class. We all buy shit. We all create demand by having some extra cash. Through all the constant cutting and the ever added loopholes, the rich have been able to shift the burden onto the middle class (the engine) from the top. It's a fact that I think it is just time for us to accept.

On the other hand, I'm not going to say that the poor have to pay any more or anything at all. They're fucking poor. Fuck it. Let 'em keep what they have. That said, don't give 'em a refund that is more than they paid in. That's shifting the weight to heavily from the bottom. So, fuck the other side of the "pay your fair share" that seems to think we can squeeze blood from a turnip.

The numbers don't lie. We are collecting taxes at about 15% of GDP when we should--historically--be collecting about 18%. We are also spending at 21% when it is usually around--again--18%. Is six percent on either side really that hard of a fucking deal to work out? Honestly. Is trying to raise revenue by 3% really going to throw the economy into another depression? Is cutting spending by 3% really going to make grandma starve? No on both accounts.

Raise rates. Close some loopholes. It can't be that hard to find 3% of GDP there while keeping taxes as low as possible for the middle class. I'd even be willing to pay an extra few percentage points if absolutely necessary. Shared sacrifice, right?

On spending, I'm sure there are a shit load of handouts and subsidies we can get rid of that will close the gap more so than going after entitlements. But, we never start with those because--fuck--how the hell are our great leaders to get re-elected if they dare short us on bacon? Let's really give laissez faire a chance if we really do believe in it? Fuck welfare to corporations and fuck welfare to farmers that are far from the dirt poor farmers we subsidized eighty years ago. Honestly, most of our breadbaskets are supplied by Big Agra anyway. Read that side, it probably says ConAgra or something similar.

We can get to entitlements. We need to get to entitlements. But, let's start with the handouts and work our way there. All we need to start with is three fucking percent. But, watch it with the cliff, ten-to-one says we'll get "unspecified future cuts" from both sides that is code for "make another congress deal with it."

BTW, fuck the cliff. They say we need to address revenues and spending. The cliff does that. What is the fucking problem? Seriously. Fuck all these fuckers.

End rant.

Except she never actually said that. Nor did Reagan. You probably think they did because "greed" is the only way for you to imagine a person who's out to consume all that he or she is able.

Not that I expect you to understand the distinction between consumption and over-consumption in the first place, but your erroneous recitations probably have more to do with how you conceive the idea of people earning and keeping their own capital than with your bias interpretation of 20th century economic trends. So I suggest you check your philosophical premises before you claim that history is on your side.

Rand = Worst Reading of Nietzsche...ever. Period. I was clear that I was quoting the movie. As for Rand, she's full of shit. And, the philosophical faults lie in her irrational belief in the individual and his/her "rational self-interest." Take it up with her.

Good job taking one quote, in an admitted rant, and tearing it out of context because you can't build a reasonable counter argument. Holy fuck! You didn't build that.

Your premise is clear to see: it's made of sand. And that's what your rant is built on.

No amount of rationalizing the success of the supply-side approach is going to justify your understanding of the process. Your argument is that its motivated by greed. But you're confusing controlled risk with untenable risk. Thus demonstrating how clueless you really are.

How about we single this one out:



What would motivate you to believe that donating more of your money than necessary to the pot would be absolutely necessary? A flawless track record of responsible government spending?

AKA:



Pussy.

I addressed the fact that we have a spending problem and recognize the fact that 16 trillion isn't going to pay itself off. I get something iron clad that says they are serious about paying the debt off and I'll happily contribute more than I currently do. Because, you know, it isn't going to pay itself off.

You think I'm being snide? I must have hit a nerve.

I think the real problem here is that you realize the anatomy of your "greed" thesis is hardly unique to yourself. You try so hard to sound new and interesting, putting a pseudo-Barry Goldwater spin on Statism with a token reluctance in your tone. But then mean 'ol Pariah comes along and plants oregano in your weed.

"Please uncle Sam! Take my money! Lord know you could use it more than I!"

Poor Iggy.

No, it certainly won't. But no amount of your taxes is going to pay it off either. Historically, taxes don't create revenue. That's because they're not going into a capital investment. Thus there will actually be less money in the economy to actually pay the debt off.

Throw as much money at them as you like. The debt will only grow bigger despite your generous contribution--especially since politicians are the ones handling it. It's kinda like the fairy tales that teachers unions tell people when they say increased budgets for public schools will better the conditions; the budgets constantly increase, and yet the schools either stay the same or get worse. It's not necessarily because the money doesn't go into them, but rather that money was never the problem in the first place.

I don't think I regularly try to make myself out to sound novel. Hell, I honestly think I'm thinking more "in the box" than anything. The ideas of individuality and originality are--in many ways--highly fucking overrated. Hence, my general disdain towards "intellectual property" laws.

I think the problem is that you are unwilling to budge on anything. You'd ride your convictions straight to Hell if they took you there. I, on the other hand, am not so foolish as to begrudge myself or anyone else a little inconsistency.

