What made the big disparity in wealth?

Why are you complaining about Reagan, then? If he's gone, what difference would it make?

And why no response to the fact that wealth inequality increased more under Clinton than it did under Reagan? Does it damage the pre-fabbed narrative you have about Clinton being the progressive master of the economy?

 

"Bad policy"? We saw the 2 longest peace time economic expansions in US history, under Reagan and then starting under Bush 41 and going all the way through Clinton's Presidency. We saw Carter's record inflation go away with 30+ million jobs added to the economy.

 

Supply side economics cannot supply austerity or it would be called, conservativism. Supply side economics should be supplying us with better governance at lower cost.

 

Face it, "trickle down" was a failure. But please, don't take my word for it:

"it's difficult to say whether trickle-down economics was the only reason for the prosperity. That's because, while Reagan cut taxes, he also increased government spending -- by 2.5% a year. Reagan nearly tripled the Federal debt, which went from $997 billion in 1981 to $2.85 trillion in 1989. This spending went primarily to defense, in support of Reagan's successful efforts to end the Cold War and bring down the Soviet Union. Therefore, trickle-down economics was never really tested, since government spending is also a spur to economic growth."
http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc1/Reaganomics.html

http://video.pbs.org/video/2365136267/

http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/On-the-Economy/2012/0201/The-problem-with-the-trickle-down-theory

If you disagree, please feel free to find and present some source supporting your assertion.

 

Obama inherited the largest debt, yet is he responsible for that debt?

But had the recession under his term.. yet is he responsible for the recession?

- - - Updated - - -

No, but austerity widens the gap between the rich and the poor. Blatantly.

- - - Updated - - -

It will increase as long as the government shows more favoritism towards banks and large corporations, rather than supporting its citizens. More progressive taxes would also be a start.

 

When you call something a "failure", and then your own source doesn't support your assertion, it makes your argument look weak. I completely agree that spending was too high, but I fail to understand why you thought it was a problem? . We had a very deep recession in the early 80's with record high inflation and the highest unemployment in decades. If Reagan was a Democrat instead of a Republican, you would be supporting Keynesian intervention like you do with Obama.

Taxes were lower in the 1990's and we had an even longer peacetime expansion of the economy than we did under Reagan, with spending going down to near record lows. So we know that tax rates less than 70% (a full 31% less, actually), combined with spending levels at 18% GDP did not wreck the economy.

- - - Updated - - -

What does this have to do with the point I was making?

 

Interesting that you didn't even bother to look at the links I provided while claiming they didn't support my assertion...
http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/On-the-Economy/2012/0201/The-problem-with-the-trickle-down-theory

"The trickle-down, deregulatory agenda—what I have called YOYO, or “you’re on your own” economics—presumes that the growth chain starts at the top of the wealth scale and “trickles down” to those at the middle and the bottom of that scale. Problem is, that’s not worked."

"A recent article by successful venture capitalist Nick Hanauer very compellingly describes this interaction:
..."That’s why I can say with confidence that rich people don’t create jobs, nor do businesses, large or small. What does lead to more employment is the feedback loop between customers and businesses. And only consumers can set in motion a virtuous cycle that allows companies to survive and thrive and business owners to hire. An ordinary middle-class consumer is far more of a job creator than I ever have been or ever will be.""

"But the critical question for supply-side is whether these high-end marginal tax rate reductions lead to faster income growth (we’ve already seen that they lead to more income inequality). The bottom figure shows that they do not. Real per capita income growth across these countries is unrelated to the changes in tax rates."

 

The source of text you selected in your above post did not support your assertion.

Who is Jared Bernstein and why should a guest blogger's opinion be proof that supply side economics didn't work? We still had the two longest periods of peacetime growth in the 80's and 90's, so excuse me while I take your "failure" rhetoric with a grain of salt.

 

Actually, I pulled quotes directly from the links I provided...

