How Ronald Reagan Ruined America

Every good conservative, Republican, and Tea Partier knows that Pres. Reagan is our country’s best president ever, right? WRONG. He was nothing but an actor, a mouthpiece for antigovernment corporations and international banks, and he effectively dismantled everything that built America’s middle class – our industrial infrastructure, middle class, regulatory environment, and of course, the labor unions.

This four minute clip by Capitalism: A Love Story, explains it all beautifully.

http://www.occupydemocrats.com/watch-the-4-minute-video-that-breaks-down-how-reagan-destroyed-america/

Trickle-down "voodoo economics" (as George H W Bush called it) was the death knell to the average American worker.

Supply-side economics has been completely debunked.

Original Quill wrote:Supply-side economics has been completely debunked.

I mean really, what kind of idiot would ever believe that if you're able to make more of your good or service, prosperity automatically ensues? Obviously a faith-based view of how economics really works. There are specific cases in which too many barriers to production could choke the economy, but we haven't seen that set of circumstances in a long time -- we need more demand in this country, not more supply.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Original Quill wrote:Supply-side economics has been completely debunked.

I mean really, what kind of idiot would ever believe that if you're able to make more of your good or service, prosperity automatically ensues? Obviously a faith-based view of how economics really works. There are specific cases in which too many barriers to production could choke the economy, but we haven't seen that set of circumstances in a long time -- we need more demand in this country, not more supply.

I think the theory is that if you give money to investors, they will look for places to invest it.  Investment will become expansion, resulting in employment.  So it refers to 'supply-side' in the sense of the 'supply-demand' curves you studied in Econ class.  It's common sense you've got to have demand in order to sell; the assumption is, on the other side you've got to have a place to put money (investment).

What has proven the demise of the theory is geo-economics.  As the world becomes smaller, the wealthy have found a place to put their money...Asian markets with cheap labor.  So tax-cuts and supply-side economics merely increases foreign investments, and decreases domestic employment.

Going off topic, slightly. Are there still records of who worked for Reagan, during the years as president? Are there any still remaining in the government today that worked under him? Would there be any of his old staff working abroad? For instance, a lot of Tony Blairs old cronies will probably be working the middle east with him. Any of Reagan's lot go on to work with private corporations i.e. Monsanto?

Original Quill wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Original Quill wrote:Supply-side economics has been completely debunked.

I mean really, what kind of idiot would ever believe that if you're able to make more of your good or service, prosperity automatically ensues? Obviously a faith-based view of how economics really works. There are specific cases in which too many barriers to production could choke the economy, but we haven't seen that set of circumstances in a long time -- we need more demand in this country, not more supply.

I think the theory is that if you give money to investors, they will look for places to invest it.  Investment will become expansion, resulting in employment.  So it refers to 'supply-side' in the sense of the 'supply-demand' curves you studied in Econ class.  It's common sense you've got to have demand in order to sell; the assumption is, on the other side you've got to have a place to put money (investment).

What has proven the demise of the theory is geo-economics.  As the world becomes smaller, the wealthy have found a place to put their money...Asian markets with cheap labor.  So tax-cuts and supply-side economics merely increases foreign investments, and decreases domestic employment.

Ah, that's my confusion -- as I've never lived in an America in which American corporations made investments in American labor or infrastructure ... I've been told of a magical time when this was the case, though

Jane, I don't know how you'd track that down, but I can say that most of the officials in the Obama administration are either new or previously served under Clinton -- perhaps a few under W. Bush, though not very many.

About the only way I could think to start investigating that would be at this Wikipedia page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidency_of_Ronald_Reagan#Administration_and_Cabinet

Here's some related interesting reading:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/10/17/157477/-List-of-Reagan-administration-convictions

Original Quill wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Original Quill wrote:Supply-side economics has been completely debunked.

I mean really, what kind of idiot would ever believe that if you're able to make more of your good or service, prosperity automatically ensues? Obviously a faith-based view of how economics really works. There are specific cases in which too many barriers to production could choke the economy, but we haven't seen that set of circumstances in a long time -- we need more demand in this country, not more supply.

I think the theory is that if you give money to investors, they will look for places to invest it.  Investment will become expansion, resulting in employment.  So it refers to 'supply-side' in the sense of the 'supply-demand' curves you studied in Econ class.  It's common sense you've got to have demand in order to sell; the assumption is, on the other side you've got to have a place to put money (investment).

What has proven the demise of the theory is geo-economics.  As the world becomes smaller, the wealthy have found a place to put their money...Asian markets with cheap labor.  So tax-cuts and supply-side economics merely increases foreign investments, and decreases domestic employment.

But that doesn't work at all, Trickle down is complete garbage, as the top and can choose to keep it, they don't NEED to spend it.
give money top the lower end of society and they can't keep it and it is immediately put back into the economy because they need to spend the money on living expenses. thus creating jobs for all the things they need to spend their money on.

look at the theory directly
"give money to investors, they will look for places to invest it." which may take time and it will only be to their best interests.
Give money to people, and they will spend it in on the resources society needs to function making the needs of society a good investment.

