/biz/ - Business & Finance

[Anonymous No.893651]

Alright /biz/, it's time for one of the age-old economic questions. What do you think of Reagonomics, aka the trickle-down system? Let's try our best to cast aside all political agendas and focus on numbers. Did it work out for the better of the people?

I ask this question because it's hard for me to decide if I approve of it or not. My dad is a total Regan supporter, and he claims that Regan's plan kicked ass in the 80s. In retrospect, the economy was really moving in that decade, people bought more shit. Or at least that is how the media portrays it.

Then you have the left-wing media who states that it only made the poor more poor and the rich more rich. I am having trouble deciding for myself because I wasnt alive during that time, and whenever I research the topic I am left in a haze of political ideologies.

So, /biz/ what's your opinion? And if you were alive in the 80s, your experience would be especially helpful.

[Anonymous No.893681]

What do you think?
>I have a two step plan to make life better for Americans!
>Let's make it so that that average people with relatively little money pay a disproportionate share of the taxes!
>If we transfer enough wealth to the richest, surely it will make normal people richer!

>Now let's remove everything keeping wages for regular people high!
>no more unions
>no more tariffs
>no more minimum wage increases

Wealth redistribution is very real, but it's not what Fox News is blathering about.

[Anonymous No.893687]

>>893651
It's why there's a wage gap
It's why companies haven't all moved over seas

[Anonymous No.893691]

>>893681
>>no more unions
>>no more tariffs
>>no more minimum wage increases
The poor brought this upon themselves by choosing to shop at walmart

[Anonymous No.893696]

>>893651
Reaganomics != trickle down

That's just what liberals say to justify tax hikes. Go look up who got the biggest tax breaks under Reagan. Don't believe the hype

[Anonymous No.893700]

>>893681
>What do you think?

well thats the problem, there are too many opinions and not enough stats.

I think most of us can agree that the 70s were a pathetic decade to live through (kind of like today). And when viewing charts, the 80s are almost diametrically opposed to the 70s. Oil cost went through a steep decline, poverty rates were lowered during Regan's second term. So on so forth.

After viewing the charts, in all honest I approve of a lot of things Regan did, but there is still that voice in my head that tells me not to fully trust what my parents/fox news tells me.

Also for the record I consider myself in the middle politically. I think Bill Clinton was a great president for example (hillary a shit), but enough of the digression, back to economics.

[Anonymous No.893707]

>>893691
>>893691
It's not just the poor. Everyone's standard of living, except for the richest, has objectively either gone down or barely managed to stay the same since the 80's as a result of these policies. Why do you think the economy has been so shit over the last decade? It's going to be a long, slow descent into utter shit for the foreseeable future.

[Anonymous No.893723]

Reaganomics was a logical reaction to globalization. It had really already started in the 70s, when companies began moving all of their manufacturing capacity out of union-controlled states and those states in turn had to offer tax incentives to get them to stay. Tariffs are just mortgages against your country's future GDP, and min wage hikes are not the best way to raise living standards for the working class, all things that Reagan appreciated.

[Anonymous No.893809]

>>893700
You can't really judge the 80s on Reagan's economics. The economic conditions of the 80s are largely the result of the policies of the 70s. In general, presidents don't really influence the economies that they preside over except for maybe the second half of the second term. The thing presidents have a more direct influence on is foreign policy, which can shift very quickly and have reverberating effects on the economy.

But that's not the whole of it. It's too simplistic to say that Reagan alone was the reason for the heady 90s. You could have put FDR in charge of the 90s and it still would have been a great decade because of the technology boom and the fall of communism (which Reagan takes a lot of credit for, some rightfully so, but mostly not because the USSR would have fallen apart soon even without him).

In general I don't think it's a good idea to judge a president on how much he "helps the people" or whatever. The great society and the war on poverty were well intentioned but led directly to the race riots, drug epidemic, and crime wave of the 70s. The family structure of poor and especially black america was shattered and the culture of men in prison and teenage single mothers left in its place condemns generation after generation to grinding poverty. Ideally presidents should enhance the Rule of Law and promote economic activity in general.

