SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: RMF who wrote (68824)1/28/2014 9:30:23 PM
From: TimF  Read Replies (1) of 71588
 
Carter was the one that appointed Volcker and he appointed him to do EXACTLY what he did, although maybe not to such a severe extent.

And he didn't do it while Carter was in office.

As far as Reagan's tax cuts I don't think they had much affect at all except for the wealthiest of Americans.

Even the cuts on the wealthiest were beneficial (in fact possibly the most beneficial since before and after they had the highest rates), but tax rates where cut for essentially all payers of personal income tax.

Those cuts combined with the smashing down of inflation, where almost certainly the biggest government policy factors behind growth from the end of the early 80s double dip recession until the early 2000s recession. That isn't to say they necessarily where the biggest factors, since there are plenty of factors outside of government policy, but they where a big part of the reason for the growth.

Reagan and Volcker CRUSHED the economy to almost depression levels with interest rates over 20% which put MANY small business owners OUT of business.

So Carter, having appointed Volker gets all the credit for wringing out inflation, but Reagan gets the credit for the cost to do so?

I'd blame pre-Carter presidents (and congresses) and pre-Volker fed chairmen who created the inflation for the cost of curing it.

How many manufacturing jobs were GAINED/LOST during the Reagan years?

I could probably find the data, but I consider the question to be just about meaningless. Everyone is and has been losing manufacturing jobs, except the countries at much earlier stages in their development, and not even all of them. China has been losing a lot of manufacturing jobs. Some of it is manufacturing being set up in countries with cheaper labor than China (or at least cheaper then the coastal provinces of China), but most of it is improved productivity. Manufacturing in the US has been up not down. We produce more with fewer workers. That's a plus not a minus.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News