Quote:
Originally posted by Tobiasly
Even a die-hard Reaganomics proponent like me agrees that "to each according to his need, from each according to his ability" (sorry if I butchered that) sounds like a pretty cool idea.
|
Reaganomics, if examined through the looking glass of Economics, was a mixed bag. It impoverished many people and caused wide-spread poverty, but then again this is not of any concern to most other people as long as they are doing alright.
Here are some downsides to Reagan's economic policies (in response to the 'capitalism is great' tone of the thread):
- Federal debt (privately held) increased from 22.3% to 33.1% during his years in office.
- The Federal deficit in Reagan's last budget remained unchanged at 2.9% of GDP.
- Although supposedly using neo-liberal market capitalist economic strategies (and going exactly against his rhetoric of free trade), Reagan in fact employed the most protectionist methods of any President since Hoover. Trade restraints and protective tariffs increased from 12% of all imports to 23% of all imports between 1980-'88.
- Reagan presided over the worst US recession since WW2, 1981-82; the Savings and Loans crisis of 1982 caused the collapse of more US banks than ever before.
- Despite the claim that Reaganomics used tax cuts and modest spending as a means of stimulating the economy, the opposite is actually true: taxes rose by total of $375billion, government spending rose by $450billion.
Especially the last detail is often overlooked when 'tax-and-spend' liberals are attacked politically; tax-and-spend is the method used by the most celebrated right-wing economic approach of the last century.
X.