[Anonymous No.893823]

>>893809
this is how I am starting to see it as well. As of now the way I see it is that the 80s and 90s were great times for the economy, but fell down a fast slippery slope at the beginning of the 00's as a result. Thanks for the commentary, I would like to hear more sides on this.

[Anonymous No.893856]

>>893651
>I am having trouble deciding for myself because I wasnt alive during that time, and whenever I research the topic I am left in a haze of political ideologies.

yeah you're young and stupid. just watch milton friedman videos.

[Anonymous No.893884]

Crapitalism

[Anonymous No.893931]

>>893856
Reminder that economics is a pseudoscience: the field of study has no predictive power and no consensus among its members.

>just watch some propaganda, goy
>it will make those silly little worries disappear

[Anonymous No.893962]

>>893651
>Volcker creates a recession to end stagflation

good idea

>Massive tax cuts for everyone, debt explodes

not a good idea

>raise taxes back up, but still lower than they were before the original cuts

good idea

>Fuel growth with massive federal spending, especially on military tech

good idea

>dismantle a healthy chunk of the welfare state, leaving little recourse to millions losing their jobs due to civilian industrial decline

bad idea

[Anonymous No.894076]

Trickled down economics is actually great. The problem with it is that if you decrease income you have to decrease spending and when they cut taxes they didn't cut expenses. The entire federal government needs to be shrunk, then we can cut taxes and America could prosper again.

[Anonymous No.894127]

>>893707

Function of global trade imbalances. Make China, Germany, and Japan consume more and not only will income inequality go away but standard of living will increase.

Because the world economy is a closed system, any changes in the savings rate of any economy that the US trades with must necessarily have an impact on the consumption rate of the US, or the debt levels of the US, or a mixture of the two.

Furthermore, because Savings = Investment and this is true by definition, any excess savings pushed out by any economy that the US trades with means that one of the following must occur:

Productive investment rises (best case scenario.)
Unproductive investment rises (what we have now.)

[Anonymous No.894223]

>>893651
>So, /biz/ what's your opinion? And if you were alive in the 80s, your experience would be especially helpful.

When interest rates were 20% on your mortgage, 10% on the national debt, you could make an argument for cutting spending and taxes... even if you never got around to cutting the spending part. (Credit for getting inflation under control should actually go to Volcker, not Reagan. Volcker jacked up the rates to stop inflation, Carter's presidency blew up, and Reagan came in at the right time to get most of the political gains.)

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/commandingheights/hi/story/

I get a kick out of this documentary because it explains how Reagan and Thatcher sorta rebooted the economy back then. And I really like it because the people who, 30 years later, claim Reagan as their heritage, diss Soros, who was actually on the same side.

The tl;dr is that trickle down was actually pretty good in the 1980s, but that doesn't mean it's still a great idea in the 2010s. Economics can be tricky that way, but even when they know this, a lot of generals still want to refight the last war.

[Anonymous No.894230]

>>894223
>When interest rates were 20% on your mortgage, 10% on the national debt, you could make an argument for cutting spending and taxes... even if you never got around to cutting the spending part.

(Samefag here.) I should probably amplify on that. The point was that if you're paying 10% when you issue 10-year treasurys, the debt - and by consequence the deficit - matters.

In a period of high economic growth, you cut spending because you don't need as much spending to stimulate the economy, and you cut taxes because why not fuel the fire of more growth? It doesn't actually do anything about the deficit in the short term -- and if you skip the cutting spending part, sometimes the deficit doesn't matter after all. We got really lucky on that part.

In the 2010s, with rates at zero, and long-term borrowing costs ridiculously cheap, there's actually a good argument to be made to spend a trillion or so on infrastructure. No different than printing a trillion and funnelling it to the stock market - it just passes through different hands (highway construction firms etc) on its way to the market. Borrowing costs are cheap as fuck right now, because deflation, not inflation, has been the problem for 5 years. That's something that's markedly different from the one faced down by the deficit-hawks of the 1980s.

