English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

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

Do you agree with this famous economist?

2007-01-01 10:35:45 · 12 answers · asked by republican 2 in Politics & Government Other - Politics & Government

12 answers

Yes Reaganomics worked. His military build up cost less by bankrupting Russia & ending the Cold War. The amount he spent was less than we would have if we didn't consintrate it into a short time.

His build up & the .com bom allowed the "Clinton Miracle economy" to happen. Clinton's intelect or management didn't create it.

2007-01-02 13:17:34 · answer #1 · answered by viablerenewables 7 · 1 0

Define "work". Reaganomics is the idea that money trickles down from those that have it to those that don't. It's true; it does; always, without exception. Money does not flow from those that don't have it to those that do. People that take exception to Reaganomics point out that not everyone benefits. This is also true, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't work. It means that those people aren't connected to the flow of money, or aren't getting as much as they want. It means those people have to work harder. If everyone worked hard, no one would question trickle down theory, but alas, not everyone does. If trickle down theory was wrong, then Obama would not be spending trillions on a stimulus bill to get the money out to big contractors, who hire people and pay them to do work. He would not be spurring expensive initiatives in alternative energy and health care IT if it did not work. Obama is directly sending big money to big corporations so that those corporations can then pay employees. This is trickle down theory at its finest. "Please show me proof of how Reaganomics is a solid economic strategy in the long term." So long as we remain a capitalist economy, you don't have a choice, we've always been operating under the principle of Reaganomics (trickle down theory). The only way to break this system is to start changing the means with which wealth is distributed, and judging Obama's rhetoric, it is possible that this could happen.

2016-05-23 04:10:29 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

He stated what I've believed all along; that 'Reaganomics' was not the stellar success that it is touted as today. It did achieve success in putting the brakes on a downwardly-spiraling economy, but it did not bring us out of the Dark Ages as some would have us believe.

And while deregulation may have helped the economy overall, it has been a disaster to the American public. 85% of everything that you see, hear, or read in the media is controlled by 5 corporations, and they are trying to expand that control. The average American has $8,000 in unsecured debt because restrictions were loosened on who could get credit (poor, young, etc). Legal protections for citizens have diminished while protections for corporations have increased (two sides of the same coin).

Overall, the plan was good, but it put too much faith in corporations to act for the good of the country, rather than for the good of the stockholder.

2007-01-01 11:00:15 · answer #3 · answered by normobrian 6 · 1 1

That would be Milton Friedman then - the central concept being control of the money supply ?

I suppose it was very similar to Thatchenomics - (I like the sound of that! )

The idea that we should (1) reduce the growth of government spending, (2) reduce the marginal tax rates on income from both labor and capital, (3) reduce regulation, and (4) reduce inflation by controlling the growth of the money supply was certainly central to the Conservative policies of the Thatcher government of 1979 -1990.

Unfortunately we are going in the wrong direction now on all four points - but Gordon Brown has managed to disguise the extent of his taxation by changing from taxes on income to taxes on consumption.

So yes I agree.

2007-01-01 11:18:08 · answer #4 · answered by LongJohns 7 · 1 0

Money was pulled out of many social programs and hospitals to give tax breaks to large corporations, this resulted in the homeless problem we have today,, for those of you too young to remember, there was a time when there were NO homeless on the streets,, exactly 0, save for a bum here and there,, always alcohol related, You can thank Reagan for the homeless.

2007-01-01 10:47:57 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2 3

I could borrow all that money and have a short term gain, do you have a proposal to pay it back, or should we leave that for our grandchildren.

2007-01-01 10:47:58 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

It didn't work for me or many of my friends. Many of them
were forced to move back in with their parents.
You could buy gas only on the even or odd numbered days,
depending on the last digit of your license plate.
The lines for gas were a mile long - you had to plan your
day to buy gas & pack a sandwich.
This administration will try to make it look like Reagan knew
what he was doing - well, he did, he kept himself & his
friends rolling in dough, while the middle class was close
to crashing into poverty . Sound familiar?

2007-01-01 10:46:57 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1 4

have you seen the debt that was incurred?

maybe worked at the time... selling tomorrow for today...

what happened to actually balancing the books?

2007-01-01 10:42:00 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2 0

Yes, it did work.
Brought the country out of ruin from Carter.

2007-01-01 10:38:24 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 4 3

Also known as "Voodoo Economics", and NO they did not work.

2007-01-01 11:08:51 · answer #10 · answered by Kwan Kong 5 · 2 3

fedest.com, questions and answers