# Reaganomics **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 5, 2002, 2:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reaganomics/140607 "2002-12-05T02:21:23Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![SlickRoenick](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e68b1a/32.png) [@SlickRoenick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SlickRoenick)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2002, 2:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reaganomics/140607/1 "2002-12-05T02:21:23Z")
I’ve heard from both sides that Reaganomics worked, and it didn’t. It was a huge economy booster and we are still riding on its effects today. It created more jobs than thought possible. But it lacked educational funding, and spent useless money on the military. So what really DID Reaganomics do? ---
**Author:** ![SlickRoenick](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e68b1a/32.png) [@SlickRoenick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SlickRoenick)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2002, 2:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reaganomics/140607/2 "2002-12-05T02:22:39Z")
I assume that this is political, so I put it in GD instead of GQ–i’m pretty sure I got it right. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2002, 2:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reaganomics/140607/3 "2002-12-05T02:30:40Z")
Well, it put the U.S. economoy into massive debt, among other things. In the largest sense, though, it’s as if the Americans decided to spend oodles of money to force the Soviets to do the same, and the Soviets ran out of money and had to fold. ---
**Author:** ![manhattan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/manhattan/32/7_2.png) [@manhattan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/manhattan)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2002, 2:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reaganomics/140607/4 "2002-12-05T02:39:11Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Muldoon III \* > \*\*I assume that this is political, so I put it in GD instead of GQ–i’m pretty sure I got it right. \*\* Absolutely! Thank you very much. ---
**Author:** ![zigaretten](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/91b2a8/32.png) [@zigaretten](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zigaretten)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2002, 2:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reaganomics/140607/5 "2002-12-05T02:41:33Z")
Whoa !! Someone needs to do some defining (IMHO)! I’ve always considered “Reaganomics” to be Reagans economic programs. As such, it would have nothing to do with military spending or educational funding. Those would be separate issues. ---
**Author:** ![SlickRoenick](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e68b1a/32.png) [@SlickRoenick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SlickRoenick)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2002, 2:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reaganomics/140607/6 "2002-12-05T02:45:30Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by zigaretten \* > \*\*Whoa !! Someone needs to do some defining (IMHO)! > > I’ve always considered “Reaganomics” to be Reagans economic programs. As such, it would have nothing to do with military spending or educational funding. Those would be separate issues. \*\* From what I’ve read, the increase in revenue from economic spending helped defense funding. So the money the military had was coming from a boost in the total money coming in from the consumers ---
**Author:** ![happyheathen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/b5e925/32.png) [@happyheathen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/happyheathen)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2002, 3:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reaganomics/140607/7 "2002-12-05T03:58:53Z")
If you missed it the first time, just watch the news - its back! Federal deficit, 1980 - $1 Trillion Federal deficit, 1988 - $4 Trillion Pension plans gutted, replaced by 401(k) Tax cuts for the richest Wholesale plundering of S&L’s - we will be paying off that debt for decades. Guess where the money went. Massive spending for useless military programs (Star Wars is back! - now without that pesky ABM treaty!) Remember the battleships being re-commissioned? That was bright. anyway, just keep your eyes open this time around. ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2002, 4:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reaganomics/140607/8 "2002-12-05T04:24:44Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Muldoon III \* > From what I’ve read, the increase in revenue from economic spending helped defense funding. So the money the military had was coming from a boost in the total money coming in from the consumers We’ve been down this road before. The fact is that in real dollar terms, the Reagan tax cuts caused a drop in revenues coming in through the personal income tax…I think it took until like 1987 before it had recovered to pre-Reagan budget (fiscal year 1981) levels. [And in general, one expects such revenues to grow over time since the economy in real terms grows over time.] This is of course why the deficit ballooned so much. The rosy revenue predictions from the White House budget office became a national joke. ---