[Anonymous No.894273]

>>894230
/layman/ opinion incoming:

Whatever the US did with its position as only standing industrial manufacturer after WWII was a mistake. Manufacturing largely replaced with unskilled, unproductive service jobs; dat 1%; families shot to shit, divorce and single parenthood through the roof; planned obsolescence errywhere; economy -entirely- dependent on everyone buying endless piles of shit nobody really needs nor wants.

This is just an outsider's perspective though since I live in Australia.

Should also add that the level of degeneracy is astounding. Looking at pictures of cities from the distant past everyone is dressed in suits or at least consistent outfits. Now people wear sneakers (running shoes really) with a wrestling merch t-shirt and camo cargo shots around and that's standard fare. Absolutely disgusting.

[Anonymous No.894311]

>>894127
But those trade imbalances are purposeful and due to government policy. Say what you want about power purchasing parity, but the US was doing pretty damn well until NAFTA and the rest of the free trade bullshit happened.

While outsourcing can make some things cheaper, like plastic Happy Meal toys, there's a lot of really important things that it can't make cheaper, like gas, electricity, food, housing, insurance, education, and healthcare services. That is why it's sucking more and more to be a regular person in the US: as wages fall from international competition, prices for most things that people pay for stay the same. This means that, except for a limited number of good that can be imported from overseas, the effective cost of everything is rising and the ability for the public to generate demand is falling as their income falls and costs rise, and they just end up focusing more on staying alive rather than consuming.

[Anonymous No.894345]

>>894311
>But those trade imbalances are purposeful and due to government policy.

His point is that purposeful government policy in China and Europe to sustain trade imbalances also affects American consumption by definition.

Here's a very good essay that breaks down the process:
http://blog.mpettis.com/2014/03/economic-consequences-of-income-inequality/

I would say everything really changed after the Bretton Woods system collapsed, way before NAFTA. The rest of the industrialized world just got too competitive. America's structural shift from a trade surplus to trade deficit nation meant an international currency scheme based on gold convertibility for the USD (and more importantly, rising wages/pensions/benefits) no longer became sustainable. You've probably seen those charts showing how the correlation between productivity and real wage growth broke in the 1970s. Thus, the household consumption that underpinned economic growth from the 1980s until the financial crisis in 2008 was fueled primarily by rising debt rather than wages.

On the geopolitical side, American foreign policy ever since WWII ended has revolved around securing/incentivizing countries with closer economic ties, including free trade agreements and access to the American-led international trade order (like China's entry into the WTO), and punishing countries with the opposite (such as sanctions on Russia, Iran, Cuba, the latter two of which are being lifted as a reward for more cooperation with the United States). The American navy also provides protection and stability for trade flows around the world. Even though this current system has led to greater economic inequality for ordinary Americans, it's hard to get rid of it or replace it given the massive global instability that would ensue if the United States were to withdraw--probably another 1970s-style decade of economic turmoil. Unfortunately this kind of adjustment might become inevitable in the near future.

[Anonymous No.894415]

>>894273
>This is just an outsider's perspective though since I live in Australia.
We can't exactly say we're doing much better m8.

[Anonymous No.894460]

Reagonomics was based on the idea that allowing a higher percentage of wealth go towards the rich would end up putting societies economic resources to more effectively usage and result in overall socially beneficial growth and a rising tide that would lift all.

That sounds great if you ignore that the wealthy are concerned about maximizing their profit at any cost and live in their own bubbles and don't give a shit about anything but their bottom line. If shipping a factory to a foreign country will return higher profits they will do it, even if it ends up putting everyone in their communities out of work. The only logical thing for them to do is take their increased incomes and invest overseas and spend their extra cash importing foreign luxury products.

The rich spend less of their incomes and invest more turning the economy into a financial racket and disconnecting the economy from actual concrete demands of ordinary people. Growth by demand side spending will end up giving you better more substitutable real growth. Businesses having higher profit margins isn't in and of itself going to result in anything positive if unemployment is skyrocketing and your economy is becoming more financialized.

[Anonymous No.894479]

>>894415
This is true, but, like Canada, we've kept our population low enough that our mineral resources finance our shitty economy.

