Most of the changes internal to that period were driven by interest rate cycles and rising foreign demand for commodities.
If you want to look at longer-term policies and trends I think the real comparison is before versus during and after Reagan. Policy pre-Reagan was Keynesian, government-focused - it involved deficit spending but it also involved higher tax rates on individuals, business and investments, it involved price controls, it involved high tariffs and a higher degree of government regulation of a specific type: to achieve a certain result in the market, rather than simply to establish a framework in which the market would operate.
Policy since has involved lower tax rates for individuals, business and investment, especially inbound investment, slashing of tariffs and deregulation.
The results are quite extraordinary. You might not catch up to the person who is presently in the top 1% of incomes but you stand a much better chance of attaining in the next 10 years what his lifestyle is today. The rich are getting richer but so is almost everyone else, and there are a lot more rich people. There are fewer poor people in proportion to society as a whole - there are more poor people but the growth hasn't kept up with population growth. Moreover this has happened during an explosion of immigration from destitute countries - i.e., the poverty situation minus the effect of immigration from poor countries is very good.
There are some troubling aspects as well - more debt and a flat savings rate (not that our savings aren't increasing, but that the only increase is the return on invested savings rather than new savings). People seem to think the improvements will last forever. Generally we're on better footing but it's better to be careful.
2007-03-20 02:53:09
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Since Reagan lifted the tariffs that once protected the American economy, and Clinton nailed the American coffin shut with NAFTA and GATT the United States has been deterioriating as an industrialized nation. For all intents and purposes we are now a thrid world nation, and China and the EU are the new superpowers. Corporate structure is the new world order, and the old world order of countries with borders, and populations of people served by leadership is a thing of the past, look to New Orleans to see what the Federal government will do for America (Dems & Reps they are all the same). Blogbaba misses the country he grew up in , and wants America back but it's out of our hands. In God the blogbaba trusts, I hope He takes care of it because the blogbaba doesn't see any other hope.
2007-03-20 09:59:58
·
answer #2
·
answered by blogbaba 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
The move away from Independence
toward inter-dependence.
The whole bridge to the 21st century and global village concept are killing us.
Economic globalization is one thing, political globalism is another.
The globalization of capital is good, competition is good.In the drive for cheap consumables we can not allow critical technologies and industries for national security be compromised/sacrificed.
The reason many jobs get out sourced is not because corporations are evil, it has to do with unions, lawsuits, regulations, and outrageous benefits.
We should have cheap consumables and cheap services, yet if American free markets are not checked and balanced by the Constitution and our sovereignty(Independence), all 3 will suffer.
The globalization of capital, has caused many to try and limit such capital. Because economies and markets are integrated, some think political systems should also be.
We have a declaration of Independence and must stick to it.
For the U.S. to give up any Independence, and become inter dependent, on other powers, is sick and it is wrong!
2007-03-20 10:11:04
·
answer #3
·
answered by csn0331 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
Bush aligning himself with the christian fundamentalist right to win the nomination instead of McCain, the Supreme Court awarding the presidency to Bush, following Republican defeat in the 2000 presidential election,
2007-03-20 09:56:59
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
2⤋
In order to answer your question, you must define "the american dream".
I think that it is different depending upon where you are looking from.
What is your viewpoint?
2007-03-20 10:00:16
·
answer #5
·
answered by cappi 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
into a nightmare? See attached link.
2007-03-20 09:53:53
·
answer #6
·
answered by Rick 4
·
0⤊
0⤋