Most anti-Reaganite's quote the market contractions that followed the periods of strong growth as evidence of failed policy. But haven't all exapnsion periods ended in contractions?
If you think it was a failure, please explain why.
2007-02-27 05:10:47 · 3 answers · asked by Time to Shrug, Atlas 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
It was never a serious economic theory, it was just political sound bite. There is definitely a lot of free market ideology out there, but any economist in their right mind will tell you it isn't that simple. There are times where the market solution fails and you need government intervention in the economy, and a third grader can tell you that people who have money don't let it trickle away if they can help it. But overall, I think many of the ideas of "supply side" economics are alive and well, if by that you mean market solutions to problems instead of government solutions.
2007-02-27 07:35:19 · answer #1 · answered by JudgmentProof 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Well, there have been record profits in recent years, yet wages are the smallest part of gross domestic product than at any time since World War II, per the Fed.
Reagan's model assumes corporations share with their employees. However, as corporations grow more global there is less loyalty to the workforce, it seems. NOW this model clearly doesn't work. That is when protectionism, which I used to be against, steps in.
2007-02-27 05:17:29 · answer #2 · answered by DAR 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Supply side economics didn't fail. It was 20 years of two George Bushes and Bill Clinton incrementally altering it that led to run away spending in the government, and ensuing recessions.
2007-02-27 05:21:11 · answer #3 · answered by Crusader1189 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