More Reagan - split from other thread

[LightSpectra]

Reagan was such an idiot, he only turned stagflation into the greatest boom the U.S. had seen in 40 years and also liberated hundreds of millions of people from Soviet yoke without nuclear annihilation and/or total war. That moron.

Charles I of England qualifies, I'd think. Every time he did anything, the fail music from the Price is Right played. He inherited England at its greatest height since Henry V. From that point, he attempted to aid the Huguenots in France, only to have them utterly defeated due to his appointed naval commander (the Duke of Buckingham) being an incompetent favorite. He decided to raise money by granting monopolies to certain companies, the worst economic move anybody could possibly make. He lost the Bishops' Wars against Scotland, and his moves to further increase taxation without Parliamentary consent threw England into two civil wars; both of which he lost.

 

[Cutlass]

Reagan was such an idiot, he only turned stagflation into the greatest boom the U.S. had seen in 40 years and also liberated hundreds of millions of people from Soviet yoke without nuclear annihilation and/or total war. That moron.

Of course, no action taken by Reagan resulted in either of those things.......

 

[ParadigmShifter]

Of course, no action taken by Reagan resulted in either of those things.......

Aww

As Nancy Reagan would say, you must be a Gemini, 2 faced and untrustworthy

 

[LightSpectra]

Of course, no action taken by Reagan resulted in either of those things.......

Are we going to have this debate for the fifth time, or do you simply want to go back to any of the old threads and respond to my cited points with more "LOL YOU'RE WRONG" again?

 

[Cutlass]

Are we going to have this debate for the fifth time, or do you simply want to go back to any of the old threads and respond to my cited points with more "LOL YOU'RE WRONG" again?

I just fundamentally do not understand why you are so insistent on beatifying a dullard who did none of the things his worshipers proclaim. You obviously have a deep interest in history. So why are you so determined to rewrite this portion of it? It's clear that Reagan's legacy that you defend so staunchly will, if unchecked, completely ruin the US. So I find the whole thing substantially confusing.

 

[LightSpectra]

I just fundamentally do not understand why you are so insistent on beatifying a dullard who did none of the things his worshipers proclaim. You obviously have a deep interest in history. So why are you so determined to rewrite this portion of it? It's clear that Reagan's legacy that you defend so staunchly will, if unchecked, completely ruin the US. So I find the whole thing substantially confusing.

Did you become a serial murderer before or after you started beating your wife?

Loaded questions are wonderful, yeah?

 

[Atticus]

Well, at least I would be glad to know how Reagan contributed to the fall of Soviet Union. Links to past threads or hints how to search them suffice.

 

[LightSpectra]

Well, at least I would be glad to know how Reagan contributed to the fall of Soviet Union. Links to past threads or hints how to search them suffice.

This thread began with a hilarious article that the TC didn't even read, though it gradually turned into a full debate.

Here was my cited post that was never responded to.

 

[Plotinus]

Oh good, another argument about whether Reagan defeated communism or not. Perhaps once that's been sorted out we can have one about the precise geographical location of Poland.

Or perhaps it can just go in another thread if you really insist on retreading it.

 

[Cutlass]

Oh good, another argument about whether Reagan defeated communism or not. Perhaps once that's been sorted out we can have one about the precise geographical location of Poland.

Or perhaps it can just go in another thread if you really insist on retreading it.

Which is more or less why I don't follow through on it. It's all just so silly.

But for the record, Reagan's economic record, while very weak, does not include any anti-inflation efforts. (deficits are inflationary.) With one exception: He didn't get in Volker's way. Which some other presidents might have done. So Volker was able to act in 1981-2 in ways that he might have had interference with in other circumstances. (Source, Grieder) However, since Carter put Volker in office to do just that very thing, you cannot make the claim that Reagan did something that would not have been done had he not been there.

 

[LightSpectra]

Which is more or less why I don't follow through on it. It's all just so silly.

Yes, it gets all so silly -- once the person you're arguing with provides citations you can't reply to.

But for the record, Reagan's economic record, while very weak, does not include any anti-inflation efforts. (deficits are inflationary.) With one exception: He didn't get in Volker's way. Which some other presidents might have done. So Volker was able to act in 1981-2 in ways that he might have had interference with in other circumstances. (Source, Grieder) However, since Carter put Volker in office to do just that very thing, you cannot make the claim that Reagan did something that would not have been done had he not been there.

It's a common fallacy to presume that the only single factor pertaining to inflation is the actions of the Federal Reserve. They have a huge part in it, but the fact that taxes were lowered encouraged investment, which also calmed the inflation of the '80s. This was something that Jimmy Carter did not realize. He assumed Keynesianism as factuality, and when stagflation occurred -- an impossibility within the aforementioned economic theory -- he assumed that it was an inevitability because the economy had become too large. Hence his "malaise" speech.

James Buchanan. Nuff sed.

James Buchanan was a doughface. He wanted to preserve the existence of slavery, so I interpret his actions pertaining to the Civil War as being intentional, not just incompetent. (Though he was undoubtedly incompetent.)

No mention of Mao Zedong yet?

This.

 

[Cutlass]

Yes, it gets all so silly -- once the person you're arguing with provides citations you can't reply to.