**Author:** ![Chumpsky](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e9a140/32.png) [@Chumpsky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chumpsky)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2002, 7:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reaganomics/140607/9 "2002-12-05T07:48:38Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by zigaretten \* > \*\*I’ve always considered “Reaganomics” to be Reagans economic programs. As such, it would have nothing to do with military spending or educational funding. Those would be separate issues. \*\* Absolutely false. In fact, the massive spending on war was intrinsic to the sytem (and still is). Essentially, the Reaganites were military Keynesians. (I don’t credit Reagan himself for actually doing anything. His job was to read the scripts the rich folk wrote for him.) They way they wanted to create economic growth was through massive government spending. But, in order to keep most of the benefits from government spending concentrated in narrow sectors, this is done through the Pentagon system. This is an ideal system for the crypto-fascists, since it does help to stimulate the economy. Government spending in general helps to stimulate the economy. But, with the Pentagon system, most of the money that is spent goes into waste production on useless military junk. Therefore, there is very little chance that it will actually benefit the people. You thus get to stimulate the economy while at the same time waging the class war. In addition, Keynesian military spending is an excellent way to transfer wealth from the poor to the rich. Since the rich are benefit enormously through military spending, while the poor pay for it, it does serve well this sort of inverse Robin Hood role. One should be fair to the Reaganites, though. This is not something that is unique to them. Rather, it is quite general. The only differences between the straight out fascists (republicans) and the Democrats is that the Democrats are more sophisticated, more attuned to the needs of western hypocrites. They both pursue the same policies, but the Democrats are able to put a better spin on it, to make it more palatable to the people. ---
**Author:** ![Chumpsky](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e9a140/32.png) [@Chumpsky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chumpsky)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2002, 8:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reaganomics/140607/10 "2002-12-05T08:24:15Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Muldoon III \* > **I’ve heard from both sides that Reaganomics worked, and it didn’t.** Both are true. It worked spectacularly well for the narrow sector of the population that made up the Reaganite constituency. For the vast majority, though, it was a total disaster. ---
**Author:** ![zigaretten](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/91b2a8/32.png) [@zigaretten](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zigaretten)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2002, 10:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reaganomics/140607/11 "2002-12-05T10:51:42Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Chumpsky \* > Absolutely false. In fact, the massive spending on war was intrinsic to the sytem (and still is). Essentially, the Reaganites were military Keynesians. Oh………; > [@](#): > > “The most important player on Ronald Reagan’s economic team is Ronald Reagan. The person most responsible for creating the economic program that came to be known as Reaganomics is Reagan himself. For over twenty years he observed the American economy, read and studied the writings of some of the best economists in the world, including the giants of the free market economy – Ludwig von Mises, Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman – and he spoke and wrote on the economy, going through the rigorous mental discipline of explaining his thoughts to others. Over the years he made all the key decisions on the economic strategies he finally embraced. He always felt comfortable with his knowledge of the field and he was in command all the way.” > From “Revolution” by Martin Anderson Hmmmmm…….von Mises, Hayek and Friedman were all anti-Keynes. And where do Laffer, Bastiat, Cobden and Bright fit into this? They are all people who Reagan cited when asked who had influenced his economic policies. Were they Keynesians? > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Chumpsky \* > (The) way they wanted to create economic growth was through massive government spending. Then why did Reagan put such an incredible emphasis on tightening the money supply? Isn’t that anathema to increased government spending? > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Chumpsky \* > But, with the Pentagon system, most of the money that is spent goes into waste production on useless military junk. Therefore, there is very little chance that it will actually benefit the people. Why? Doesn’t military spending create jobs? Doesn’t it create a demand for raw materials and services which must be supplied? Wasn’t increased military spending one of the key factors in finally getting the US out of the great depression? Was FDR a crypto-fascist? Exactly who is (or was) **not** a crypto-fascist (aside from Franco, Mussolini and other such obvious choices)? Michael Bakunin? Weren’t Reagans economic policies almost exactly the opposite of the corporatism practiced by the fascist states? If not, what do you see as similarities between the two? Do you really believe that Reagan wanted to destroy the middle class? > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Chumpsky \* > Therefore, there is very little chance that it will actually benefit the people. Median Family income rose by $4,000(adj. For inflation) during the Reagan years after being stagnant for the prior eight years. Did this not benefit “the people”? Unemployment dropped from 7.6% to 5.5%. Did this not benefit “the people”? Inflation dropped from 13.5% to 4.1%. Did this not benefit “the people”? Who are “the people”? ---
**Author:** ![Chumpsky](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e9a140/32.png) [@Chumpsky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chumpsky)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2002, 11:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reaganomics/140607/12 "2002-12-05T11:16:58Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by zigaretten \* > **Hmmmmm…….von Mises, Hayek and Friedman were all anti-Keynes. And where do Laffer, Bastiat, Cobden and Bright fit into this? They are all people who Reagan cited when asked who had influenced his economic policies. Were they Keynesians?