4 ms·

At least in America, I think we are much happier with "neoliberalism" than Brits are. Both Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan, are considered two of our most effect

At least in America, I think we are much happier with "neoliberalism" than Brits are. Both Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan, are considered two of our most effective presidents. The 1980s and 1990s saw fairly significant economic gains.

Gibbon1 11y ago
Only significant if you ignore 1933 to 1978. Otherwise it's mediocre. If you're a working class family it's dismal. You achieved no increase in wealth between 1980 and 2000. And then lost ground in real terms since 2000.
- ArkyBeagle 11y ago
  1933 was terrible. There were effectively five more years of terrible to follow. So we just need encourage totalitarian empire-madness in Asia and Yurp and it'll all be fine. Because that's what's behind '33 to '78.
- bubuga 11y ago
  > Only significant if you ignore 1933 to 1978. You do know that between 1933 and 1978 there were a couple of incidents that ended up influencing the world's economy more than basic economic models, don't you? I mean, I'm sure we can agree that an event like WW2 alone, with the shift from peace-time to war-time economy experienced by the leading economies of the world, does influence things a bit more than the theoretical effect of some economic systems.
  - wodenokoto 11y ago
    Nobody disagree that it didn't influence things, but how it did is up for discussion. People who back up Keynes, will say it was the wartime investment that drove the economy. Neoliberal will say the war pretty much destroyed every economy except the American, leaving America relatively rich, which is why that period looked so good for them. Had there been no war, everybody would have been better off.
    - dragonwriter 11y ago
      Ironically, most of the people I've seen claiming it was the war that saved the economy were neoliberal in their feedback economic beliefs, while many notable Keynesians have argued that domestic policies played a major role in the wake and post-war expansion, with only a weak connection to the war (in that the war weakened political resistance to them.)
      - Gibbon1 11y ago
        One of the things that happened in the war was the government effectively erased private debt in the US. And took on a like amount onto it's books. And it raised top rate income taxes sky high and kept them there for decades. That's the period of high growth.

Gibbon1 11y ago

Only significant if you ignore 1933 to 1978. Otherwise it's mediocre. If you're a working class family it's dismal. You achieved no increase in wealth between 1980 and 2000. And then lost ground in real terms since 2000.

ArkyBeagle 11y ago
1933 was terrible. There were effectively five more years of terrible to follow. So we just need encourage totalitarian empire-madness in Asia and Yurp and it'll all be fine. Because that's what's behind '33 to '78.
bubuga 11y ago
> Only significant if you ignore 1933 to 1978. You do know that between 1933 and 1978 there were a couple of incidents that ended up influencing the world's economy more than basic economic models, don't you? I mean, I'm sure we can agree that an event like WW2 alone, with the shift from peace-time to war-time economy experienced by the leading economies of the world, does influence things a bit more than the theoretical effect of some economic systems.
- wodenokoto 11y ago
  Nobody disagree that it didn't influence things, but how it did is up for discussion. People who back up Keynes, will say it was the wartime investment that drove the economy. Neoliberal will say the war pretty much destroyed every economy except the American, leaving America relatively rich, which is why that period looked so good for them. Had there been no war, everybody would have been better off.
  - dragonwriter 11y ago
    Ironically, most of the people I've seen claiming it was the war that saved the economy were neoliberal in their feedback economic beliefs, while many notable Keynesians have argued that domestic policies played a major role in the wake and post-war expansion, with only a weak connection to the war (in that the war weakened political resistance to them.)
    - Gibbon1 11y ago
      One of the things that happened in the war was the government effectively erased private debt in the US. And took on a like amount onto it's books. And it raised top rate income taxes sky high and kept them there for decades. That's the period of high growth.