Did you know that Reaganomics WORKED?

Question

http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Reaganomics.html

Do you agree with this economist?

Answer 1

The trickle down theory only works for those who are doing the trickling. Those who are on the receiving end are on the trickle of diminishing returns. Reagan had a brief uptick in his term but also went down. Bush Sr. and Dubbya follow the same theory, and the three have amassed the largest debt in US history. click on the link and see the numbers. http://www.uuforum.org/deficit.htm

Answer 2

What are you talking about? Niskanen’s article hardly gives Reaganomics a total thumbs up. It is a fairly balanced assessment, especially when you consider that Niskanen was President Reagan’s’ Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers.

But, do you agree with Niskanen’s pre-war assessment that Bush was making a wrong decision in invading Iraq, and that the neocons were the ones responsible for putting the stupid idea into Bush’s little brain? Here is (was) his assessment, in his own words. First in January 2003:

---------------------------------------



January 30, 2003


No Exit Strategy?
by William A. Niskanen

[William A. Niskanen is chairman of the Cato Institute, a former economic adviser to President Reagan, and a long-time defense analyst.]


“President Bush is now between Iraq and a hard place. He can get out of it if he is courageous enough to "risk peace." The problem is convincing him to take that step.

There now seems to be no plausible action by Saddam Hussein or discovery by the U.N. inspectors that would lead to broad support by the American public and other governments for a new war against Iraq. … the U.N. inspectors seem unlikely to find anything more dangerous than a few more empty rocket warheads.

On the other hand, there seems to be no plausible development short of a new war against Iraq that would placate the small band of neo-conservatives that have beat the drums for this war for some years and now have an unusual influence on the Bush administration.”

http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474976863591
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------


And, again in February 2003 (his opinion provided to FOX news):

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,79553,00.html


“The administration has yet to challenge any of the following statements that bear on whether Iraq is a serious threat to U.S. national interests:


• Iraq has not attacked the United States.

• The administration has provided no evidence that Iraq supported the Sept. 11 attacks.

• Iraq does not have the capability for a direct attack on the United States — lacking long-range missiles, bombers, and naval forces.

• Iraq has an indirect capability to attack the United States only by supplying dangerous weapons to a terrorist group that might penetrate the United States. Three conditions, however, bear on the relevance of this indirect capability:


1) Iraq does not have a record of supporting terrorist groups "of a global reach."

2) Iraq is in no way distinctive in its potential for an indirect threat to the United States. A dozen or more national governments that are not friendly to the United States have nuclear, chemical, and/or biological weapons programs at some stage of development.

3) Any terrorist attack that could be clearly attributed to support by Iraq, as were the Sept. 11 attacks to the Taliban government in Afghanistan, would clearly provoke a U.S. military response and a regime change in Iraq.

Answer 3

I was surprised that the economist said that there was less improvement than I remember.
There are factors not mentioned like the beginning of the information and technology revolution which computers brought.

Most answerers don't remember the bleak times under Carter. I did not,back then, support
Reagan, but now I see the good he did and GHWB, too.

Answer 4

Why do you keep asking retorical question. I agree he has some fine points, but Nixon was better than Reagan in Economics. Clinton is far worse than most people knew, because his policy stole from the future and people didn't see how bad his deregulation was until early Bush. Bush was a big idiot and continued to add to Clintons worse economic policies. Proof Clinton was bad. The Internet Crash right at the end of Clintons term not after. He should of burst the internet bubble earlier, but he wanted the economy to grow under his term and not care for the future.

Answer 5

No they worked the same as Bushenomics. Run large dept, rich get richer poor get poorer. Rich pay less tax. We pretend they will take it out of the mattress and trickle it on down to a poor neighbourhood near you.

Answer 6

If his goal was to create a recession, then yes, it worked well. Bravo to the "lucrative trade" answer above me.

Money doesn't trickle down. It trickles up, regardless of whether politicians help it to or not.

Answer 7

you mean the wealth from the 80s has finally begun to "trickle down"? or was the gap between rich and poor supposed to get wider?

Answer 8

Do you mean the drug smuggling or the weapons trade, both are very lucrative

Answer 9

The problem with your statement is it cannot be proven or refuted.

Answer 10

Oh, please!