[Anonymous No.894812]

>>893651
If all you want is trickle down economics, here it is in greentext:

>spending a certain amount is good for the economy
http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2012/08/01/157664524/how-the-poor-the-middle-class-and-the-rich-spend-their-money
>rich people tend to save a higher percentage than everyone else
>middle class and lower class spend more and save less proportionally because they have to pay off mortgages and rent and other such fees

>Hey, we need to increase investment right now
>Let's take taxes off the rich, surely that will increase spending

[Anonymous No.894820]

>>893651
If all you want is trickle down economics, here it is in greentext:

>spending a certain amount is good for the economy
http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2012/08/01/157664524/how-the-poor-the-middle-class-and-the-rich-spend-their-money
>rich people tend to save a higher percentage than everyone else
>middle class and lower class spend more and save less proportionally

>Hey, we need to increase investment right now
>Let's take taxes off the rich, surely that will increase spending

[Anonymous No.894891]

>>894460
But job creators.

[Anonymous No.894929]

>>893707
>Everyone's standard of living, except for the richest, has objectively either gone down or barely managed to stay the same since the 80's
Too bad you're objectively wrong. Here's some objective data from five seconds of Google searching to prove it. Standard of living has been on a perpetual upward climb since the great depression. The only reason we still have 'poor' people in the western world is because we keep redefining what 'poor' is.

Also, don't use words like 'objectively' or 'literally' or whatever when what you actually mean is "In my uneducated opinion."

[Anonymous No.894935]

After World War I, Democrats and Republicans and even John Maynard Keynes, agreed that tax rates were too high. Because of the high rates of taxation, rich people tended to put their money into tax shelters, rather than investing in business ventures that employ people. This was not a politically divisive issue at the time.

No politician nor economist ever advocated anything called the "trickle-down theory." FDR coined the phrase "trickle-down" as an epithet for his opponents.

The tax debate eventually became a political issue, with Democrats (but not JFK) advocating higher tax rates and Republicans advocating lower tax rates. At that point, Democrats started accusing Republicans of wanting to decrease tax rates because they only care about the rich. This is pure demagoguery; both parties previously admitted that when tax rates are too high, it diminishes revenues to the treasury and hurts the common working man who needs a job.

[Anonymous No.894957]

>>893681
Many poor people don't even pay taxes. Redistribution gives to the poor so they vote accordingly and takes from productive rich and middle class.
>>893707
Poor in america doesn't mean poor anywhere else. Poor is simply the bottom 15% of a nation which always gets moved up as standards advance.

>>894935
>both parties previously admitted that when tax rates are too high, it diminishes revenues to the treasury and hurts the common working man who needs a job.

It should be pointed out that reagan was a huge democrat until he saw how horrible high taxes were and that they directly affected his own productivity. This one issue is probably what led reagan to become a republican and push for lower taxes leading to the greatest bull market in history.

[Anonymous No.894964]

>>894957
Except I was never talking about the poor. I'm talking about the bottom 80%, not the bottom 15%.

[Anonymous No.894976]

The way I see it: If trickle-down economics works, why isnt it working right now? The 10% from the 80s shrunk to the 1%, and today they are now the .1%. And Americans everywhere are struggling economically.

I am still kind of confused by Reganomics. I feel like it can work, but only if you have the right team of people to make it happen. Otherwise you have what we have today. Of course trickle-down economics alone isnt what made the 80s such a prosperous time. It seems to be a combination of things which were mentioned in this thread.

[Anonymous No.894977]

>>894957
I just checked, and at $12000/year you still owe some (very very little) income tax, and you're at the 12th percentile of single and married filers. Don't forget that everyone pays state sales tax, too.

[Anonymous No.894979]

>>894977
*13th percentile

[Anonymous No.894991]

Reaganomics, monetarism, whatever you call it, the neoliberal wave that hit the Anglosphere in the late 70s was a good thing.

The only problem with it was it didn't go far enough. The Anglosphere is still bombarded by regulations and ever-increasing taxation.

