Thread: Reaganomics is a failed policy.

Originally Posted by Ronin Tetsuro

I'll agree with all you said up until the above. When has this mythical free market existed? You've already admitted that the problems of the financial sector are tired directly into the lack of regulation in some places and the regulation of other areas. It's my understanding that true free market requires NO regulation, at all.

So how can we forget that free market is a powerful force when we have not at any point experienced one?

Please, help. I've asked for clarification on this from others, and I have yet to get a satisfactory answer.

I am not a laisse-fare capitalist (if that is how you spell it) so I do not actually support zero regulations. I understand that no "libertopia" has ever existed and never will, which is a good thing.

It is just from Clinton's attempts to regulate the housing industry and Reagan's suscess in helping the economy with de-regulation, that shows many of the sucesses of the free market. And it seems like that you agree with the failures of some increased regulations under Clinton.

Anyway, cutting taxes to get defecit to try and cause more economic growth actually isn't much of an incorporation of the free market anyway. It is simillar to cutting interest rates below what the market has set them and hoping for a good outcome in the long run. (which doesn't normally happen)

Even though I agree that some de-regulation caused this credit crisis, it is important to recognize that the root of the problem was actually too much housing regulation under Clinton. So even if we need more regulations now in some areas, my whole philosophy on what is best for this country still stays the same.



A mixed economy is the best, but specifically there needs to be more free market then the American system has. (which is vague, I know)

Originally Posted by Stinger

Why do you call it mythical.



Where did you learn that?



Well we have markets that are certainly "freeer" than others wouldn't you agree. Like the US Economy was a much more freeer market than that of the old Soviet Union or former system Communist China. Which did better?

I'm asking for assistance. I know I'm no expert on matters of the market.

The only reason I say it is mythical is because the way I hear free market advocates talk about 'freemarket', it sounds nothing like what we have in the US, past or present.

On the topic of the free market in the past... I think the best spot to be in American history is the period after WWII when FDR's New Deal was still pure and not corrupted by the Great Society.

So yes, a free market has never existed, but that doesn't mean that we wouldn't be better off when the markey was more free.

Originally Posted by Nerv14

I am not a laisse-fare capitalist (if that is how you spell it) so I do not actually support zero regulations. I understand that no "libertopia" has ever existed and never will, which is a good thing.

It is just from Clinton's attempts to regulate the housing industry and Reagan's suscess in helping the economy with de-regulation, that shows many of the sucesses of the free market. And it seems like that you agree with the failures of some increased regulations under Clinton.

Anyway, cutting taxes to get defecit to try and cause more economic growth actually isn't much of an incorporation of the free market anyway. It is simillar to cutting interest rates below what the market has set them and hoping for a good outcome in the long run. (which doesn't normally happen)

Even though I agree that some de-regulation caused this credit crisis, it is important to recognize that the root of the problem was actually too much housing regulation under Clinton. So even if we need more regulations now in some areas, my whole philosophy on what is best for this country still stays the same.



A mixed economy is the best, but specifically there needs to be more free market then the American system has. (which is vague, I know)

And based on my admittedly limited and myopic observations of how things have worked in the past few years, it would seem that the US market has depended on bubbles for so long, that no one knows what to do without one in effect to keep everything afloat.

That, coupled with a serious lack of infrastructure to create a viable and profitable export, leaves us in a serious economic lurch. It would seem our choices are to pump a ridiculous amount of fiat currency into the system and hope the bubble will sustain long enough for a miracle to happen, OR find an undeveloped but promising market to invest in and go whole hog on it.

Alternative energy, maybe?

Originally Posted by Nerv14

On the topic of the free market in the past... I think the best spot to be in American history is the period after WWII when FDR's New Deal was still pure and not corrupted by the Great Society.

So yes, a free market has never existed, but that doesn't mean that we wouldn't be better off when the markey was more free.

FDR's New Deal ended with WW2 not after it.

Originally Posted by Stinger

FDR's New Deal ended with WW2 not after it.

Well then I support whatever parts of the New Deal still existed after WWII.

SS, public work projects and needed regulations. Thats all the federal government really should do.

Originally Posted by Ronin Tetsuro

And based on my admittedly limited and myopic observations of how things have worked in the past few years, it would seem that the US market has depended on bubbles for so long, that no one knows what to do without one in effect to keep everything afloat.

What happend the last few years was Government interferring with the free market, trying to dictate terms to the free market. THAT's what caused the collapse.

Here this will explain it to you

http://www.independent.org/pdf/polic...trainwreck.pdf

Originally Posted by Stinger

FDR's New Deal ended with WW2 not after it.

The lies go on!

You are not even close to correct. FDIC, FHA, and the TVA are new deal programs that are still alive today.

Originally Posted by justoneman

No what has failed is the media. They are doing zero reporting on the real causes of this debackle. And as a result, the American people are not up in arms enough over it. The American people have been hoodwinked.

The media is not to blame, rather they are a reflection of what the American people want and accept.The American people are to blame. The future of this country does not ride on the media.

It's easy to blame the media, and the mainstream media is indeed a joke and failure, but really, it's the people's fault: the consumers that support the media.

Supply side economics was a completely successful policy.

That policy was: Cutting taxes, because the government is one the wrong fucking side of the Laffer Curve, will cause increased economic activity which will increase tax revenues to the government.

It worked fucking great.

The fucking socialists in the House, aka mostly Democrats, broke their agreement to cut spending by the amount defense spending HAD to be increased to revover from That Idiot Carter.

The socialist spending increases, 100% on unconstitutional items, ballooned faster than the supply side policy could increase revenues.

Clearly it was the socialist aspect of the policy that was the failure, since the supply side aspect worked as planned.

What do you fools expect to happen to the economy when Obama raises taxes on fucking everyone except the maggots who don't pay taxes already?

I heard him today. Obie said he's going to tax the nation into prosperity.

Amazing how stupid the people who support him are.