D Clarity

What Is This Weird Balloon For

the reagan revolution

with 3 comments

It seems that you can look at a chart of almost anything and right around 1981 or soon after you’ll see the chart make a sharp change in direction, and probably not in a good way

Written by geek

19/06/2010 at 8:07 pm

Posted in economy, politics

3 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Reaganomics is certainly one of the more controversial economic policies—and it certainly has a varying record in varying fields.

    However, the cited claim is highly misleading. Notably, the Reagan-era is credited with a number of possitive developments. Notably, economic changes tend to take time (a bit like turning an oil tanker around), and if something happened in 1981 there is a fair chance that is to be blamed on/credited to Carter—and, indeed, many of the trends seem to start under Carter. (Which in turn means that some may even be the responsibility of Ford/Nixon…) In contrast, what happened in 1983, 1987, or even 1989 would be a better gage for Reagan

    Further, many of the issues involved are likely to be influenced by other factors (“natural forces”, international developments, and the like). Economic growth is a prime example.


    19/06/2010 at 9:04 pm

  2. The trends in question did not just happen in 1981. In fact, if you look at the graphs, most of them began in 1982 after Reagan had already been in office for a year. And those trends continued throughout the Reagan/Bush administrations, so I don’t buy the argument that they were the result of Nixon/Ford/Carter policies.

    What would you consider the positive economic developments of the Reagan administration to be? Inflation was defeated but that wasn’t anything Reagan did, that was Paul Volcker costing Carter his re-election bid. There was a decent rate of GDP growth and job creation during the Reagan years – even with the recessions. Most of the other trends I can think of were negative.


    20/06/2010 at 10:51 pm

  3. My argument was that you (respectively the original author) has a very simplistic take on the issues involved. Discounting the often slow reactions of the economy is one example of this. All in all, the article is not a qualified impartial evaluation, but misleading political propaganda. (Other points of criticism can be found, e.g. that widely different incomes is not, per se, a problem. The relevant questions are the absolute standard of living available to whom and to what degree the distribution contains elements of unfairness—none of which are discussed.)

    As for an overview of the positive and negative effects and some of the controversies, do the basic leg-work and read the Wikipedia article


    22/06/2010 at 8:08 pm

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: