3 ms·

The carter quote feels a bit like a myth but it was known that his advisors did tell him the risk with volker would be that he could very well cost him the elec

by mattrp 7y ago

The carter quote feels a bit like a myth but it was known that his advisors did tell him the risk with volker would be that he could very well cost him the election. However carter was influenced by the northeast elite on fed policy and went along with their recommendation to go with their man. Maybe no one remembers but it was Paul Volker, himself, who raised interest rates, twice, to high double digits in order to “slow” the economy. It was akin to fixing the economy by strangling it. The reason the economy recovered was Reagan. For the first time in nearly two decades people believed in the future.

strbean 7y ago
I hear Reagan scared the economy into shape the same way he scared Iran into releasing those hostages ;)
dragonwriter 7y ago
> The reason the economy recovered was Reagan. But...it didn't recover for most people, whatever broad aggregate figures without distributional measures suggest. Reagan drove the nail in the coffin of the long post-WWII broad-based prosperity, and put the lie to the slogan favored by his campaign that a rising tide lifts all boats. Rather than trickling down, the gains in the economy since (and including) the Reagan years have been captured by an ever narrowing elite. And that's a direct result of government policy, centrally (though not exclsuively) tax policy, starting with the great tax shift under which Reagan oversaw, back to back, the largest tax cut in US history (on progressive taxes) and the largest tax increase in US history (on regressive payroll taxes.)
- mattrp 7y ago
  Go find ten random people who were adults in the 1980s and ask them if they wished carter would have gotten a second term or that Mondale Ferraro could have won in 84. Then come back and let me know if any of the could stop laughing hysterically to even answer the question.
  - dragonwriter 7y ago
    And...what would that prove, even if your assumption about the results was correct? It certainly wouldn't be evidence against what I said upthread.
    - mattrp 7y ago
      I believe you said Reagan's policies didn't benefit most people at the time of his administration. If that were true, then I think people who were of voting age at the time likely would have had time to reflect on how they felt when they handed Reagan the largest landslide victory of all time and whether they still feel that way today. My guess, and I'm sorry if I came across as a jerk, but my guess is that most people, upon reflection would still say, given the alternatives of Jimmy Carter or Walter Mondale, they still benefited more under Reagan more than the other possible candidates. As for ending WWII prosperity, Vietnam and a couple of oil shocks took care of that long before Reagan became president.

by mattrp 7y ago

strbean 7y ago

I hear Reagan scared the economy into shape the same way he scared Iran into releasing those hostages ;)

dragonwriter 7y ago

> The reason the economy recovered was Reagan. But...it didn't recover for most people, whatever broad aggregate figures without distributional measures suggest. Reagan drove the nail in the coffin of the long post-WWII broad-based prosperity, and put the lie to the slogan favored by his campaign that a rising tide lifts all boats. Rather than trickling down, the gains in the economy since (and including) the Reagan years have been captured by an ever narrowing elite. And that's a direct result of government policy, centrally (though not exclsuively) tax policy, starting with the great tax shift under which Reagan oversaw, back to back, the largest tax cut in US history (on progressive taxes) and the largest tax increase in US history (on regressive payroll taxes.)

mattrp 7y ago
Go find ten random people who were adults in the 1980s and ask them if they wished carter would have gotten a second term or that Mondale Ferraro could have won in 84. Then come back and let me know if any of the could stop laughing hysterically to even answer the question.
- dragonwriter 7y ago
  And...what would that prove, even if your assumption about the results was correct? It certainly wouldn't be evidence against what I said upthread.
  - mattrp 7y ago
    I believe you said Reagan's policies didn't benefit most people at the time of his administration. If that were true, then I think people who were of voting age at the time likely would have had time to reflect on how they felt when they handed Reagan the largest landslide victory of all time and whether they still feel that way today. My guess, and I'm sorry if I came across as a jerk, but my guess is that most people, upon reflection would still say, given the alternatives of Jimmy Carter or Walter Mondale, they still benefited more under Reagan more than the other possible candidates. As for ending WWII prosperity, Vietnam and a couple of oil shocks took care of that long before Reagan became president.