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 : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Racey_Gracey who wrote (13535)3/2/2000 1:24:00 PM
From: Zoltan!  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 769667
 
Here you go:

Jan 31 2000 12:28PM ET More on Economic Focus...

It's the Reagan Economy, Stupid

by Lawrence Kudlow
Chief Economist, CNBC.com

and Stephen Moore
Economist, Cato Institute

CNBC.com Chief Economist Lawrence Kudlow and Cato Institute economist Stephen Moore - the expansion is older than most people think and it's still the Reagan expansion.

This week America crosses one of the great economic milestones in our nation's history. We will officially break the record for the longest business cycle expansion in U.S. history. The previous record was 106 months in the 1960s.

However, while the chattering heads in Washington are claiming that this expansion is sweet vindication for Clintonomics, they are wrong. Dead wrong.

The politician most responsible for laying the groundwork for this prosperous era is not Bill Clinton, but Ronald Reagan. America's economic turnaround started in the early 1980s, a decade before Bill Clinton arrived in Washington.

In fact, what we are really celebrating this month is the 18th consecutive year of prosperity, according to the Cambridge, Mass.-based National Bureau of Economic Research, the longest period of consecutive prosperity in the 20th century.

It was Reagan's supply side economic ideas -- marginal tax-rate cuts, a strong dollar, trade globalization (the Gipper started NAFTA with a U.S.-Canadian free trade agreement), deregulation of key industries like energy, financial services and transportation, and a re-armed military -- all of which unleashed a great wave of entrepreneurial-technological innovation that transformed and restructured the economy, resulting in a long boom prosperity that continues to throw off economic benefits to this day.

The trend of the stock market, shown in the accompanying chart, provides compelling evidence that the real turning point of the U.S. economy was the early 1980s, not the early 1990s.

From 1967-82, the 15 years before Reaganomics, the Dow-Jones industrial average suffered one of its blackest bear markets in history, falling 23 percent in nominal terms and nearly 70 percent cumulatively in inflation adjusted real terms.

Stagflationary Keynesian fine-tuning policies caused the wealth of American families to vanish right before their very eyes.

In 1982, the Dow Jones Industrial Average swooned below 800. Over the rest of the Reagan years the market more than tripled. In the 1990s it would nearly quadruple (to nearly 11,000 today). During the 1982-2000 Reagan bull market stocks soared by 12 percent per year (inflation-adjusted), raising the net worth of U.S. households by some $30 trillion.

To match this performance over the next 20 years, the Dow-Jones would have to soar to about 120,000 by 2020. If Washington politicians do no harm, and stay on Reagan's road, even this outsized dream remains possible.

Today, over 80 million Americans own stocks. This new Investor Class, which has become the invisible hand of politics, proves that Karl Marx is both dead and wrong.

In present day America it is the workers who own the means of production. And they will vote their portfolios as well as their pocketbooks in future elections.

The soaring capitalization of U.S. firms reflects the triumph of American business in virtually every high-value information-age industry -- computer software, telecommunications, the Internet, fiber optics, semiconductors, biotechnology and financial services.

Ever more breathtaking advances are in store as nanotechnology, molecular electronics and cheap energy-creating fuel cell advances loom just over the horizon.

Even many of America's more traditional "rust belt" industries, like the auto industry, industrial equipment, and steel--all of which were largely left for dead in the malaise decade of the 1970s--have recorded productivity-enhanced comebacks.

You can tune out the declinists who still complain about America de-industrializing; for 20 years the U.S. has been continually re-industrializing for the new information economy.

Yes, Bill Clinton deserves some credit for keeping the expansion moving. Along with Robert Rubin, his strong dollar and hands-off-the-Fed policies extended disinflation, creating an economywide tax cut effect that offset his mistaken 1993 tax increase. Free trade measures during the mid-1990s also constituted a tax-cut stimulus effect.

Importantly, the Republican Congress forced Clinton into swallowing his opposition and signing into law key pro-growth measures such as welfare reform, the balanced budget bill, capital gains tax cuts and expanded savings accounts.

