Started By
Message

re: The Myths of Reaganomics

Posted on 5/23/14 at 7:30 pm to
Posted by RollTide4Ever
Nashville
Member since Nov 2006
18308 posts
Posted on 5/23/14 at 7:30 pm to
Nobody refutes what Murray rothbard said?
Posted by joshnorris14
Florida
Member since Jan 2009
45213 posts
Posted on 5/23/14 at 7:36 pm to
quote:

What did he have to say?


Hayek:

quote:

That democratic socialism, the great utopia of the last few generations, is not only unachievable, but that to strive for it produces something so utterly different that few of those who wish it would be prepared to accept the consequences, many will not believe until the connection has been laid bare in all its aspects.


Hayek's greatest contribution to economic theory was his work on spontaneous order and what he called the "knowledge problem", most of his writings were indirect refutations of the socialist model.

Mises of course, being the greater economist, sought to more fully take apart Socialism. Which he did in his book titled Socialism.

Mises (From the Quotable Mises circa 1920)
quote:

One may anticipate the nature of the future socialist society. There will be hundreds and thousands of factories in operation. Very few of these will be producing wares ready for use; in the majority of cases what will be manufactured will be unfinished goods and production goods.
Posted by HailHailtoMichigan!
Mission Viejo, CA
Member since Mar 2012
69289 posts
Posted on 5/23/14 at 7:38 pm to
quote:

Murray rothbard
what a loon
Posted by Jake88
Member since Apr 2005
68180 posts
Posted on 5/23/14 at 8:06 pm to
Reagan likely read much of that because he made similar statements about the USSR prior to his presidency.

"Nothing proves the failure of Marxism more than the Soviet Union's inability to produce weapons for it's military ambitions and at the same time provide for their peoples' everyday needs. It only takes about 4% of our labor force to grow food for 211 mil Americans and provide 80%of all the food shipped to the world's underdeveloped nations. A full 1/3 of Russia's workers are in agriculture and still they'd starve without our wheat. And, the failure is not Russian, it is communist, for every other country that has collectivized it's agriculture has gone downhill in farm production." -Reagan Oct. 1975

There are many other statements like that that reflect his regard for Hayek.

Plus…
“Lee Edwards recalls being once left along in Reagan’s study while then-Governor Reagan went to the kitchen to prepare cocktails. Edwards began browsing Reagan’s bookshelves, and was astonished to find dense works of political economy by authors such as Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich Hayek heavily underlined and annotated in Reagan’s handwriting .. “ - See more at: LINK
This post was edited on 5/23/14 at 8:07 pm
Posted by joshnorris14
Florida
Member since Jan 2009
45213 posts
Posted on 5/23/14 at 8:12 pm to
I'm aware of his fondness which is why he deserves even harsher criticism for his actions and all claims that HE defeated the USSR should be laughed at.
Posted by Jake88
Member since Apr 2005
68180 posts
Posted on 5/23/14 at 8:20 pm to
Without him and his push the USSR could have limped along for decades like China or Cuba still subjugating it's people.
Posted by joshnorris14
Florida
Member since Jan 2009
45213 posts
Posted on 5/23/14 at 8:22 pm to
quote:

Without him and his push the USSR could have limped along for decades like China or Cuba still subjugating it's people.


It had nothing to do with Reagan. Jesus fricking Christ.

It had more to do with their insistence on military conflict with the outside world (Do you see Cuba fighting any wars in Afganistan)?
Posted by Jake88
Member since Apr 2005
68180 posts
Posted on 5/23/14 at 8:27 pm to
quote:

It had more to do with their insistence on military conflict with the outside world


Yes. And he knew they would over extend themselves trying to keep up with us militarily.
Posted by Tackle74
Columbia, MO
Member since Mar 2012
5256 posts
Posted on 5/23/14 at 8:37 pm to
quote:

He was dealing with the most evil country this world has ever known. We needed a strong military at the time.


Nazi Germany, Imperialist Japan and even Ancient Assyria say hi. USSR and evil empire, yes but not near the top. As for Reagan ending the USSR, he had some part but basically it fell from within because of its own weak economy. Sure overspending in the Soviet Military was a part of that economy but not the only economic problem they faced. By the way the US did not come out unscathed, the US overspending on the Military 30 years later is still unchecked and running us into the ground financially. Oh and I am far from a peace loving Dove.
Posted by Patrick O Rly
y u do dis?
Member since Aug 2011
41187 posts
Posted on 5/23/14 at 8:45 pm to
quote:

what a loon



He was just lucid.

I loved his lecture on the creation of the FED and the origins of progressive regulation. Wasn't the most gifted public speaker, but he was surprisingly funny for such a geek.
Posted by TerryDawg03
The Deep South
Member since Dec 2012
15694 posts
Posted on 5/23/14 at 8:54 pm to
quote:

I knew it was David Stockman before I even clicked on the link.


