3 ms·

> To argue Regans policies didn’t bring the economy out of that mess is just being dishonest. It's only dishonest if I actually thought that Reagan's policies

by esarbe 5y ago

> To argue Regans policies didn’t bring the economy out of that mess is just being dishonest. It's only dishonest if I actually thought that Reagan's policies did any good, isn't it? Joking aside, I actually think Reagan's policies were a disaster for the USA in the long run and didn't accomplish much during his time in office[0]. It is however during this time that real wage growth for the middle/low-income completely decoupled from economic growth for the first time and set them up for the mess they are in today. But don't take my word for it: [1] [0] https://people.stern.nyu.edu/nroubini/SUPPLY.HTM https://people.stern.nyu.edu/nroubini/SUPPLY.HTM [1] https://www.researchgate.net/publication/330443901_Reaganomics_A_Watershed_Moment_on_the_Road_to_Trumpism https://www.researchgate.net/publication/330443901_Reaganomi...

refurb 5y ago
No, what was a disaster was the economic policies that proceeded Reagan. You realize he was elected with some of the biggest pluralities ever in a US presidential election in 1984? Clearly the voters (on both sides) benefited.
- esarbe 5y ago
  > No, what was a disaster was the economic policies that proceeded Reagan. I think you have to be a bit more specific here, otherwise you're just blowing hot air without anything worth discussing. I provided several reasons and sources to why I think that the Reagan presidency failed in the long run - do you care to examine and response to any of that? > You realize he was elected with some of the biggest pluralities A vast majority of the US population supported going to war against Iraq in 2003. Turns out this was an unmitigated disaster that has repercussions until today. It is one of the reasons - just for example - that the U.S. and coalition actions in Afghanistan failed. Just because a plurality of people agrees to a thing, it doesn't mean we cannot look back and find out that we were wrong. > Clearly the voters (on both sides) benefited. I'm not sure I follow your line of reasoning. Just because the Nigerian scammer got you to transfer the funds that doesn't mean you benefited, right?

by esarbe 5y ago

refurb 5y ago

No, what was a disaster was the economic policies that proceeded Reagan. You realize he was elected with some of the biggest pluralities ever in a US presidential election in 1984? Clearly the voters (on both sides) benefited.

esarbe 5y ago
> No, what was a disaster was the economic policies that proceeded Reagan. I think you have to be a bit more specific here, otherwise you're just blowing hot air without anything worth discussing. I provided several reasons and sources to why I think that the Reagan presidency failed in the long run - do you care to examine and response to any of that? > You realize he was elected with some of the biggest pluralities A vast majority of the US population supported going to war against Iraq in 2003. Turns out this was an unmitigated disaster that has repercussions until today. It is one of the reasons - just for example - that the U.S. and coalition actions in Afghanistan failed. Just because a plurality of people agrees to a thing, it doesn't mean we cannot look back and find out that we were wrong. > Clearly the voters (on both sides) benefited. I'm not sure I follow your line of reasoning. Just because the Nigerian scammer got you to transfer the funds that doesn't mean you benefited, right?