As for who Jared Bernstein is... Once again, if you'd bothered to look at the link, you might have noticed the following:
"Before joining the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities as a senior fellow, Jared was chief economist to Vice President Joseph Biden and executive director of the White House Task Force on the Middle Class. He is a contributor to MSNBC and CNBC and has written numerous books, including 'Crunch: Why Do I Feel So Squeezed?'."

Hardly an anonymous blogger...

 

You've already said that inflation is necessary for a healthy economy, which means that you're contradicting yourself badly. You've already admitted that the money supply has to increase no matter what, which means that it is inflation itself which causes an increase in the disparity between the rich and poor.

 

Oh, Joe Biden, MSNBC... I guess that's supposed to be impressive.

Sorry pal, not all of us view progressive politicians as Gods. In fact, some of us think very little of them.

Get back to me when you can square the two longest peacetime economic expansions in US history with your claim that this "bad policy" "failed". The biased opinion of a internet blogger working for the Obama Administration is not persuasive.

 

...particulary since the best the clueless lib blogger could manage is to say "it's unclear if trickle-down economics was the only reason for prosperity".



Mod Edit/Stop the unnecessary innuendo.

 

Yeah, a subject matter expert who actually makes a living analyzing these trends in the economic system should totally be ignored if you don't happen to like what he has to say... but your opinion should be respected by all.

Do you not see the flaw in that logic? When your argument boils down to nothing more than an ad hominem attack on the source, rather than the information presented, you're illustrating the weakness of your position.

Perhaps you'd like to hear it from a different source?
http://video.pbs.org/video/2365136267/

 

You think that no subject matter experts with the directly opposing opinion exist?

Mod Edit/Focus on the thread topic.

 

By all means, provide those examples.

Mod Edit/Reply to deleted.

 

Attention ~

Focus on the thread topic. Stop the innuendo and personal insults.

 

I can't find a rational choice theory, reason, to support that contention. Most of the least wealthy don't save enough for inflation to eat away at it. It is usually spent almost as fast as it is earned. Thus, inflation should be less of a concern for the least wealthy who also may not invest.

 

yes, because the poor don't eat food or heat their homes. They don't mind eating less, in the cold.

 

Which will always be the case under the progressive monetary system, as it was the money trust who conceived of the federal reserve system in the first place.

Why not address the root of the problem, which is continual price inflation?

 

In other words, a purely made up agenda that has no relationship to the actual system of American banking and finance.

 

Okay, how about Art Laffer?

[video=youtube;QTjxZwxVK7k]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QTjxZwxVK7k[/video]

 

What does that have to do with proof of your claim that the banks are dumping toxic assets on the Fed?

This is now the 6th time I've asked you to back up your statement and and as I correctly predicted before, I'm sure you will continue dodging it rather than admit you just made it up.

 

1) Where is the proof that these government back F/F securities are toxic assets?
2) They don't want them on the open market. That is the whole idea, to keep interest rates low on refis.

- - - Updated - - -

Sure it's capitalism. Capitalism gives owners the means to leverage workers at low cost market rates and reap the profits for themselves. I don't have any problem with rewarding people for working hard and taking risks, but c'mon, the 1% richest own 40% of the wealth in this country. How much more do you want?

 

It's not my opinion. All I'm looking at is the results, and the 80's and 90's were the two longest expansions of the economy that we've ever had during peacetime. You're presenting the opinion of someone who makes a living advancing Obama's agenda.

There's no weakness in my position at all. I asked you to explain how "bad" and "failed policy" ended up with the economic success of the 80's and 90's, and you've done nothing but dance around ever since. That's weakness.

 

I'm dying to see the "simple math" Can you show it?

- - - Updated - - -

So we gave the so-called "job creators" huge tax cuts and they took the billions of dollars, and rather than create jobs, stuck them in their overseas accounts, and now they want to scoot and leaving the country holding the debt.

What a great (*)(*)(*)(*)ing idea that was.