Was Ronald Reagon that bad of a president?

[Odin]

Fez, The Cato Institute is a hell-hole of crap (=Supply side) economists, you are full of it Fez. In my school's Economics textbook it says that the "Misery Index" (I can't remember it's technical name) was at an all-time high under Reagan. So, one again, You have no evidence, YOU HAVE NOTHING!!!

It was definatly Reagan's fault with S&L. he gave in to the comercial bank lobby who were complaining to him, and of course he allways sided with Big Business and made S&Ls have to have higher interst rates on loans, screwing the poor people.

[Giancarlo]

Actually the idiot you are, you fail to realize that the misery index wasn't used in the 80s. It was used by President Carter to defeat President Ford in the 1977 elections. The misery index was the inflation and unemployment added together, and it was at an all time high in 1979. Unemployment fell by half by 1985, and inflation was reduced. You are a damned idiot to ignore the evidence I have.

And you a stooge to ignore the chart I provided showing real income increases in the income brackets of all classes.

Not only are you young, you apparently don't have a clue.

[Kuciwalker]

Fez, shut up.

People *might* (might, because you have too much of a reputation) actually take you seriously if you didn't spend at least half of every post insulting people.

[Giancarlo]

I was thrown a bunch of insults by a 17 year old.. so what do you expect me to do?

[Kuciwalker]

Ignore the insults and address the arguments.

[Odin]

Originally posted by skywalker
Fez, shut up.

People *might* (might, because you have too much of a reputation) actually take you seriously if you didn't spend at least half of every post insulting people.

Thanks Sky. At least your not a Fez Despenser.

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by skywalker
Ignore the insults and address the arguments.

Very well.

Odin, don't act hypocritical. You know very well you can't win in this argument. Go back to the school books.. what are you in the 11th grade?

[Kuciwalker]

Are you determined to do exactly the opposite of what I suggest?

EDIT: oh, and btw, I'm a rising 10th grader... age doesn't necessarily correspond to maturity or intelligence

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by skywalker


Are you determined to do exactly the opposite of what I suggest?

EDIT: oh, and btw, I'm a rising 10th grader... age doesn't necessarily correspond to maturity or intelligence

Hey, hey, hey, I didn't use any four letter words that get censored here.

10th grader? LOL... just a little sophmore...

[Kuciwalker]

Still, saying "you're wrong" is not an argument, it's a delaying tactic while you do a google search You need to provide solid reasons why your argument is correct. There are two ways you can do that. First, start from a whole slew of evidence and point out a pattern (induction), second, take a little evidence and step by step build a case for your side (deduction).

[cinch]

I gave him a 2, mostly because trickle-down economics doesn't work, and because he killed Keynesian theory in America.

[Odin]

Listen Fez, I take my arguments from what I have seen in my life. Your opinions would be like mine too if you grew up in working class rural Minesota instead of upper-middle class Spain.

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by skywalker
Still, saying "you're wrong" is not an argument, it's a delaying tactic while you do a google search You need to provide solid reasons why your argument is correct. There are two ways you can do that. First, start from a whole slew of evidence and point out a pattern (induction), second, take a little evidence and step by step build a case for your side (deduction).

I cite Cato, that is enough. The policy analysis has about twenty charts on it...

Thank you and have a nice day.

Soph-boy... get this right... I am more intelligent than you in this area. Don't try to outwit somebody older than you.

***

Economic Growth. The average annual growth rate of real gross domestic product (GDP) from 1981 to 1989 was 3.2 percent per year, compared with 2.8 percent from 1974 to 1981 and 2.1 percent from 1989 to 1995. The 3.2 percent growth rate for the Reagan years includes the recession of the early 1980s, which was a side effect of reversing Carter's high-inflation policies, and the seven expansion years, 1983-89. During the economic expansion alone, the economy grew by a robust annual rate of 3.8 percent. By the end of the Reagan years, the American economy was almost one-third larger than it was when they began. [13] Figure 1 shows the economic growth rate by president since World War II. That rate was higher in the 1980s than in the 1950s and 1970s but was substantially lower than the rapid economic growth rate of more than 4 percent per year in the 1960s. The Kennedy income tax rate cuts of 30 percent that were enacted in 1964 generated several years of 5 percent annual real growth.

Economic Growth per Working-Age Adult. When we adjust the economic growth rates to take account of demographic changes, we find that the expansion in the Reagan years looks even better and that the 1970s' performance looks worse. GDP growth per adult aged 20-64 in the Reagan years grew twice as rapidly, on average, as it did in the pre- and post-Reagan years.

