Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Dayuhan who wrote (57305)	10/5/1999 8:55:00 PM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 108807

When it comes to the economy, all I know is what I read in the papers. Here's a short article that jibes with what I understand: >>>>>This article appeared in The New York Post on February 3, 1999. It's the Reagan Economy, Stupid By Dinesh D'Souza -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The deficits of the Reagan years correspond almost exactly with the amount Reagan invested in fighting the Cold War - which America won.PRESIDENT Clinton has survived an amazing succession of scandals because he presides over an era of peace and prosperity that most Americans assume he is responsible for creating. But in fact Clinton has had very little to do with the boom of the '90s. The president we should be thanking left office 10 years ago last month - Ronald Reagan. Consider the ingredients of America's economic strength - the taming of inflation, the revival of economic growth, the restructuring of the economy, the reduction of the deficit, the opening up of world markets, the peaceful climate generated by the end of the Cold War. In virtually every case, the turning point came in the 1980s. Yes, it's true. Ronald Reagan, who turns 88 on Saturday, is the man most responsible for America's economic restoration. Few are willing to credit his achievement because most people - and especially intellectuals - accept the facile stereotype of Reagan as an intellectual lightweight who napped on the job and was too detached from the daily operations of government to have a lasting impact. Like most stereotypes, this one contains an element of truth. But it misses the broader point that Reagan made the critical choices that led to America's victory in the Cold War and the restoration of the economy after a long period of stagflation and indefinable "malaise." Reagan initiated a massive military buildup to counter the Soviet threat and secured sharp across-the-board tax cuts to stimulate economic growth. (The top tax rate plummeted from 70 percent to 28 percent between 1981 and 1986.) He also supported the restrictive monetary policies of Federal Reserve Board Chairman Paul Volcker as necessary to curb the inflation of the Carter era. These measures extracted a heavy price. Volcker's policies ended double-digit inflation, but at the price of plunging the U.S. economy into a deep recession in 1982. The poverty rate climbed from 12 to 15 percent. Unemployment rose from 7 to 11 percent. The New York Times dubbed his policies "Reaganomics" and observed that "the stench of failure hangs over Ronald Reagan's White House." Reagan's critics demanded public-works projects to put Americans back to work. They called for restrictions on cheap imports to save domestic jobs. Invoking the success of the Japanese, many economists advocated "industrial policy," an elaborate scheme to invest taxpayer money in the "sunrise" industries of the future and to protect jobs in "sunset" industries that were no longer competitive in the world economy. Instead, Reagan allowed the economy to go through a painful period of downsizing and restructuring. In the depths of the '82 recession, he urged Americans to "stay the course" in the confidence that things would go better. They did. The economy turned around in 1983 - and went into a 15-year boom, interrupted only by the mild Bush recession of 1990-1991. Nearly 20 million new jobs were created from 1983 to 1989, and another 15 million since then. With typical panache, Reagan remarked that "the best sign that our economic program is working is that they don't call it Reaganomics anymore." Reagan's major failure was his inability to arrest the growth of government spending. This, combined with his tax cuts and defense increases, produced the $1.5 trillion deficit of the 1980s. But the deficits of the Reagan years correspond almost exactly with the amount Reagan invested in fighting the Cold War - which America won. So if future generations must assume the financial burden of the '80s deficits, they also inherit a world in which the threat of nuclear war is drastically reduced. Moreover, the end of the Cold War has meant the opening up of world markets to U.S. companies, contributing to an unprecedented surge in the Dow Jones Industrial Average from around 800 in 1982 to nearly 9,000 today. Reagan's final vindication has come lately in the disappearance of the deficit as a serious concern. Suddenly, almost mysteriously, the deficit has evaporated and the budget is in a surplus. In retrospect, the predictions of "$200-million deficits as far as the eye can see" seem misguided and myopic. President Clinton has claimed credit for the disappearance of the deficit. But what has he done to achieve this? Clinton did raise taxes marginally in the 1993 budget deal, but his own budget projections show that Clinton anticipated a continuation of huge deficits. And far from reducing government spending, Clinton has repeatedly increased it. Actually two factors are responsible for reducing the deficit. The first is the continued vitality of the Reagan boom - a bonanza for the U.S. Treasury. The second is America's huge defense savings as a consequence of winning the Cold War. In real terms, America today is spending around $100 billion less each year on defense than at the height of the Cold War. Consequently, the man blamed for the deficits of the 1980s is the same person who is largely responsible for today's surplus. Future generations will remember Reagan as a great president whose policies were instrumental in ending the Cold War and reviving the American economy and the American spirit. But it's only right that we, who are benefiting enormously from his legacy, should do Reagan the honor of acknowledging his achievement during his lifetime. Dinesh D'Souza, a research scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, is author of "Ronald Reagan: How an Ordinary Man Became an Extraordinary Leader," just out in paperback.<<<<<

To: Dayuhan who wrote (57305)	10/5/1999 8:57:00 PM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

As for the other question you raised, about our foreign policies in places like the Philippines, Iraq, Iran, Israel, Nicaragua, Panama, Guatemala, etc., etc., etc., those are far more troubling, I agree. The United States has a bad track record of supporting bloody bastards because they are "our bastards."

To: Dayuhan who wrote (57305)	10/6/1999 12:12:00 AM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

You got it wrong, Steven. I said that the effects of Reagan's policies were felt after the (Carter) recession of the early '80s. The government itself, in revising the figures, announced that the Bush recession was shortlived and already over before Clinton came into office. I said that the policies of the Reagan years set the stage for the resumption of the boom after a brief "correction", although there were other factors, like the revolution in computing...Since I did not say that we bankrupted the Soviet Union, but that glasnost and perestroika were introduced due to the fear of the effects of accelerated military competition, and led to the collapse of the Soviet Union, there is nothing odd in it occurring speedily....

To: Dayuhan who wrote (57305)	10/6/1999 7:06:00 AM
From: Edwarda	Respond to of 108807

Although I do agree with your observation that both the economic recovery and the collapse of the Soviet Union were part of larger cycles, the policies of the Reagan era did, in my observation, have a great deal to do with enhancing the economic recovery in terms of moving forward a way of thinking that has borne fruit in the years since. BTW, I also firmly agree that people should do a great deal more reading of papers, periodicals, and the like--particularly those with which they disagree. Opinions should be formed by thought rather than personal inclination and should always be open to revision.