It's a common fallacy to presume that the only single factor pertaining to inflation is the actions of the Federal Reserve. They have a huge part in it, but the fact that taxes were lowered encouraged investment, which also calmed the inflation of the '80s. This was something that Jimmy Carter did not realize. He assumed Keynesianism as factuality, and when stagflation occurred -- an impossibility within the aforementioned economic theory -- he assumed that it was an inevitability because the economy had become too large. Hence his "malaise" speech.

Now you aren't even trying. Investment while Reagan was in office ran approximately 25% less than the post war average. Source, Michael E Porter (of Harvard Business School) in "The Competitive Advantage of Nations", Benjamin M Freidman in "Day of Reckoning", William Greider in "Secrets of the Temple", W.Carl Biven in "Who Killed John Maynard Keynes?", Leonard Silk in Foreign Affairs,vol 72, No1. And that's just what's on my shelves. So Reagan substantially reduced investment. And running up deficits while substantially reducing investment is highly inflationary.

 

[LightSpectra]

Perhaps that would've had some relevance had I stated that investments rose, rather than that investments were encouraged.

If you ever care to respond to any claims I've actually made, be my guest.

 

[Cutlass]

Perhaps that would've had some relevance had I stated that investments rose, rather than that investments were encouraged.

If you ever care to respond to any claims I've actually made, be my guest.

How encouraged could they possibly have been if they declined that much?

 

[LightSpectra]

How encouraged could they possibly have been if they declined that much?

Pretty good, considering that stagflation quickly transferred to stable growth.

 

[Cutlass]

Pretty good, considering that stagflation quickly transferred to stable growth.

Into weak growth. Given that Volker controlled the inflation, and Reagan tried to bring inflation back with his anti-investment pro-debt policies.

 

[LightSpectra]

Into weak growth. Given that Volker controlled the inflation, and Reagan tried to bring inflation back with his anti-investment pro-debt policies.

"Weak growth," eh? By what standards? The U.S. hadn't seen such strong growth in fact since the 1950s. Also, I lol'd at the "Reagan tried to bring inflation back;" the very wording of this sentence demonstrates that you don't really have a point except that you just really don't like Reagan.

"Pro-debt policies" that ended the Cold War, freed millions of people from Soviet yoke and allowed for heavy military cuts that gave us the budget surplus of the late '90s. Successful by any person's standards, except for those who conflate factuality because it conflicts with ideology.

 

[Cutlass]

"Weak growth," eh? By what standards? The U.S. hadn't seen such strong growth in fact since the 1950s. Also, I lol'd at the "Reagan tried to bring inflation back;" the very wording of this sentence demonstrates that you don't really have a point except that you just really don't like Reagan.

"Pro-debt policies" that ended the Cold War, freed millions of people from Soviet yoke and allowed for heavy military cuts that gave us the budget surplus of the late '90s. Successful by any person's standards, except for those who conflate factuality because it conflicts with ideology.

Except of course, all those things you attribute to Reagan are just partisan hackery. You cannot make the claim that the Cold War would have lasted longer with a different president. You absolutely cannot make the claim that Reagan's economic policies set up the prosperity of the 90s. Here's a clue: Reducing investment now reduces wealth in the future.

My point is very simple: By every objective measure, Reagan's economic policies made the United States of America a weaker and poorer country. End of story. Now if you like the fact that the United States of America a weaker and poorer country, I can see why you like Reagan so much. But you've also demonstrated exactly why I can't be bothered to dig out sources for you. If a source is non-partisan, you have no use for it.

 

[LightSpectra]

Except of course, all those things you attribute to Reagan are just partisan hackery.

Denying them to Reagan is partisan hackery. Ending the Cold War is an accomplishment that Gorbachev himself gives to Reagan, are you saying that the former Chairman of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and current chairman of the Russian Socialist Party is a GOP partisan hack?

You cannot make the claim that the Cold War would have lasted longer with a different president.

I did. See my post in the other thread you haven't responded to yet.

You absolutely cannot make the claim that Reagan's economic policies set up the prosperity of the 90s. Here's a clue: Reducing investment now reduces wealth in the future.

Ending cold wars between superpowers reduces defense spending, increasing civilian wealth. Though you don't even have to go to 1991 to see the fruits of Reagan's economic policies: Inflation was 13.5% when Carter left the White House. When Reagan left, it was 4.1% (a 9.4% difference). This cannot solely be attributed to the Federal Reserve, since the policies that Volcker and Greenspan enacted in order to lower inflation were directly based on the state of the economy at the time. And, as a result of the Reagan tax cuts, there was a GDP growth of 3.4% per year after a recession in 1982 (before the cuts had taken effect). When he took office, unemployment was at 7.6%, and when he left, it was 5.5%; 16 million jobs were a created as a result of the tax slashes.

My point is very simple: By every objective measure, Reagan's economic policies made the United States of America a weaker and poorer country.

By imaginary measures that partisan hacks use, perhaps.

Now if you like the fact that the United States of America a weaker and poorer country, I can see why you like Reagan so much.

I lol'd. Have no argument? Simply avoid all strands of reason and just say your opponent hates America. Works for Sean Hannity and Keith Olbermann, it'll certainly work for you, right?

But you've also demonstrated exactly why I can't be bothered to dig out sources for you. If a source is non-partisan, you have no use for it.

So, as I predicted before: you're willing to debate, until citations are given and demanded, in which case you'll just be like "LOL YOU'RE WRONG" and escape?

 

[CornPlanter]

@ Reagan issue: