4 ms·

https://heartland.org/opinion/ronald-reagans-fight-against-inflation/ https://heartland.org/opinion/ronald-reagans-fight-against-i... "It was only after the el

https://heartland.org/opinion/ronald-reagans-fight-against-inflation/ https://heartland.org/opinion/ronald-reagans-fight-against-i... "It was only after the election, when Volcker knew Carter had lost, that he really clamped down on the money supply. This illustrates an important point: Presidents get the Fed policy they want, no matter how “independent” the Fed may be. If there had been any doubt about this, it was settled in 1967, when Fed Chairman William McChesney Martin buckled under pressure from Lyndon Johnson and eased monetary policy even though Martin knew he should be tightening. This caused inflation to jump from 3 percent in 1967 to 4.7 percent in 1968 and 6.2 percent in 1969." And: "Few people now remember how much pressure there was on Reagan to get rid of Volcker and have the Fed run a more accommodating monetary policy. Yet Reagan not only supported Volcker publicly, he appointed like-minded people to the Fed whenever he had the chance. He reappointed Volcker to the chairmanship in 1983 and appointed Alan Greenspan to replace him in 1987. The result of the Fed’s tight money policy was a far faster reduction in inflation than most economists thought feasible. From 12.5 percent in 1980, inflation fell to 8.9 percent in 1981 and 3.8 percent in 1982. It is difficult to explain just how remarkable this achievement was. Most economists would have considered it impossible in 1980, especially given the big 1981 tax cut, which economists schooled in Keynesian economics generally viewed as pouring gasoline on the fires of inflation."

mixmastamyk 4y ago
I lived thru that era, read one of Volcker's books, and don't need to cut and paste a response.
- PathOfEclipse 4y ago
  You can be as self-assured as you like, and that's your prerogative, but why post a response if you're not going to take the time to be convincing in any way, such as by providing any evidence, information, or even rhetoric? I'm certainly not going to change my mind because you said you read a book.
  - mixmastamyk 4y ago
    Cutting and pasting someone else’s work is not a discussion. Not to mention what you added didn’t exactly contradict my take so there’s not much else to say.
    - PathOfEclipse 4y ago
      I mean, I did contradict your take. I contradict that inflation dropped primarily due to Carter picking Volker, or that dropping oil prices were a major factor. How much more contradictory can I be? There's plenty of other takes that contradict yours as well, like this one: https://www.forbes.com/sites/briandomitrovic/2011/02/07/volcker-and-the-reagan-legacy/?sh=44ab6ba31ec7 https://www.forbes.com/sites/briandomitrovic/2011/02/07/volc... The authors claims that the Reagan tax cuts were a key ingredient without which the inflation reduction may not have occurred at all, or it at least would have occurred at a much slower rate. But, look at me not carrying on a "discussion" because I keep citing other sources. I should just respond with one single sentence stating my belief as fact, right?

mixmastamyk 4y ago

I lived thru that era, read one of Volcker's books, and don't need to cut and paste a response.

PathOfEclipse 4y ago
You can be as self-assured as you like, and that's your prerogative, but why post a response if you're not going to take the time to be convincing in any way, such as by providing any evidence, information, or even rhetoric? I'm certainly not going to change my mind because you said you read a book.
- mixmastamyk 4y ago
  Cutting and pasting someone else’s work is not a discussion. Not to mention what you added didn’t exactly contradict my take so there’s not much else to say.
  - PathOfEclipse 4y ago
    I mean, I did contradict your take. I contradict that inflation dropped primarily due to Carter picking Volker, or that dropping oil prices were a major factor. How much more contradictory can I be? There's plenty of other takes that contradict yours as well, like this one: https://www.forbes.com/sites/briandomitrovic/2011/02/07/volcker-and-the-reagan-legacy/?sh=44ab6ba31ec7 https://www.forbes.com/sites/briandomitrovic/2011/02/07/volc... The authors claims that the Reagan tax cuts were a key ingredient without which the inflation reduction may not have occurred at all, or it at least would have occurred at a much slower rate. But, look at me not carrying on a "discussion" because I keep citing other sources. I should just respond with one single sentence stating my belief as fact, right?