Unions are proven to be corrupt, cost-raising and unnecessary for worker protections. They no longer serve a useful purpose, especially public-sector union members who are more or less holding the taxpayer hostage.

State-owned enterprises place politics in the board-room and that's never a good thing. They are inefficient in a number of ways and should rarely exist.

[Anonymous No.894992]

>>894977
scrub tier. check image on how the system works for shaniqua and adabaya.

[Anonymous No.894995]

>>894976
>why isnt it working right now
it is working though. Americans are not struggling everywhere, that's a blatant lie. Look at the technological revolution going on around you.

You are looking at the wrong metric. The proportions of wealth are of course going to increase when you have an increasing population and even faster wealth being generated.

The end goal of capitalism and socialism is the same: superabundance. Rich people have simply already attained that level and every day there are more rich people than the day before, if the country is folllowing free market principles

[Anonymous No.894999]

>>894992
>mfw this is actually true
>mfw my friend does this same thing with his GF minus the section 8 housing

its so easy to scam the system with your SO if you just simply dont get married or let the gov know you live together. they both get food stamps and blow it on shit

[Anonymous No.895097]

>>893651
I supported Reagan back in the day, thankfully I broke away from monetarism and got a chance to see other forms of economics at work. The concept of tickle down has serious kinks. We saw very real monopolies in the 80s and 90s that did a damn good job of retaining their wealth and earnings while pushing real wages down. In the irony of ironies, its the big bad government that does the busting and helped free the capital log jams.

Watching that shit happen again and again made me realize that libertarian wet dreams of unregulated capitalism might not be a great idea unless there is a culture shift that happens with it.

All that said, I don't think Reaganomics is horrible - its at least trying to foster creativity and success using open markets. I just don't think it achieves its claimed trickle down optimally. It should be noted, however, that Reagan's trillion dollar deficit was actually a great thing and primed the economic pump for a decade. Its not consider part of the Reaganomic philosophy but that spending actually created tons of new jobs and expanding manufacturing at a time when America was losing production capacity.

I'd hope that /biz/ might be a little pragmatic about its analysis, I think to often other boards get into the politics side of stuff without trying to evaluate all the aspects of the era.

[Anonymous No.895717]

>>894992
Aren't there tax benefits for being married, though? Not saying that the other plan doesn't look good, though.

[Anonymous No.895745]

>>894992
You know the majority of the women I know are unmarried and have kids.

[Anonymous No.895751]

>>894127
savings do not equal investment, what are you smoking?

[Anonymous No.896071]

>>894991
>The only problem with it was it didn't go far enough

I agree. The economic ride pretty much ended during the Bush jr years. We are slowly heading back to the 70s.

[Anonymous No.896081]

>>895717
Since you and your partner have to file a single tax return, you actually end up paying more when you're married. Dependent care tax credits were made partially to alleviate this, but as you can see it's backfired horrendously for a huge subset of the American population.

[Anonymous No.896164]

>>893691

> Put a chain around someones neck
> They don't take that chain off

> Well it's their fault then!

Yes, it's the blacks fault for allowing themselves to be enslaved in the first place. We should have kept slavery going based upon this principle.

[Anonymous No.897589]

>>896164
Blacks. Their own damn fault.

[Anonymous No.898311]

>>894223
Nice link, I appreciate it. I have been doing tons of research on the 80s and Reagan recently. Im trying to develop a better understanding of why and how the 80s-90s had such a strong economy. This thread has helped with that so far.

[Anonymous No.898412]

>>893651
>it only made the poor more poor and the rich more rich

the poor didnt grow more poor. they grew more rich. just slower than the rich grew more rich themselves.

actual poverty has been decreasing for decades. leftists just like to pretend that poverty is on the rise to stir up shit and draw gullible morons to their cause.

always fact-check them - in 99% of cases, they just employ very creative definitions of poverty to make scandalous-sounding claims.

