4 ms·

> Volker's plan of raising interest rates massively would cost him (Carter) re-election. I believe he would have survived even the Iran crisis but for that, but

by wdr1 8y ago

> Volker's plan of raising interest rates massively would cost him (Carter) re-election. I believe he would have survived even the Iran crisis but for that, but it was the right thing to do. Reagan got all the credit for it since it started under Carter's watch and finished under Reagan's. It's hard to take this as anything but partisan spin. These issues are never black & white and there is hardly consensus on what you wrote. There are many who believe his raising interest rates to nearly 20% where fundamental in resulting unemployment to 11% & causing a recession. Note to say those people are right either. Just that it's complicated, there are compounding factors & many POVs. Some other positions: https://www.economist.com/free-exchange/2010/03/31/who-beat-inflation https://www.economist.com/free-exchange/2010/03/31/who-beat-... http://theweek.com/articles/618964/forgotten-recession-that-irrevocably-damaged-american-economy http://theweek.com/articles/618964/forgotten-recession-that-... https://nationalinterest.org/feature/the-federal-reserves-anti-volcker-inflation-revolt-17456 https://nationalinterest.org/feature/the-federal-reserves-an...

gumby 8y ago
I don't see how that can be partisan, and I'm not even sure in which direction you might mean. But my comment was about Carter: he took an unpopular decision because he thought it was in the best interest of the nation, whatever the personal cost. And indeed, as I said, Reagan got the credit. Even if you think Volcker was wrong, or even made things worse, my comment still stands. That National Interest link you sent is about the "Volcker rule", a 21st-century position decades after he was Fed chairman and having nothing at all to do with the topic (and the article from The Week mentions that people these days think of Volcker more for that). The article from The Week supports the point as well (that says that Volker's action put an end to the stagflation that resulted from years of not doing anything about the problem), and says Reagan did precisely the wrong thing. The Economist article does tepidly raise the idea that Volcker may not deserve the level of credit he gets ("Would those [non-Volcker] factors have been sufficient to take the air out of growing inflationary pressures? Perhaps not."). The consensus is of course that it worked; I do think that topic deserves more analysis.

by wdr1 8y ago

gumby 8y ago

I don't see how that can be partisan, and I'm not even sure in which direction you might mean. But my comment was about Carter: he took an unpopular decision because he thought it was in the best interest of the nation, whatever the personal cost. And indeed, as I said, Reagan got the credit. Even if you think Volcker was wrong, or even made things worse, my comment still stands. That National Interest link you sent is about the "Volcker rule", a 21st-century position decades after he was Fed chairman and having nothing at all to do with the topic (and the article from The Week mentions that people these days think of Volcker more for that). The article from The Week supports the point as well (that says that Volker's action put an end to the stagflation that resulted from years of not doing anything about the problem), and says Reagan did precisely the wrong thing. The Economist article does tepidly raise the idea that Volcker may not deserve the level of credit he gets ("Would those [non-Volcker] factors have been sufficient to take the air out of growing inflationary pressures? Perhaps not."). The consensus is of course that it worked; I do think that topic deserves more analysis.