🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <D03s7o.4MF@mcdata.com> fredw@mcdata.com (Yabba Dabba Dude) writes:
>In <rayD03JIE.EMn@netcom.com>, ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>>In article <D03AD2.KHs@mcdata.com>, Yabba Dabba Dude <fredw@mcdata.com> wrote:
>>> dnh@mfltd.co.uk (Des Herriott) writes:
>>>William_Mosco@vos.stratus.com (Bill M.) writes:
>>>lewis@lumina.mitre.org (Keith Lewis) writes:
>>>>fredw@mcdata.com (Yabba Dabba Dude) wrote:
>>
>>>>[ what great things did Reagan achieve? ]
>>>>
>>>>>* Greatest economic expansion since WWII.   FACT
>>>
>>>  Bill>Without trying to balance the government's budget; an unlikely thing
>>>  Bill>to come out of a republican white house.
>>>  Bill>his was a first, and out of the norm when dealing with government
>>>  Bill>and economics; it was irrational.
>>>
>>>Reagan has the best record of economic indicators for ALL 
>>>post-war Presidents.  Boy, I see your point, this is irrational!
>>
>>BFD.  Making the economy _look_ good by borrowing $3,000,000,000,000
>>and distributing it among the already wealthy is no great trick.  You
>>can do the same.  Just run up your credit cards.  Of course, the bill
>>will come due eventually.  In the case of the national debt, it's
>>now about $20,000 per person.  This year about $1000 of your tax
>>dollars will do nothing but pay interest on that debt.
>
>Hello.. RAY.. anyone home ?  If I run up my credit card, how much I'm in debt
>depends on my assets.  If I run up $10,000, but I have real estate worth 1 mil, 
>big deal.  The GDP is a resonable indication of assets, and the deficit as a 
>percent of GDP dropped during the 7 fat years from '83 to '89.
>


It's obvious to most anyone that if you pump money into the economy, someone
will likely end up getting a bright idea and investing it, either you
(if you happened to be one of the Reagan era wealthy) or the Bank. I think
what you really need to ask is:

1)Will the long term tax revenues justify the expenses incurred in
  this entirely artificial government sponsored 'shot in the arm'?

Judging by what has come after, as well as Reagan's complete bungling
of trade tariff measures when they(the Japanese) were flooding the chip
market, I'd say that would be a big fat "NO"

2)If what you're trying to do is boost the economy, is just 
  "giving away" money the answer? Will people do what you want them to with
  it?

Again, in retrospect, that was not the most effective use of that money.
If,for example, Reagan were interested in long term benefits for the
country and increased properity in the LONG run, he would have taken a large
chunk of that discretionary dollar, and set it aside for government
grants and tax cuts for non-MILITARY R&D work. (Non-military,because
if it's classified top-secret, it's not exactly going to be on the
shelves at K-mart any time soon). More funding (instead of the cuts)
for schools wouldn't have been a bad plan either...

>>>>>* Restored military strength & morale.   FACT
>>>
>>>   Bill>Restored it?  How?  We were a superpower before he went into office.
>>>        One failed mission in Iran doesn't mean the whole military was
>>>        weak.
>>>
>>>I didn't say our military was weak.  If you do some research you will see that 
>>>by the end of Carter's term:  1) public confidence in the military had dropped,
>>>and 2) the military confidence in its Commander-in-Chief had dropped.  You can
>>>try to ignore the facts, but Reagan's leadership and boost in military spending 
>>>clearly improved both military morale and public confidence.
>>
>>And we can still see how confident people are in the nation's economy.
>>As I said before, you can make people feel good by just borrowing lots
>>of money and giving it to them.
>
>You cliched liberals are so entertaining!!  Yea, we borrowed all that money
>and just spread it around, and it caused great expansion.  Yea, thats it.
>
>Yabba
>

It's true, confidence in the military during the Reagan era was better,but
how can you NOT have more confidence in a military that you're throwing
trillions of dollars into? With the advent of nuclear bombs, after you've
gotten enough nukes to torch the earth a couple of times over,there's
no real point in spending all that money to make more, at least not that
I can see... and, frankly I'm not at all sure that that's so important.
I mean, yes, military confidence in the US was greater, but were people
actually worried that the Ruskies were coming around the mountainside
to get us during the Carter administration? I think not.


anyway,that's my 2c, adjusted for inflation

-Dave
ford@cats.ucsc.edu

in just a few words...
Carter=no deficit increase,some recession
Reagan=4x deficit increase,delayed recession (was it really worth it?)