[Anonymous No.898447]

To everyone that actually liked this damn thing, respond to this
>>894820

[Anonymous No.898553]

>>894820
>>898447
This is an idiotic view of economics because it equates "money spent" with "productive economic activity". According to the logic of redistribution it doesn't matter whether $100 is spent polishing rocks on a beach or building a new office building. Poor people spend a higher percentage of their income, yes, but if you just take $100 from Mr. Moneybags and give it to Joe Blow that doesn't boost the economy. Joe is going to spend that extra money on items like food, housing, his car, etc. Mr. Moneybags probably would have invested the vast majority of that money in the stock of a company that produces useful goods and services. The effect of that $100 produces far more good down the line than repairs for Joe Blow's truck or a date night with his wife.

[Anonymous No.898664]

trickle down economics is such a load of horse shit. the economic multiplier for rich, wealthy people is <1 meaning they spend less than they get in income, hence why they're rich. HOWEVER the multiplier for poor niggers and mexicans is >1, meaning they spend MORE than they get in income getting into debt, and buying useless shit.

this is why welfare, despite what your jew and republicuck thinktanks would have you think, ISN'T a waste of money. we get significantly more economic activity from a poor fuck having an extra dollar in his pocket than we do giving tax breaks to rich bitches, who will only spend that money if they see poor people wanting to buy their shit in the first place which they won't if they're buried in debt, wages won't go up, and can't find a job LIKE TODAY

[Anonymous No.898667]

>>898553
hey, dumbass an economy literally runs on people buying useless shit they don't need. you think mr moneybags is buying useless shit he doesn't need? mr moneybags isn't going to invest that money if he doesn't see joe blow wanting to buy useless shit he doesn't need. you have your logic backwards if you think supply dictates demand

[Anonymous No.898671]

>>894935
>even John Maynard Keynes, agreed that tax rates were too high

topkek you have to be joking taxes don't mean jack shit. Keynes said we ultimately just need spending to get an economy working, it seriously doesn't matter on what. if rich people see that spending happening those record high sitting piles of trillions are going to start moving. that's why the fed won't raise rates yet with unemployment still high and why it needs a higher inflation target

[Anonymous No.898679]

>>898671
>taxes don't mean anything

literally what is the laffer curve

[Anonymous No.898866]

>>894820
>>898553
>(smart) rich people get more money
>invest said money into corporations
>(smart) corporations use that money to make better longer lasting products
>people purchase said products because people want quality products over shit ones
>company earns revenue, ships dividends to rich people
>process repeats

>what is the 80s movie boom
>what is mtv, nickelodeon and cn
>what is nintendo and other arcade companies
>what is sony, microsoft and apple
>what is the 80s car revolution, making cars that are long lasting and work correctly unlike the shit 70s cars

As long as corporations use that money for the better of society then the process makes sense to me.

[Anonymous No.898956]

>>898671
>Keynes said we ultimately just need spending to get an economy working, it seriously doesn't matter on what.
If spending is truly what makes an economy go and not the trade of useful products and services why not just have the government hire everyone to polish rocks on a beach for a million dollars an hour?

Keynes's logic is fundamentally flawed. Wealth is not the number of dollary-doos you have, it's the amount of useful goods and services you can acquire or control with those dollary-doos. If 99% of the currency in the world magically disappeared in an even fashion the world economy would be unaffected. We'd just move all the decimal places over and nothing would change. Rich people would still be just as rich. Poor people would still be just as poor.

The only thing a re-distributive tax code does is steal wealth from people who earned it and give it to more politically favored groups because the government believes it is smarter and more efficient at allocating capital than private enterprise.

[Anonymous No.899104]

>>898956
so many fallacies in that post i'm not going to bother pointing them all out. tell me, how useful are the yearly revisions of iphones? how useful is soda, cheetos, starbucks, or even that ashley madison site that managed to make millions from retards paying to email with bots? people spend money on the stupidest, most useless shit but the important thing is they're spending money and getting into debt. we need this because otherwise, creditors won't have any reason to invest money in anything if they see nobody spending and getting debt which is exactly what's happening now since the recession

>muh tax theft
government has a constitutional right to tax the shit out of you, faggot and the % is completely arbitrary. never mind that it's historically low now than it has ever been in the past. once it's out of your paycheck it's not yours deal with it going to all the shit you take for granted like say, MODERN CIVILIZATION

[Anonymous No.899119]

>>899104
>so many fallacies i'm not going to bother pointing them all out
You won me over. I can't argue with logic that hot. Truly, this must be what it feels like to be schooled.

