You were the one who brought up debt as a complaint. Since it is your complaint you now must condemn obama much more forcefully than you condemned Reagan because obama's debt is way worse. We're all waiting.Zack Morris wrote: What does this have to do with Reagan-era policies, their impact on the economy then, and their usefulness now? Nothing.
Do you know why that is. If you did you would not bring up interest rates, else it would cause people to look into why rates are so low (the economy under obama is so bad it's propped up zero percent interest rates and unlimited money printing).The national debt is not yet having any meaningful impact on the US economy and investment therein. Interest rates are at historic lows globally.
A 300lber also may "not yet" feel his weight is a risk to his health. What that has to do with anything I'll never know.
Also, if you have no problem with debt why did you use it to rail against Reagan? His debts were much smaller by every measure than obama's. If obama gets to do it why doesn't Reagan get to do it much smaller
Ever played musical chairs.There is no inflation. The United States remains the preferred destination for foreign and domestic investment dollars by a wide margin.
Ever played Russian roulette.Will the debt have an impact down the road? Probably. When? No one knows for sure, but not in the near term given the relatively inferior shape of the rest of the world.
Yes, and the 1% thanks you while everyone else suffers. Left wing supply siders. Supply side for me and not for thee.If anything, the US is awash with access to cheap money to finance new ventures as evidenced by the frothy technology sector and the booming oil/natural gas sector.
You made them pertinent. You brought up Reagan debt. They are pertinent because of you.A reduction in the deficit and the debt are not pertinent to this particular discussion because these things did not happen under Reagan, either.
Reagan faced Keynesian inflation/stagflation, which is designed to boost employment and GDP but at the expense of inflation similar to old Soviet 5 year plans. Central planners would produce 5% GDP growth and starve the peasants in the countryside.A 3% drop resulting from the worst recession since the 1940's, just as the baby boomers head toward retirement. What inferences can be drawn from this regarding Reagan-style policies (whatever those are, because you've sure failed to demonstrate a grasp of the 1980's economy) will have to be spelled out to me. Reagan didn't face this sort of a situation. And given the nature of business cycles, it will take years for this to correct itself even if all the "right" steps are taken.
In the US everyone was working but everyone felt poorer and poorer as the cost of living skyrocketed and the value of their savings plummeted. I know because I was there. And so were most of the people in the previous opinion poll. That is why Reagan won in a landslide against Carter, and despite a corrective recession early in his term won a bigger landslide 4 years later. Everybody loved the results.
Here's the labor force participation rate in better context:
Already covered above. Employment growth under Carter came at a direct cost.I got this directly from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Why did you truncate your plot? Between January 1976 and 1980, the participation rate grew by 2.7%. Between 1980 and 1990, it grew by 2.8%. By your logic, Carter puts Reagan to shame and the 1970's were the best of times in Amerca. And note the very clear inflection point during the 1990's, well before W. and Obama. Do you understand why this happened and why the upward trend in labor force participation peaked?
You are at a disadvantage because I was there. The media would report job and GDP figures but the cost was double digit inflation. The country wisely decided the tradeoff was a disaster.
My argument is that jobs grew under Reagan and have plummeted under obama.Now that I've demolished your argument, let's stick to the point.
You have not put a smudge on my argument. My argument is iron clad.
You condemned Reagan for things obama is much worse at. To maintain your integrity you must now forcefully condemn obama for his much greater debt, creation of underclass and horrific job performance.
I'm waiting.
Boy it sure does. This is an underclass creation that dwarfs anything you can find on Reagan.All true but none of it reinforces your point.
No you didn't.I posted a very detailed and purely factual analysis of the 1980's economy
73% of America, most of whom lived through the different eras disagree with you vehemently. Good luck convincing that many people who know way more about it than you do.showing that there was nothing remarkable about that one-trick pony.
Nope. CS says the 1980's was driven by computer chips from California and tanks. Which one of you should believe, particularly since neither one of were there and apparently have done scant reading on the subject.The 1980's were an era of wage stagnation, low-skill retail and food industry job growth, and a one-time expansion in trade and wholesale driven by importing technology from Japan and cheap goods from elsewhere.
[/quote]The 1980's were the era of strip malls, shopping malls, and retail stores: KMart, Walmart, Shopco, Mervyn's, Circuit City, Marshall's, Ross, Sears, etc., etc., etc. Many of these are now defunct because the factory-to-consumer pipeline has been decimated by the Internet, which continues to thrive in the United States.
What this has to do with the American people loving Reagan's economic performance I don't have any idea.
All I know is you condemned Reagan for underclass, debt, and poor jobs, while it's now established obama is orders of magnitude worse on all counts.
Waiting for your firm condemnation of obama.