Reaganomics Was a Good Thing

The thread title statement is more of a question.

I'm far from being an economist and I've always thought that Reaganomics was bad, but I recently learned that under Reagan, the American economy prospered and grew, including the decline of unemployment and inflation rates and the incline of entrepreneurship. Apparently, this success even continued throughout the Bush Sr. and Clinton days.

Some things of course worsened under Reagan economic-wise, but it seemed like nothing catastrophic happened (the crack epidemic was mostly a socio-political issue imo). It does seem, however, that the economy under the Reagan days could've been even better if a couple of social and educational programs were implemented. But that might be neither here nor there.

So does this all of this generally justify Reaganomics (and perhaps laissez-faire by association?) as a legitimate and productive economic system? This might've been touched on a little bit in that Thomas Sowell appreciation thread, so I'm curious at the least to know what @jono and @High Revolutionary think of all of this.

Replies

  • Lil LocaLil Loca Posts: 8,910
    Reaganomics didn't work. The only people it helped were rich businessmen who benefited the most from tax cuts. Most of the income was put in the hands of the wealthy elite. Outsourcing removed many manufacturing jobs from the hood and other working class areas. During the years of trickle down economics, poverty was at a record high. Wages also remained stagnant. Over three decades of evidence shows that it didn't work. Supply side policies also resulted in a growing national debt and there was slower overall growth. Jobs under presidents who did not apply trickle down economics had faster economic growth and created more jobs overall.

    Also, the crack epidemic isn't divorced from the impoverishment and economic hardships brought on by Reaganomics. People suffered from joblessness due to outsourcing and deregulation created by administration's economic policies, and many people suffered from depression and personal issues as a result. Crack economies arose because of the lack of available jobs for people, and then came along crack addiction.
    Plutarchpoindexter2
  • PlutarchPlutarch Posts: 1,403
    Yes, all of that definitely seems true. I do know that Reagan was one of the few presidents who never raised the minimum wage. And I do know that Reagan's tenure as president was plagued with poverty. It would come as no surprise to me that the richer only got richer and the poorer only got poorer. And I think that Reagan basically blamed poor people for being poor (which is something many rich and privleged people do all of the time) at one point during his second term.

    I guess when you read between the lines, Reaganomics did do a lot of bad. And I agree with what you said about the crack epidemic too. Society and economy are inseperably linked.
    Lil Loca
  • Lil LocaLil Loca Posts: 8,910
    Didn't mean to sound like I was ranting. I am not a fan of Reagan and his economic policies.

    I think he's to blame for much of the economic problems that we have today.
  • Well in theOry reaganomics should have worked.....
  • StopitfiveStopitfive Posts: 10,426
    So we gonna act like crack didn't have long term negative economic effects?
  • Sneak DissaSneak Dissa Posts: 3,269
    No reliable economist in 2012 will ever agree that "trickle-down economics" works for anyone except the very rich. It doesn't even work in theory considering that that's been the economic model for monarchies and feudal systems for millennia.

    If the goal is to create and consolidate power within a small, rich ruling class and establish or reinforce a poor working class then yeah - "Reaganomics" works very well.
    Plutarch
  • poindexter2poindexter2 Posts: 3,415
    Reagan's own people said it had a massive affect on the middle class. Go on youtube and look up the BBC documentary about Reagan.
    Plutarch
  • blakfyahkingblakfyahking Posts: 12,483
    so we are just going to ignore how the lack of global competition

    the increase in the size of government

    the change in the value of the dollar

    all played a role in the "success" of Reagonomics?


    how ironic Reagan promoted laissez-faire ideals while the govt grew exponentially because of the War on Drugs
    Plutarch
Sign In or Register to comment.