Would the Western World have been better off without Raeganomics?

botully

Ad Honorem
Feb 2011
3,467
Amelia, Virginia, USA
#51
Here is a good summary of Reaganomics:

Sam Walton, the founder of Walmart, according to the Forbes ranking of 1982, was the worlds richest person with a worth of $670 million.

Today, Jeff Bezos is the wealthiest person in the world with a net worth of $136.1 billion. The latest Forbes ranking of the richest 400 Americans (that is only Americans) cuts off at $2.1 billion.

In other words, since the start of Reaganomics the wealth of the richest person has increased 200 times in 36 years and the poor chap who is only the 400th richest American is still three times greater than that of the worlds richest person in 1982. Walton's 1982 money is so far off the list that it is not even humorous!

Do you think that your net worth has increased by a factor of 200 in the past 30 years? If a similar economic multiplier has been in effect for a longer period, then the wealthiest American in 1950 would have been worth a piddling $3.5 million! That is the effect of Reaganomics, the rich got richer and the working people got 💩 💩 💩 !
You do realize that Bezos doesn’t have a Scrooge McDuck money bin? The bulk of that “net worth” is in stock, I.e. unavailable to Mr. B
 
Likes: Futurist

Rodger

Ad Honorem
Jun 2014
5,645
US
#52
Who determines it? Specialists, I guess. Read the surveys. Instead of trying to split hairs, and denying reality, try to accept that even right-wing specialists agree that inequality has gone to excesses. You may choose to ignore even their opinion, but in that case, I have little else to say to you about the matter.
Woah. Ignore? I'm asking questions. You are "guessing." You know what's worse than ignoring? Claiming there are issues without a hint of solutions. And then leaving it to "specialists" is even worse. I don't prefer to abdicate my civic responsibilities to the "specialists." Unchecked bureaucracy leads to all kind of abuse. Call me skeptical. I've heard this song and dance before and seen attempts to 'correct' throughout history. See Venezuela.
 

Willempie

Ad Honorem
Jul 2015
4,895
Netherlands
#53
No one denies the economy was much better in the '80s than in the '70s. The question is, how much credit does Reagan deserve? How much did Reagan do himself and how much would have happened without him? The economy goes in cycles. It never stays bad for long. After 10 years or so of high inflation and unemployment, it was pretty much guaranteed to get better in the '80s regardless of who was president. No doubt Reagan helped a little, but I think he gets more credit than he deserves.
That is always open and I tend to agree with the sentiment. I disagree about the natural cycles a bit as I feel that is just a lazy theory.

I do think the tax cuts had the desired economic effect (as well as some undesirable effects mainly on the budget). But what I personally think that had the most effect (although you cant prove it obviously) was his positive nationalistic attitude (similar to Trump). The USA went from a negative attitude to a way more positive attitude (sometimes scarily so). Imagine having Carter moping around for 4 more years. I think this effect is often overlooked in the discussion of the Reaganomics.
 
Likes: Futurist

Rodger

Ad Honorem
Jun 2014
5,645
US
#54
That is always open and I tend to agree with the sentiment. I disagree about the natural cycles a bit as I feel that is just a lazy theory.

I do think the tax cuts had the desired economic effect (as well as some undesirable effects mainly on the budget). But what I personally think that had the most effect (although you cant prove it obviously) was his positive nationalistic attitude (similar to Trump). The USA went from a negative attitude to a way more positive attitude (sometimes scarily so). Imagine having Carter moping around for 4 more years. I think this effect is often overlooked in the discussion of the Reaganomics.
Yes. There are indices that measure consumer and business confidence.
 
Likes: Futurist

Willempie

Ad Honorem
Jul 2015
4,895
Netherlands
#57
A 2.5% difference is marginal, and can be caused by innumerable reasons. If that's the supposedly big achievement of Reaganomics, it's not really much. IF it was due to these policies, even that marginal improvement.
Marginal? It means that in every street with 40 houses you went from 3 houses on foodstamps or UB to 2. Or alternatively more jobs than there are people in Amsterdam and Rotterdam.
 
Likes: Futurist