** Reagan had only the foggiest idea of what was going on. > [@](#): > > **Then why did Reagan put such an incredible emphasis on tightening the money supply? Isn’t that anathema to increased government spending?** He didn’t. Government spending through the Pentagon system went through the roof. That’s why the national debt **tripled** during the Reagan years. > [@](#): > > \*\*Why? Doesn’t military spending create jobs? Doesn’t it create a demand for raw materials and services which must be supplied? Wasn’t increased military spending one of the key factors in finally getting the US out of the great depression? \*\* Yes, as does any government spending. Like I said, government spending does stimulate the economy. > [@](#): > > **Weren’t Reagans economic policies almost exactly the opposite of the corporatism practiced by the fascist states? If not, what do you see as similarities between the two? Do you really believe that Reagan wanted to destroy the middle class?** No. Much. Yes, but with the caveat that it wasn’t Reagan, but the rich folk who wrote the scripts he read. > [@](#): > > \*\*Median Family income rose by $4,000(adj. For inflation) during the Reagan years after being stagnant for the prior eight years. Did this not benefit “the people”? > > Unemployment dropped from 7.6% to 5.5%. Did this not benefit “the people”? > > Inflation dropped from 13.5% to 4.1%. Did this not benefit “the people”?\*\* To repeat what seems to be a favorite argument here: cite? > [@](#): > > \*\*Who are “the people”? \*\* The people who live in the country. ---
**Author:** ![zigaretten](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/91b2a8/32.png) [@zigaretten](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zigaretten)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2002, 12:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reaganomics/140607/13 "2002-12-05T12:33:09Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Chumpsky \* > Reagan had only the foggiest idea of what was going on. Yes……I’m sure you know better than Dr. Anderson… Reagan didn’t tighten the money supply? Could you elaborate? I don’t think I’ve ever seen anyone argue that Reagan didn’t tighten the money supply before. In fact, most sources that I’ve seen claim that Reagan insisted on a tighter money supply despite the objections of Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker. But if he had only the foggiest idea of what was going on I guess that must be wrong. Or maybe the “rich folk” just forgot to give Mr Volcker his copy of the script. > [@](#): > > Like I said, government spending does stimulate the economy. Well why doesn’t stimulating the economy benefit “the people”? > [@](#): > > To repeat what seems to be a favorite argument here: cite? Matthew 7:7…… Median Income: Commerce Department, Bureau of the Census Unemployment: \* Economic Report of the President, 1995\* Inflation: \* Economic Report of the President, 1996\* ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2002, 1:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reaganomics/140607/14 "2002-12-05T13:57:52Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Chumpsky \* > \*\*Reagan had only the foggiest idea of what was going on. > He didn’t. Government spending through the Pentagon system went through the roof. That’s why the national debt **tripled** during the Reagan years. \*\* The increases in U.S. defense spending during Reagan’s administration cannot account for that much money. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2002, 2:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reaganomics/140607/15 "2002-12-06T02:38:56Z")
Hey, if it destroyed the commies, maybe it was worth it. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2002, 2:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reaganomics/140607/16 "2002-12-06T02:43:31Z")
As I just stated elsewhere, the essential proposition of Reaganomics (or “voodoo economics”, as George I so aptly put it) is this: if the economy is sluggish, its because the poor people are hoarding all the money. ---
**Author:** ![Neurotik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/91b2a8/32.png) [@Neurotik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Neurotik)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2002, 2:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reaganomics/140607/17 "2002-12-06T02:44:57Z")
I think the idea was that the government was hoarding all the money. But close, **elucidator**. ---
**Author:** ![manhattan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/manhattan/32/7_2.png) [@manhattan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/manhattan)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2002, 2:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reaganomics/140607/18 "2002-12-06T02:47:32Z")
Crypto-fascists? I swear on a stack of Wall St. Journals that I thought that was a term people made up and ascribed to whackos descriptions of others as a means of making fun of them (the whackos, that is). People really say that? Crypto-fascists? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2002, 3:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reaganomics/140607/19 "2002-12-06T03:01:42Z")
Well, actually, its a term generally applied to persons who are inclined to regard the Wall Street Journal as holy writ. Something one might swear upon, for instance. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2002, 3:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reaganomics/140607/20 "2002-12-06T03:11:47Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by manhattan \* > \*\*Crypto-fascists? > > I swear on a stack of Wall St. Journals that I thought that was a term people made up and ascribed to whackos descriptions of others as a means of making fun of them (the whackos, that is). > > People really say that? > > Crypto-fascists? \*\* Well, they used to say “running-dog jackals” and “establishment pigs” but people kept giggling. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/reaganomics/140607.md?page=2)