The Gingrich and Co. heirs to Reagan's legacy helped restore business confidence, setting off a phenomenal investment boom over the past five years.

Bill Clinton's greatest economic achievement, however, was the defeat of his most liberal policy ideas. Remember the BTU tax? Remember Robert Reich's $50 billion fiscal stimulus package? Remember, most of all, Mrs. Clinton's health care plan to federalize 15 percent of the economy?

Thankfully, we dodged all of these economic wrecking balls.

The lesson of the past 20 years, hopefully learned for all times, is that when American entrepreneurs and workers are liberated from heavy-handed and intrusive fiscal policies, punitive tax rates, and destabilizing monetary policies, the U.S. economy's growth potential is almost limitless.

If Washington officials can resist Arthur Laffer's four key prosperity killers -- high inflation, big tax hikes, re-regulation and trade protectionism -- then more decades of technology-led growth is clearly possible.

Prospective budget surpluses should be rebated back to taxpayers in the form of across-the-board reductions in marginal tax-rates for individuals and businesses. Social Security payroll tax surpluses should be returned to the workforce in the form of personal retirement accounts for long-run market investment returns. Trade liberalization should be expanded.

The Federal government should be brought into the Internet age with a massive organizational restructuring and a move toward horizontal integration. Consumer choice should be the key to health care and education reform. As a fraction of national income, government spending should be brought down to about 15 percent.

It was Reagan's vision of economic freedom that blazed the path to prosperity. Numerous countries in Europe, Latin America and Asia are now adopting free market policies. For its part the U.S. must not rest on its laurels.

To maintain our leadership abroad, there is more work to be done here at home. A frequently confused and agitated political class need only consult Ronald Reagan's compass of liberty and freedom in order to arrive at the next right decision.

Lawrence Kudlow is also chief economist at Schroder & Co. Stephen Moore is director of fiscal policy at Cato, a Washington think tank.
cnbc.com





To: Racey_Gracey who wrote (13535)3/2/2000 1:36:00 PM
From: Neocon  Read Replies (3) | Respond to of 769667
 
If there is more regulation and taxation, it increases the costs of doing business. If you increase the cost of doing business, all things being equal, there will be less business. Conversely, if you decrease the cost of doing business, by easing taxes and regulations, there will be more business. If there is more business, there will be more employment and better returns on investment. Wages will go up, and there will be more innovation. Social spending will go down (less unemployment) and total tax revenues will increase, as taxable wealth increases.......

We have also been fortunate to live in a period of revolutionary change in the marketplace, that has not only generated more business, but helped to increase productivity without fueling inflation, largely through the application of the new computer technology.....

According to Milton Friedman, on average it takes about 18 months to feel the effect of a policy change that has been enacted. Thus, the recession in the early '80s belonged to Carter, and the boom belonged to Reagan. The recession in the early '90s, although it rattled people, was shallow and brief, and, in fact, fourth quarter growth was robust before election day, only the Commerce Department did not revise its figures until after the election.....

Clinton has been prevented from taking any major economic initiatives, and had budget discipline pretty much forced on him by the Republican Congress. He gets some credit for keeping steady people on, like Greenspan, and for not fighting the inevitable too much, but yes, it is mainly the fact that he has not gotten his way that has saved the economy.......



To: Racey_Gracey who wrote (13535)3/2/2000 2:35:00 PM
From: TigerPaw  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 769667
 
help me understand this phenomena

The government puts the environment in which the economy can prosper or wither. Even though a chicken farmer doesn't drop eggs out his butt doesn't mean he doesn't have great influence over the productivity of the operation.

Republicans in control of the House and Senate
My only problem here is that the House and Senate leaders can't seem to keep their attention focused on their jobs. Otherwise, so long as they continue to cave in on ... I mean so long as they continue to act responsibly on the main issues (a quit the circuses).

a President has little control of economic conditions .... Reagan/Bush years
This is a myth put out by a small group of zealots who venerate Reagan and can't stand to see how much Clinton outperformed his administration. Like a farmer, the President sets the environment for the economy. Reagan had a borrow and spend philosophy that gave an appearance of good times, Clinton has a build for the future philosophy which actally causes good times.
TP