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
Revolutionary think of all of this.
0 • •