Orwellian doublethink in Reagan apologists.

[foolsguinea]

(Emphasis added)

@puddleglum

Reagan stood behind Volker as he cut the money supply. This stopped the inflation of the 70’s and set the stage for the great economic boom that followed. Volker would not have done this without Reagan’s support and willingness to endure one of the worst recessions since the great depression.

You want to grow the economy with a contraction of the money supply? Really?

And then he says it again!

@puddleglum

From Dick’s Link
Reagan provided over the worst recession in 45 years during his first two years. This was because he stood with Volker to end inflaton. Despite this recession economic growth during his term averaged more than Carter and Clinton. Your cite provides evidence for Reagan’s greatness.
Because the fall of the Soviet Union was such a complex event, opinions will differ as to how much a role Reagan had in it. Here is the opinion of someone who was there Lech Walesahttp://www.tommyduggan.com/VP070204lech.html

What do you think a recession is? It’s a diminishment of economic growth! Of course the economy (at least the finance sector) grew after the recession. Whether or not you believe in a “business cycle,” it had leftover room to grow. And Reagan was pumping cash & debt into the market to grow it, running huge debts to fund military-industrial complex production.

And yet, here’s what actually happened.
[ul][li]The Wall Street tycoons got richer, but family farms collapsed & were sold off. Remember Farm Aid?[/li][li]Income taxes (which have low-end exemptions) were cut while payroll taxes (which have a high-end cap) were raised–leaving working-class people with relatively less money to move up. This, comically, is still remembered as saving (the program) Social Security. The fact is, it made the common man less secure–economically & thus also socially.[/li][li]Some of the unemployed of the 1970’s became long-term unemployed, or homeless, or turned to crime & went to prison, but the government changed how it counted unemployment so it could in G.H.W. Bush’s time claim that we had more than full employment! :eek:[/ul][/li]
This isn’t all the fault of one politician. It was the era. Pat Moynihan, Don Regan, Tip O’Neill, lots of people share the blame (even some that weren’t Irish!). US society became so paranoid about inflation that we erred in the opposite direction, & ended up undercutting the working class.

But to claim that cutting the money supply helped the economy grow is strange enough on the face of it. That this same bunch think that we need even less progressivity in income taxes (because we need that money at the top) just indicates that they have very little real understanding of macroeconomics.

You solve a demand crisis by getting money in people’s hands. Not all inflation is stagflation, and the stagflation of the 1970’s was a walk in the lilacs compared to the collapse of the inner cities (continued under Reagan), or the bubble collapse more recently.

I expect lots of “Oh, cardigans! Oh, malaise!” but Jimmy Carter was a freaking genius compared to you loons. Was the family farmer wiped out in the 1980’s supposed to be relieved that the President wore dark suits?

[John_Mace]

I’m not sure why you couldn’t have addressed this point in that particular thread, but whatever…

Inflation was killing the economy in the late 70s. Mortgage rates went as high as 18%. Can you suggest what Volker should have done instead to break the back of inflation? The recession was a painful necessity and the better managed monetary policy that was Volker’s did set the stage for the third longest economic expansion* in our country’s history (2nd longest, at the time).

Now, how much that is to Reagan’s credit and how much to Carter (since Carter appointed Volker), that’s another debate.

What are you suggesting should have been done instead?

*Often erroneously reported as the longest, sometimes the longest peacetime on since WWII.

[tomndebb]

foolsguinea, you have two options:

I can move this to the Pit and re-open it for you
or
You can start a new thread on a more temperate note without all the name-calling and inflammatory rhetoric that poisoned the well on this thread.

[ /Moderating ]