3 ms·

>> "The reversal of Reaganomics" March 28, 1987: "President Reagan decided Friday to impose punitive 100% tariffs on a wide variety of goods produced by Japan

>> "The reversal of Reaganomics" March 28, 1987: "President Reagan decided Friday to impose punitive 100% tariffs on a wide variety of goods produced by Japanese electronic giants in retaliation for Tokyo’s failure to abide by the semiconductor trade agreement between the two nations" -- https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1987-03-28-mn-698-story.html https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1987-03-28-mn-698-st... That Reagan? 50% tariffs are rookie numbers.

majormajor 3y ago
Reagan also jacked up the national debt pumping $$$$ into defense technology and hardware development, but I suspect you know that neither tarriffs nor unrestricted government spending without an eye towards the debt is what "Reaganomics" is popularly remembered as. Outside of the more immediately-public-facing stuff like tax cuts, Reagan's legacy is very much a "do what we say, not what we did" situation.
- rufus_foreman 3y ago
  >> "Reagan also jacked up the national debt pumping $$$$ into defense technology and hardware development" That sounds like manufacturing jobs to me.
  - majormajor 3y ago
    Yes, exactly.
    - rufus_foreman 3y ago
      >> Yes, that was the point? The original post's point seemed to me to be "Reaganomics was bad for manufacturing jobs", and listed tariffs and subsidies as two things that are good for manufacturing jobs that were a reversal of Reagonomics. Do you agree that was the original point? But Reagan implemented both tariffs and subsidies that were good for manufacturing jobs. So how are tariffs and subsidies a reversal of Reaganomics?
      - majormajor 3y ago
        My point is this part: "Outside of the more immediately-public-facing stuff like tax cuts, Reagan's legacy is very much a "do what we say, not what we did" situation." A common definition is something like "widespread tax cuts, decreased social spending, increased military spending, and the deregulation of domestic markets" - https://www.investopedia.com/terms/r/reaganomics.asp https://www.investopedia.com/terms/r/reaganomics.asp - and in common parlance it is heavily associated broadly with "trickle down" ideas. Subsidizing manufacturing and putting more regulation around trade run counter to that. Especially when you're subsidizing not-immediately-defense-focused manufacturing. Reagan and the neoliberal era as a whole was very bad for most manufacturing, the existence of one area that Reagan invested in doesn't disprove that, but it should've led its supporters to say "hey, that worked, maybe it would be useful in other areas too." Even the tax stuff, right? The idea being pitched was that lower rates would result in higher government revenues but in practice the old tax rates were not at such a point that they were strangling productivity in the ways that would've been required for that to be true. Yet the legacy is simply "tax less" instead of any associating remaining with the "we actually think we can get more revenue to fund our spending" part.
        rufus_foreman 3y ago
        But the tax cuts haven't been reversed. The top marginal rate when Reagan took office was 70%, it has been between 35% and 40% for the last 30 years. So where is the reversal of Reaganism that explains an increase in manufacturing jobs? Where is the economic statistic that you can point to as being X during the Reagan years that was recently changed to Y, and that you think explains the increase in building factories over the last two years?
  - mistrial9 3y ago
    more than a hundred large companies consolidated into just five, from 1980 to 2000.. those five are [ Boeing, Lockheed-Martin, Raytheon, Northrup-Grumman, General Dynamics ] .. wages are associated with management practices, eligibility and "where did all that money go". For us civilians who do not build weapons, this was maybe not as great as some here say it was...

majormajor 3y ago

Reagan also jacked up the national debt pumping $$$$ into defense technology and hardware development, but I suspect you know that neither tarriffs nor unrestricted government spending without an eye towards the debt is what "Reaganomics" is popularly remembered as. Outside of the more immediately-public-facing stuff like tax cuts, Reagan's legacy is very much a "do what we say, not what we did" situation.

rufus_foreman 3y ago
>> "Reagan also jacked up the national debt pumping $$$$ into defense technology and hardware development" That sounds like manufacturing jobs to me.
- majormajor 3y ago
  Yes, exactly.
  - rufus_foreman 3y ago
    >> Yes, that was the point? The original post's point seemed to me to be "Reaganomics was bad for manufacturing jobs", and listed tariffs and subsidies as two things that are good for manufacturing jobs that were a reversal of Reagonomics. Do you agree that was the original point? But Reagan implemented both tariffs and subsidies that were good for manufacturing jobs. So how are tariffs and subsidies a reversal of Reaganomics?
    - majormajor 3y ago
      My point is this part: "Outside of the more immediately-public-facing stuff like tax cuts, Reagan's legacy is very much a "do what we say, not what we did" situation." A common definition is something like "widespread tax cuts, decreased social spending, increased military spending, and the deregulation of domestic markets" - https://www.investopedia.com/terms/r/reaganomics.asp https://www.investopedia.com/terms/r/reaganomics.asp - and in common parlance it is heavily associated broadly with "trickle down" ideas. Subsidizing manufacturing and putting more regulation around trade run counter to that. Especially when you're subsidizing not-immediately-defense-focused manufacturing. Reagan and the neoliberal era as a whole was very bad for most manufacturing, the existence of one area that Reagan invested in doesn't disprove that, but it should've led its supporters to say "hey, that worked, maybe it would be useful in other areas too." Even the tax stuff, right? The idea being pitched was that lower rates would result in higher government revenues but in practice the old tax rates were not at such a point that they were strangling productivity in the ways that would've been required for that to be true. Yet the legacy is simply "tax less" instead of any associating remaining with the "we actually think we can get more revenue to fund our spending" part.
      - rufus_foreman 3y ago
        But the tax cuts haven't been reversed. The top marginal rate when Reagan took office was 70%, it has been between 35% and 40% for the last 30 years. So where is the reversal of Reaganism that explains an increase in manufacturing jobs? Where is the economic statistic that you can point to as being X during the Reagan years that was recently changed to Y, and that you think explains the increase in building factories over the last two years?
- mistrial9 3y ago
  more than a hundred large companies consolidated into just five, from 1980 to 2000.. those five are [ Boeing, Lockheed-Martin, Raytheon, Northrup-Grumman, General Dynamics ] .. wages are associated with management practices, eligibility and "where did all that money go". For us civilians who do not build weapons, this was maybe not as great as some here say it was...