Post #294,231
10/4/07 10:40:54 PM
|
The other issue was that Reagan caused the dot com era
It has already been shown that Al Gore sponsored the legislation that created the funding that led to the creation of the internet. But, on the off chance that you mean to imply that Reagan's policies created the economic boom of the Clinton years, don't bother. [link|http://www.ksg.harvard.edu/news/opeds/2004/bilmes_reagan_wp_021004.htm|The historical flukes that caused the Clinton era boom] .
Seamus
|
Post #294,234
10/4/07 10:52:41 PM
|
Maybe a more neutral source
For one thing, the Reagan tax cuts were offset by a series of subsequent tax hikes, implemented by Congress in the early 1980s, by the first President Bush in the late 1980s and by President Clinton in the early 1990s.
Contrary to the fears of supply-side economists, who have supported the Reagan and Bush tax cuts, the economy grew despite these tax hikes, while spending discipline in the 1990s helped turn deficits into surpluses.
And an April 2000 study by Harvard economist Benjamin Friedman for the National Bureau of Economic Research said Commerce Department data showed that, contrary to popular belief, the Reagan deficit did not lead to an investment boom -- all rates of domestic investment actually slowed down in the 1980s.
"The familiar conclusion that sustained government deficits at full employment depress private capital formation has stood up well," Friedman wrote. [link|http://money.cnn.com/2004/02/02/news/economy/budget/index.htm|CNNMoney] Seamus
|
Post #294,250
10/5/07 7:32:41 AM
|
Wow, a complete ignorance of globalization
I'd expect better from Harvard.
Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry.Adrian Belew
|
Post #294,252
10/5/07 7:58:11 AM
|
So, what is it you're saying here?
That President Reagan personally invented globalization and thereby ushered in an era of prosperity?
And if that's not what you're saying, then what does (whatever it is you are saying about) globalization have to do with Seamus' point, namely (to remind you) that the American economic prosperity of the nineties was not necessarily Reagan's personal doing?
[link|mailto:MyUserId@MyISP.CountryCode|Christian R. Conrad]
(I live in Finland, and my e-mail in-box is at the Saunalahti company.)
Ah, the Germans: Masters of Convoluted Simplification. — [link|http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/?p=1603|Jehovah]
|
Post #294,270
10/5/07 9:59:06 AM
|
Re: So, what is it you're saying here?
Ok, here is the quote And an April 2000 study by Harvard economist Benjamin Friedman for the National Bureau of Economic Research said Commerce Department data showed that, contrary to popular belief, the Reagan deficit did not lead to an investment boom -- all rates of domestic investment actually slowed down in the 1980s.
"The familiar conclusion that sustained government deficits at full employment depress private capital formation has stood up well," Friedman wrote. And this is being used to support a claim that the econ policies of the late 80s had nothing to do with the boom in the 90s. The only indicator mentioned is >private< capital formation on a domestic basis. It ignores the HUGE impact that the credit facility put in place invited unprecedented foreign investment in the US. During that time, all major asian auto manufacturers build facilities in the US, it ignores the influx of billions in foreign real estate investment etc. It also ignores, and I can't imagine it being anything but purposefully, PUBLIC capital formation, which is what deficit government spending gives you. More guns, more government jobs, more infrastructure etc. Was the prosperity the direct result of one act of cutting taxes? Absolutely not. Did Al Gore have something to do with it by helping fund tech? Sure...him and everyone who made sure it passed. Did the massive gov't spending programs make sure it happened. You bet. Does any of that have anything at all to do with private capital formation. No. Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry.Adrian Belew
|
Post #294,274
10/5/07 10:40:47 AM
|
The claim was that the Reagan deficits produced the
dot com era. That is what I was refuting.
Before you decide what the author ignores and what he is claiming you should read the [link|http://www1.worldbank.org/wbiep/fiscalpolicy/friedman.pdf|whole paper]
Seamus
|
Post #294,256
10/5/07 9:16:46 AM
|
A chaired professor and former Dept chairman
is completely ignorant of globalization? Much easier to hand wave then to try to show that he was wrong.
Seamus
|
Post #294,258
10/5/07 9:23:57 AM
|
dunno, alternate theories by walter williams are offered
he is also a prof especial.
thanx,
bill
Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari?
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 51 years. meep
reach me at [link|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net]
|
Post #294,264
10/5/07 9:47:12 AM
|
Yes, a supply-sider. There the only ones left who
argue the deficits don't matter.
Seamus
|
Post #294,277
10/5/07 10:45:49 AM
|
well listening to hillary giving away money
if she is elected she must be a supply sider as well.
that 5k per kid has to come from somewhere.
thanx,
bill
Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari?
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 51 years. meep
reach me at [link|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net]
|
Post #294,284
10/5/07 12:44:35 PM
10/5/07 1:24:23 PM
|
A supply sider is someone who thinks stimulating
the suppliers will somehow increase demand. She is not talking about giving to the supply side.
Seamus
Edited by Seamus
Oct. 5, 2007, 01:24:23 PM EDT
|