The idea that investor lead is stupid and easily shown to be wrong by EVERY commercial art. Music, Movies, Games, all of it Investors invest in something that someone else has shown to be profitable/popular. they didn't create or lead the way at all and often limit and destroy whatever made the thing they invest in popular in the first place.

it is Lie and an example the danger of having parrots at universities that do not think about the information they consume. I will straight up say Trickle down economics has no mathematical basis that cannot easily be shown to be missing key variables and factors needed to simulate a real economy, It is completely a 'theorem of Political ideal' with no basis in Actual functional economics.

I think they have already been caught, Jane. They were Richard Cheney, who was vice-president under GWB, and Donald Rumsfeld, who was Secretary of Defense under GWB.

We damn well tried to get them prosecuted under the War Crimes laws. But Obama had this mantra about looking forward, not looking back. Too bad all crooks couldn't get off that way.

veya_victaous wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

I think the theory is that if you give money to investors, they will look for places to invest it.  Investment will become expansion, resulting in employment.  So it refers to 'supply-side' in the sense of the 'supply-demand' curves you studied in Econ class.  It's common sense you've got to have demand in order to sell; the assumption is, on the other side you've got to have a place to put money (investment).

What has proven the demise of the theory is geo-economics.  As the world becomes smaller, the wealthy have found a place to put their money...Asian markets with cheap labor.  So tax-cuts and supply-side economics merely increases foreign investments, and decreases domestic employment.

But that doesn't work at all, Trickle down is complete garbage, as the top and can choose to keep it, they don't NEED to spend it.
give money top the lower end of society and they can't keep it and it is immediately put back into the economy because they need to spend the money on living expenses. thus creating jobs for all the things they need to spend their money on.

look at the theory directly
"give money to investors, they will look for places to invest it." which may take time and it will only be to their best interests.
Give money to people, and they will spend it in on the resources society needs to function making the needs of society a good investment.

The idea that investor lead is stupid and easily shown to be wrong by EVERY commercial art. Music, Movies, Games, all of it Investors invest in something that someone else has shown to be profitable/popular. they didn't create or lead the way at all and often limit and destroy whatever made the thing they invest in popular in the first place.

it is Lie and an example the danger of having parrots at universities that do not think about the information they consume. I will straight up say Trickle down economics has no mathematical basis that cannot easily be shown to be missing key variables and factors needed to simulate a real economy, It is completely a 'theorem of Political ideal' with no basis in Actual functional economics.

I know veya...that's what we have been saying. Even understanding how Republicans explained it, it doesn't work.

I will add their is a difference between an Investor and an Entrepreneur.

part of the issue is too much dumb money, that stifle Entrepreneurs by trying to 'invest' them out of their own creation.

veya_victaous wrote:I will add their is a difference between an Investor and an Entrepreneur.

part of the issue is too much dumb money, that stifle Entrepreneurs by trying to 'invest' them out of their own creation.

A big part of the problem!

Most of the wealthy people today are inherited money. There is a big difference...talented entrepreneurs don't bequeath their talent, they leave trust accounts. The people with money today don't combine their money with talent...with maybe the single exception being the computer and software industry.

Mitt Romney is typical. He inherited money from his father, and he has no sense of how to make it productive...oh, it can produce profits, but not talent.

Much of what I read on here can be sid about the UK. We have falling unemployment but productivity remains static and hasn't kept pace with the employment levels. The Bank of England are puzzled by this but I can't think why. We have large underemployment with people in part time work and zero hours contracts. One job lost when the banking collapse happened are now being filled with 2 or 3 people filling the same sort of job meaning the employer is paying out roughly the same wages per hour to people who don't have the same employment rights as a full time employee. We're employing more people but not more produce and we're not putting any more money in their pockets to create the demand we need to boost the economy.

The Bank of England puzzle...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-27857472

captainJane wrote:
Going off topic, slightly. Are there still records of who worked for Reagan, during the years as president? Are there any still remaining in the government today that worked under him? Would there be any of his old staff working abroad? For instance, a lot of Tony Blairs old cronies will probably be working the middle east with him. Any of Reagan's lot go on to work with private corporations i.e. Monsanto?

I wouldn't waste my  time or energy...

Ronnie Raygun wasn't the "leader of the free world" as in the usually_understood sense (like the Roosevelts, JFK or Obama - where they actually brought at least some brains and background to the 'office'..) ~ but rather, like with other modern-day Republicans like GWB or [to a lesser degree] Big Arnie's term as the 'Governator' of California, he was nothing more than another doltish conservative mouthpiece for a group of US_Tories and Tea-bagger predecessors with idiot policies totally aimed towards increasing and cementing the corporate theft of American public assets...

"Reaganomics" ~ or Supply Side economics for US academics, and known around the rest of the world as "Economic Rationalism", is yet another symptom of the collective insanity and intellectual vacuum that infested the Conservative mindset of the Reagan and Thatcher regimes of the early 1980s ~ failed ideas that still went on to influence to some degree such future governments around the globe as diversified as the Howard, Rudd and Abbott mobs in Oz; Harper in Canada; Putin in Russia; and the last couple of Communist 5-year plans in China..

P.S. HOW did Monsanto manage to get into your post there, CaptainJane !?!