How about really holding politicians' feet to the fire rather than just writing them off as lost causes? I'd dare say the problem isn't that they are naturally prone to screwing the citizenry. And, even if they are, it really seems we're more than willing to take it so--again, just assuming they are--can I blame 'em? And, I'm really starting to think that not being able to get the majority of 536 elected officials to agree on something as simple as righting the ship says a whole fuck load more about us than it does about them.

Rather than thumping your chest and championing the rightness of your position--since, you know, a lot of folks disagree--engage in some conversation and be willing to work with others to get something done. If it is your way or the highway...then off you go and may you find what you are looking for.

Taxes are historically low and yet hiring is in the dumps. I think there is a problem with you model.

And, btw, fuck public unions. They are just as much a part of the problem. Look at that!?! We actually agree on something.

I'd like to see discussion of the issue instead of lowering the debate to and "pussy" and "I win again".

It started as a serious discussion of the tax issue, let's go back to that. I can agree with both Iggy and Pariah on various aspects.



Thank you for acknowledging that dramatic lowering taxes was done by JFK as well, and is not the exclusive domain of Republicans.

And it worked under JFK, just as it did to a large degree under Reagan. My point in posting this article was to make a case for that downside of the boom under Reaganomics.

Capitalism is by nature "greed", or less judgementally, economic action motivated by self-interest. The point of the article is that if the tax laws were different, their self-interest would have been channeled back into economic investment, rather than into savings and personal wealth.
I don't think even the writer of the article regards capitalism as "greed", he just advocates tax law that pushes that "self-interest" into the type of investment that benefits the nation as a whole. "Greed" has become a class-warfare word that clouds the issue.
The issue is not that accumulation of wealth is bad. We have been a capitalist society that works for most of our 200-plus years as a nation. Our founders clearly believed that "greed"/"self-interest" properly directed by a fair system is good.
The issue is how to structure (or restore) a system for capitalist self-interest, to create the best result for both individuals and the nation.

I'm responding to your post in pieces, Iggy, to not create another monster quote.



That is exactly the problem. When China and the eastern bloc opened up, along with the rest of southeast asia and central and south America to "free trade".

"Free trade" is when two equal partners with equal benefits and wages for employees exchange goods. Despite the misrepresentative nomenclature, "free trade" does not exist between the U.S. and its trading partners of the last 30 years. U.S. workers and businesses are unfairly competing with workers that don't have the same wages and benefits or regulation in China, Mexico and elsewhere in the Third World. And the only way to insure that is tariffs on good from these countries.

The problem compounded exponentially with the passing of NAFTA and GATT in 1993.

And as you say, fining companies for exporting jobs, and tariff their good to not profit a second time at the expense of their competitors who remain in the U.S.

"Free trade" destroyed the British Empire, and now it is destroying us.

I disagree. If the poor can vote for tax increases for "the rich" (i.e., everyone who has more money than them) they'll do it every time, and they're essentially just voting to give themselves free stuff.

I agree that everyone has to have slin in the game. And if raising taxes costs them at least 10 or 20 dollars a week, then they're likely to stay on the same page with the rest of us, and see that everything has a cost. And they also feel more productive, contributing their own portion, however small.

I agree with your point about the rich not being the sole source of job creation.

And your point about not giving "tax credits" to people who are not paying taxes in the first place.

I agree with the percentages you list of the gaps between revenue and spending, but not your conclusion that more taxation is needed.

Even Reagan in the latter half of his presidency raised taxes to fill the gap. And George Bush Sr. even more so did the right thing and conceded to a considerable tax hike to balance things out.
But... to what effect?

All those tax increases did was enable far greater spending. It's Charlie Brown and Lucy with the football. Democrats offer cuts if Republicans raise taxes, Republicans consent to raise taxes, and Democrats never deliver with the cuts, and yank them away.

Over and over.

I say, show us the tax cuts first, otherwise no tax raises, and that tax raises can ONLY be used to pay down the debt. We can't trust promises of cuts that have never happened, and probably never will until the economy implodes.

Correct. Regardless of what the electorate says, I'm not going to change my core belief system for the sake of a fleeting congeniality. I've had to compromise enough by voting for the lesser of two evils just to save this country financially (if not philosophically). To his credit, he was drastically less evil, but all the same.

A fundamentally flawed approach cannot work in any form, be it diluted or otherwise.

Coolidge, Kennedy, Reagan, Clinton, Bush. In every instance, cuts in taxes were followed by subsequent economic growth. Clinton even moreso because he also cut down on welfare policies....Or rather, the GOP congress compelled him to.

You're so stuck on trying to rationalize the gains through an analysis of the respective environments their reigns occupied that in doing so, you blatantly ignore an established trend.



See, here's the biggest problem with what you're saying: you believe that the politicians can be used to tame government. But in reality, they are themselves functions of government. We can argue all we like that they're functions of the people's whim, but as soon as they're apart of the institution, they're inherently geared towards its growth. Even the most well-intentioned politician can't change the glutinous nature of the government since he is, by definition, apart of the government. I mean, how do you think our small government republic ballooned into the ravenous monster it's become in the first place?