[Anonymous No.899228]

>>899104
>government has a right to tax because the government said so

you must be a macroeconomist

[Anonymous No.899374]

wouldn't the loss of American manufacturing be a big player in why everything feels so shit now? trickle down aside, even in the 90's there was some stuff still being made in the US, although it quickly all went overseas.

we lost the industry, which is where the majority of unskilled labor makes it's money. a service economy can't sustain an economic boom when everyone makes shit for pay

[Anonymous No.899421]

Can anyone answer why luxury goods shouldn't be tariffed to niggers and back? I mean things which are useful create wealth across the board, but why not keep the things which aren't inside national borders?

[Anonymous No.899432]

>>898553
> Giving more money to the wealthy leads to more productive spending.

Just, no.

First, multiple posters have explained to you the concept of the velocity of money. Spending is what makes the economy grow, not hoarding piles of cash in various accounts.

Secondly, the wealthy make just as many frivolous purchases at the poor. $2 million homes, expensive cars, exotic vacations, $500 dinners at nice restaurants, expensive wine, etc.

[Anonymous No.899450]

>>899228
>>government has a right to tax because the government said so

no the constitution says so, you corporate cocksucker. i suggest you take highschool economics again and review the social contract vocabulary term. until then, you can move to zimbabwe for 0% on your trustfund babby stash your daddy leaves you, faggot

[Anonymous No.899617]

>>893691
>The poor brought this upon themselves by choosing to shop at walmart
Trying to stretch a dollar caused bad policy? This board is dunber than/pol/.

[Anonymous No.899643]

>>894995
>The end goal of capitalism and socialism is the same: superabundance. Rich people have simply already attained that level and every day there are more rich people than the day before, if the country is folllowing free market principles

[Anonymous No.899645]

>>896071
>>894991
>Reaganomics, monetarism, whatever you call it, the neoliberal wave that hit the Anglosphere in the late 70s was a good thing.

It was definitely the appropriate response to what occurred, yes; however, many economist are in agreement that the neo-liberalization is what caused the 2008 crash, not the other way around.

[Anonymous No.899680]

>>893651
>>893651
>>893651
I'll clue you in on something.
Reagan's tax cuts were nothing more than Keynesian tax cuts dressed in neo-con cloth. They proved to be completely divorced from the principles Laffer theorized and the effect they did have on the economy was exactly the kind of effect that Keynes predicted.
They also had the exact effect the Austrians predicted, they raised the deficit.

[Anonymous No.899856]

>>899374
Also to add to that, moving factories overseas not only neuters the quality of products but also looses hundreds if not thousands of american jobs. So those americans who used to make your jeans are now unemployed, and cant contribute anything to the economy. it all dwindles down from here.

Most republicans want to move to the totally efficient side of the economics, meaning they ship factories overseas and fire entire american teams to save a few dollars. I could be wrong, but from what ive studied I think Reagan walked a fine line between efficiency and equity. The economy was great and americans didnt suffer because jobs were available.

It was bush sr. who went total efficiency and started the path of unemployment that we are dealing with today. Listen to bush sr's disgusting foreign jobs plan, right at the beginning of this video (i think 4 minutes in).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jg9qB_BIjWY

>>899680
interesting

[Anonymous No.899885]

>>899374
Corporate tax.

[Anonymous No.899889]

>>899885
>Corporate tax.
>implying that shit even matters when they can get Chinese sweatshops for pennies on the dollar

[Anonymous No.899915]

>>899680
>They also had the exact effect the Austrians predicted,
>they raised the deficit.

>raised the deficit
>not the most inexact predicition possible

[Anonymous No.899967]

Reagan started the deregulation process that started to kill the american dream. He directly gave power and the control of the economy to the rich.