Median Household Incomes. Real median household income rose by $4,000 in the Reagan years--from $37,868 in 1981 to $42,049 in 1989, as shown in Figure 2. This improvement was a stark reversal of the income trends in the late 1970s and the 1990s: median family income was unchanged in the eight pre-Reagan years, and incomes have fallen by $1,438 in the anti-supply-side 1990s, following the 1990 and 1993 tax hikes. [14] Most of the declines in take-home pay occurred on George Bush's watch. Under Bill Clinton's tenure, there has been zero income growth in median household income.

Employment. From 1981 through 1989 the U.S. economy produced 17 million new jobs, or roughly 2 million new jobs each year. Contrary to the Clinton administration's claims of vast job gains in the 1990s, the United States has averaged only 1.3 million new jobs per year in the post-Reagan years. The labor force United States has averaged only 1.3 million new jobs expanded by 1.7 percent per year between 1981 and 1989, but by just 1.2 percent per year between 1990 and 1995. [15]

Hours Worked. Table 1 confirms that hours worked per adult aged 20-64 grew much faster in the 1980s than in the pre -or post-Reagan years.

Unemployment Rate. When Reagan took office in 1981, the unemployment rate was 7.6 percent. In the recession of 1981-82, that rate peaked at 9.7 percent, but it fell continuously for the next seven years. When Reagan left office, the unemployment rate was 5.5 percent. This reduction in joblessness was a clear triumph of the Reagan program. Figure 3 shows that in the pre-Reagan years, the unemployment rate trended upward; in the Reagan years, the unemployment rate trended downward; and in the post-Reagan years, the unemployment rate has fluctuated up and down but today remains virtually unchanged from the 1989 rate.

Productivity. For real wages to rise, productivity must rise. Over the past 30 years there has been a secular downward trend in U.S. productivity growth. Under Reagan, productivity grew at a 1.5 percent annual rate, as shown in Figure 4. This was lower than in the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s but much higher than in the post-Reagan years. Under Clinton, productivity has increased at an annual rate of just 0.3 percent per year--the worst presidential performance since that of Herbert Hoover.

Inflation. The central economic evil that Ronald Reagan inherited in 1981 from Jimmy Carter was three years of double-digit inflation. In 1980 the consumer price index (CPI) rose to 13.5 percent. By Reagan's second year in office, the inflation rate fell by more than half to 6.2 percent. In 1988, Reagan's last year in office, the CPI had fallen to 4.1 percent. Figure 5 shows the inflation and interest rate trend.

Interest Rates. In 1980 the interest rate on a 30-year mortgage was 15 percent; this rate rose to its all-time peak of 18.9 percent in 1981. The prime rate steadily fell over the subsequent six years to a low of 8.2 percent in 1987 as the inflationary expectation component of interest rates fell sharply. The prime rate hit its 20-year low in 1993 at 6.0 percent. The Treasury Bill rate also fell dramatically in the 1980s--from 14 percent in 1981 to 7 percent in 1988. In the 1990s, interest rates have continued to migrate gradually downward, as shown in Figure 5.

Savings. The savings rate did not rise in the 1980s, as supply-side advocates had predicted. In fact, in the 1980s the personal savings rate fell from 8 percent to 6.5 percent. [16]In the 1990s the average savings rate has fallen even further to an average of 4.9 percent [17]--although the rate of decline has slowed.

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-261.html

****

[Dis]

Originally posted by Odin
Fez, The Cato Institute is a hell-hole of crap (=Supply side) economists, you are full of it Fez. In my school's Economics textbook it says that the "Misery Index" (I can't remember it's technical name) was at an all-time high under Reagan. So, one again, You have no evidence, YOU HAVE NOTHING!!!

It was definatly Reagan's fault with S&L. he gave in to the comercial bank lobby who were complaining to him, and of course he allways sided with Big Business and made S&Ls have to have higher interst rates on loans, screwing the poor people.

economics textbook?

some of us actually lived through that time.

And I wasn't some middle class person. I was poor (not due to reagon's policies- but other reasons). And what I did just say in my last post.

The early 80's were indeed horrible. But things improved many times over by the late 80's. Misery wasn't that bad in the U.S.

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Odin
Listen Fez, I take my arguments from what I have seen in my life. Your opinions would be like mine too if you grew up in working class rural Minesota instead of upper-middle class Spain.

Actually I grew up in a **** hole apartment complex for much of my youth in Virginia.

I am not in Spain.

You have just been knocked senseless. No wonder... 17 years old.. when I was 17 I always thought I was right but you will learn.