Even supposing the politician was one that I trusted, there's no way that he'd be able to spend my money responsibly since, as Friedman pointed out, no man spends money as carefully as he spends his own.

The problem here lies with the principle of giving them money at all. An infinite amount of money spent on the government is not going to make our problems go away. Just ask the income tax, the payroll tax, the capital gains tax, the estate tax, the corporate tax, and whatever other unjust taxes you can think of. The more money you take away from the citizen, the less potent it becomes since the longer it's outside of the market, the less capital reinforcement it'll receive. There's zero incentive to invest whatever money they have left.



It does and doesn't. One of the big problems here is voting blocks. The left has been working like a mofo over the past century at carving the electorate into smaller, more compartmentalized groups. As a result, they either guarantee favor with one block or simply deny the right any gain in another. And because the electorate has become so modular, it makes it easier to package and sell whatever special interest that meets a given block's fancy.

But I don't necessarily blame the people who are apart of these blocks for the cognitive dissonance involved. I blame the people who control the flow of information within these blocks far more. As much as I'd like to, I can't expect everyone to be like Thomas Sowell and have the mental fortitude to break away from the hive mind. I've learned that being able to truly think for yourself is as precious a phenomenon as free societies.



If the issue here is whether or not the compromise all on its own is what's causing the problem, then why on earth would I want to operate on the premise of quid pro quo? That's largely the reason we have uninformed electorates and government run amok.

Because welfare and regulations are strangling all but the biggest businesses--who're all too happy to have them since they know that they can handle them whereas their smaller, developing, competition couldn't possibly. And this, of course, insures that no one else can get rich and create more jobs themselves.

And by your logic, when hiring inevitably becomes ever lower after rates increase, higher taxes cannot logically be blamed.

Oh for fuck's sake--no it isn't.

An example of "Greed" is the pursuit of an endeavor when the risk outweighs the gain.

Operating on the premise of consumption is not greed--nor is attempting to consume all your able. It's when you're trying to consume more than you have the capacity for that you enter into the territory of "greed". That's why "greed" is identified as a self-destructive characteristic.

I would argue that an example of greed is asking for or accepting subsidies and/or bailout money for your business; you don't actually have the resourcefulness to accrue that sum of money on your own and so you make money appear in your wallet magically when it's fundamentally unsustainable according to your current business model. Thus, you won't be able to pay that money back.

If you wanna talk about "greed", look no further than a mentality of dependency (see also: welfare): a guaranteed accumulation of wealth with only unemployment as a prerequisite.

So the dictionary is wrong vs your opinion?

Websters:

Greed : a selfish and excessive desire for more of something (as money) than is needed

Over consumption. Not consumption.

You're an idiot.

Coming from you I'll take that as a compliment.

A key part of that definition is the word "needed".

No. It's "excessive". Because there's no possible way you can discriminate between the needs of one and the needs of another.

In your fucked up little head, everyone's needs are equal.

Maybe I was unclear in what you responded to.

I said that Capitalism is spun by the Left as "greed".

But Capitalism is simply healthy self-interest, and self interest works for the best of everyone in an environment of fair and impartial laws. That resources are used most efficiently when each person works in their self interest, and is rewarded in proportion to their work and contribution.

I would argue that everything that is wrong with our current system is due to the interference of government/regulatory/socialist interference with the free market system. The housing collapse was caused by socialist programs that allowed unqualified borrowers to purchase homes with money that was not theirs, that they didn't work for. Often with no money down, and/or a federally paid down payment (again, none of their own money). So they were perfectly able to walk away when the mortgage went upside down.
Corporate welfare is money given to large corporate businesses that gives them an unfair advantage over their competitors, and interferes with natural market forces, against those with good and ethical/efficient business practices, interference that corrupts the the free market.

I don't truly believe "greed is good". But I do believe true capitalism in a truly free market is good. I think we're getting hung up on semantics here, and, I hope beyond the words, truly in agreement.

I think your comments just go to show that you're trying to redefine greed with a political bent. It's very definition that you posted uses the word "need" and it doesn't jibe with your redefinition of greed.

I need to make a billion dollars.

What's your take on that?

I need to have sex with all of you

I'd like to know MEM's take on that as well.

I would like to know why you need a billion dollars.

Pariah will do it if MEM will go last.

Lothar, I was just joking. Don't get excited.

Is that Gman and Sneaky in the front?

I have ambitions for obtaining living conditions that are so expensive that I need to make a billion dollars to maintain them.

But before you said you needed a billion. Now your saying you want them. Is it want or need Pariah?

I do need a billion to successfully accomplish my goal. There's nothing about the definition that states that the meaning of "need" has to conform to whatever your own meaning might entail.

Than it depends on what your goal is that makes it greed or not.

I bet your brain feels as good as new, SEEING THAT YOU'VE NEVER USED IT!