Of course you did.
Posted by rmcc316
Here
Member since Feb 2004
44424 posts
Posted on 5/23/14 at 8:56 pm to
quote:

Prime economic promise was tax restructuring


are you ignoring the tax increases?

quote:

Before looking at taxation under Reagan, we must note that spending is the better indicator of the size of the government. If government cuts taxes, but not spending, it still gets the money from somewhere—either by borrowing or inflating. Either method robs the productive sector. Although spending is the better indicator, it is not complete, because it ignores other ways in which the government deprives producers of wealth. For instance, it conceals regulation and trade restricdons, which may require little government outlay.

If we look at government revenues as a percentage of "national income," we find little change from the Carter days, despite heralded "tax cuts." In 1980, revenues were 25.1% of "national income." In the first quarter of 1988 they were 24.7%.

Reagan came into office proposing to cut personal income and business taxes. The Economic Recovery Act was supposed to reduce revenues by $749 billion over five years. But this was quickly reversed with the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982. TEFRA—the largest tax increase in American history—was designed to raise $214.1 billion over five years, and took back many of the business tax savings enacted the year before. It also imposed withholding on interest and dividends, a provision later repealed over the president's objection.

But this was just the beginning. In 1982 Reagan supported a five-cent-per-gallon gasoline tax and higher taxes on the trucking industry. Total increase: $5.5 billion a year. In 1983, on the recommendation of his Spcial Security Commission— chaired by the man he later made Fed chairman, Alan Green-span—Reagan called for, and received, Social Security tax increases of $165 billion over seven years. A year later came Reagan's Deficit Reduction Act to raise $50 billion.

Even the heralded Tax Reform Act of 1986 is more deception than substance. It shifted $120 billion over five years from visible personal income taxes to hidden business taxes. It lowered the rates, but it also repealed or reduced many deductions.

According to the Treasury Department, the 1981 tax cut will have reduced revenues by $1.48 trillion by the end of fiscal 1989. But tax increases since 1982 will equal $1.5 trillion by 1989. The increases include not only the formal legislation mentioned above but also bracket creep (which ended in 1985 when tax indexing took effect—a provision of the 1981 act despite Reagan's objection), $30 billion in various tax changes, and other increases. Taxes by the end of the Reagan era will be as large a chunk of GNP as when he took office, if not larger: 19.4%, by ultra-conservative estimate of the Reagan Office of Management and Budget. The so-called historic average is 18.3%.
This post was edited on 5/23/14 at 9:09 pm
Posted by NC_Tigah
Carolinas
Member since Sep 2003
123887 posts
Posted on 5/23/14 at 9:12 pm to
quote:

It had more to do with their insistence on military conflict with the outside world (Do you see Cuba fighting any wars in Afganistan)?
You stepped in it there. I'm surprised.
You're usually more informed.

Re: Reagan ending the USSR, there is no question about that. His policies absolutely led to that end. Claims that the USSR collapse was "inevitable" -- because of "socialism" -- are just stupid. North Korea, Vietnam, China, Cuba, and others speak to that so-called inevitability.
Posted by Gmorgan4982
Member since May 2005
101750 posts
Posted on 5/23/14 at 9:21 pm to
quote:

North Korea, Vietnam, China, Cuba, and others speak to that so-called inevitability.
Josh just pointed out that these nations aren't expanding overseas as rapidly as the USSR. North Korea building missiles that can't threaten anyone doesn't count.
Posted by Gmorgan4982
Member since May 2005
101750 posts
Posted on 5/23/14 at 9:21 pm to
quote:

are you ignoring the tax increases?
Well, he didn't say "decreases", he said "restructuring".
Posted by NC_Tigah
Carolinas
Member since Sep 2003
123887 posts
Posted on 5/23/14 at 9:22 pm to
quote:

North Korea building missiles that can't threaten anyone doesn't count.
What are you talking about?
Posted by NC_Tigah
Carolinas
Member since Sep 2003
123887 posts
Posted on 5/23/14 at 9:23 pm to
quote:

Josh just pointed out that these nations aren't expanding overseas as rapidly as the USSR.
Posted by Gmorgan4982
Member since May 2005
101750 posts
Posted on 5/23/14 at 9:26 pm to
quote:

It had more to do with their insistence on military conflict with the outside world (Do you see Cuba fighting any wars in Afganistan)?
quote:

Claims that the USSR collapse was "inevitable" -- because of "socialism" -- are just stupid. North Korea, Vietnam, China, Cuba, and others speak to that so-called inevitability.
Posted by rmcc316
Here
Member since Feb 2004
44424 posts
Posted on 5/23/14 at 9:29 pm to
quote:

Well, he didn't say "decreases", he said "restructuring".


what does that even mean?
Posted by NC_Tigah
Carolinas
Member since Sep 2003
123887 posts
Posted on 5/23/14 at 9:29 pm to
quote:

are you ignoring the tax increases?
Are you referring to the economic benefits of lower rates actually driving increased GDP, therefore increasing tax revenue?
Or are you referring to the inevitability of a Democrat legislature pushing taxes higher?
first pageprev pagePage 3 of 6Next pagelast page

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram