Ronald Reagan; Savior or Scum

[Revolution 9]

Because?

Both parents working, longer age to retirement, shrinking industries, outsourcing, downsizing.

The way I see it we are losing more jobs, and finding ways to get by on less.
Everywhere you look it's happening. In the music industry I worked in. The military I work for now. Cut backs. Furloughs. Hiring Freezes.
Postal Service. Cutting back. Slashing. Less hours, less service. To save money. Cut stores, more job losses.

 

[franklin]

Agreed - the middle class has more access to easy credit and crappy stuff from Wal-Mart but I don't know if they're better off.

You'll be hard pressed to find any objective measure that says otherwise (i.e. % disposable income spent on food is in an ever downward trend).

No, people do not have more free time than ever before. As a matter of fact there are more households that rely on 2 incomes than ever before. Compensation(salary and wages) has gone down since the 1970's. Many things that we think as luxury items are quickly becoming necessary to function in our modern society. Lower middle class people have a hard time paying for a cell phone and internet access. Can you imagine trying to look for a job these days without those two things.

Because slaving over a stove, washing poop from cloth diapers, churning butter from milk fat, grinding wheat, and washing cloths on a washboard wasn't work?

Women entering the workforce was a result of wealth creation no matter how the christian conservatives or the bleeding heart liberals try to spin it. As usual, the common myth is exactly opposite of reality.

And yes, studies show that American workers in the poor and middle classes have more leisure time than in 1980. The rich did the opposite and now work longer hours.

 

[The Thriller]

Ok, here we go.

First off, Reaganomics. If ending the Cold War was the greatest thing to happen under Reagan, then his economic policy has got to be the worst. Yes, even worse than Iran Contra. Epic fail. They haven't worked nor will they work (since both parties essentially promote Reaganomics). What it has done to our economy over the past 30 years is horrible (for the majority of us). The deregulation, privatization, and tax cuts (which have helped erode our infrastructure and safety nets) has left us in a scary situation. Sucking money to redistribute to the top. It has left the middle-class and poor without sufficient enough buying power. You see today that in order to maintain their standards of living, many have taken on more debt. More debt?! I think even Democrats and Republicans can agree that this is a bad idea. Only bankers might enjoy this.

Secondly, because of Reaganomics, we have seen wages from the middle-class and lower class stagnate or fall. Has this been the same for the upper class? Ha! Nope. Theoretically, this isn't supposed to happen! Trickle-down, right? I mean, Mitt Romney, rich dude, is supposed to "share" his wealth by creating jobs! If he has more money, then he can afford to pay his workers more money too. This hasn't happened. And it won't happen.

Thirdly, this has created a very uncertain future. Many businesses are sitting on cash. I believe I read that Apple is sitting on billions and billions of cash because demand for their products hasn't reached the point for them to actually spend on to create jobs. They'd rather sit on the cash. And why not? The focus has shifted via Reaganomics from building a long-term stable business to essentially raiding a business, cutting labor, pumping up the stock value, impressing/deceiving the shareholders, and getting out asap before the company dies off.

Fourthly, and most importantly, without buying power the lower classes cannot dig themselves out of the hole they're in. Hence, why class mobility here in the States is one of the worst in the industrialized world. Many western European countries (and some, former USSR satellites) enjoy better class mobility than ours. Many will use globalization and technology as excuses. Foxnews is infamous for using this lame *** excuse. Doesn't Germany have to deal with globalization? Don't they have to deal with immigration too? What about technology? Isn't Europe or Japan pretty damn up to date? Yet, why do they have bigger and more healthier middle classes than we do? Why do they enjoy better class mobility? Why do their workers work less than American counterparts yet earn more?

In fact, in the 70s many of these same European countries saw less economic mobility. Meaning, if you were born poor you were most likely to die poor. Whereas, the USA was the "Land of Opportunity." Not since... The tables have turned. In these European countries the mobility has dramatically increased (despite the surge in globalization, immigration, and innovation/technology) while we have headed in the opposite direction. Why? Reaganomics doesn't work!!! Eroding the safety nets, workers' rights, regulation in the banking and finance industry, commodities market, and taxes, we have put our middle-class and poor at a significant disadvantage... While those at the top enjoy privilege.

Folks, it's because Reaganomics is one huge lie. His legacy, the vilifying of the government (but only as it pertains to workers and social programs. For safety nets for the rich, the government is their best friend. Just look at how quickly the big banks ran to nanny government in 08) and demand for everything to become privatized has left the working class as innocent fish in an ocean of Piranhas. From Bankers, insurance companies, and those controlling our commodities (like oil). Our Democracy, standard of living, and stable form of capitalism, is under attack.

 

[franklin]

This is really a winner bro. I think you just won the thread.

The price of technology historically drops in the long term.


I haven't taken a trip to disneyland since high school with the band. I'm pretty sure I qualify as at least middle class.


There weren't anywhere near as many running, used cars on the road in the 1970's. Nor were there parts for those cars readily available.


Just the same as technology, the housing industry has been able to stretch that dollar more now than they were in the 70's in both more sturdy less costly options, as well as being budget oriented.

Yeah bro, banks giving out crap loans that they know won't work out in the long run is great for society!


This is probably the dumbest line ever. In 1982 Motorola released it's $3995, Motorola DynaTAC 8000X. I don't even want to think about what that would cost in 2013 money.



This is actually the smartest thing you've said. But let me alter it a bit.
The Rich are a lot lot lot lot lot lot lot lot lot lot lot lot lot lot lot lot richer than they were 30-40 years ago.
The middle class is a lot lot lot richer than they were 30-40 years ago.
The poor are moderately richer than they were 30-40 years ago.



I don't really mean to call you out, but this is either the worst thought out response this board has ever seen, or you're a troll, you got me, and I owe you rep.

I can't tell if you're agreeing with green or arguing the points. That was all really confusing.

Both parents working, longer age to retirement, shrinking industries, outsourcing, downsizing.

What a silly straw man. People retiring at 62 when life expectancy is 64 is in no way comparable to people retiring at 62.5 when life expectancy is 85 years.

The rest of your post merely described a typical recession and had little reflection on long term trends.

 

[franklin]

Fair enough. I'll add more context to this. It will only make my argument stronger.

But also, lets admit that the distribution of wealth isn't completely meaningless. First of all, just basic common sense. If 1 percent owns nearly everything, what do you think that type of society is like? Secondly, basic economics, when the majority doesn't have purchasing power, what will happen to that system? First, people will go in debt. Secondly, the economy will stall (layoffs, people not purchasing the crap they make, etc). Thirdly, wages fall, the work force becomes desperate and will work for anything, the economy continues to decline... The standard of living falls. It's a vicious cycle that (for some reason) many repubs want to ignore which was so prevalent in the late 20s and 30s.

Cute story, bro.

Your leap in logic that banks will loan more debt to those who cannot afford it is contrary to common sense and breaks your argument apart.

The middle class racked up debt because the market was deeper and more liquid, debt more serviceable and less catastrophic when a portion of the loans went sour, and technology made it feasible and convenient for the consumer on a daily basis. In other words, exactly as anyone with half a functioning financial brain cell would expect.

But that won't stop people from creating the next Dan Brown novel about the myth.

 

[The Thriller]

I haven't the time to write more.

So for posters who would rather read this than the last few of my posts...

Enjoy:

https://www.theatlantic.com/busines...-much-higher-in-the-us-than-in-france/278660/

Now, all societies are unequal, but some are more unequal than others. The question is why the U.S. has become more so than just about any other rich country the past 30 years. After all, if rising inequality is mostly about universal factors like technology and globalization, we would expect the rise of inequality to be, well, universal. It hasn't.

 

[The Thriller]

Your leap in logic that banks will loan more debt to those who cannot afford it is contrary to common sense and breaks your argument apart.

Even though this seems to be contrary to common sense... It's what actually happened.

Or am I just dreaming about what happened in 2008?

 

[franklin]

The deregulation, privatization, and tax cuts

Angry people are so dense. Reagen didn't cut taxes, he simplified the tax code by taking out massive amounts of loopholes. To most businesses, his "tax cuts" were tax hikes because they could no longer hide from the man with all sorts of frivolous write-offs like "loaning" their executives a brand new Mercedes every year.

Or you could just go look up the taxes:gdp ratio...

(which have helped erode our infrastructure and safety nets) has left us in a scary situation.

How less accurate can this guy get? Reagan weakened our safety nets by raising social security taxes 6 times in 8 years? Okay bro, time for a breather?

Secondly, because of Reaganomics, we have seen wages from the middle-class and lower class stagnate or fall.

Sorry, pumpkin, but the alleged stagnation happened years before Reagan, remember? The difference was people were happy again under Reagan. But you know, go on deamonizing supply-side Keynesian policy during times of high inflation because you don't understand simple concepts.

Has this been the same for the upper class? Ha! Nope. Theoretically, this isn't supposed to happen! Trickle-down, right? I mean, Mitt Romney, rich dude, is supposed to "share" his wealth by creating jobs! If he has more money, then he can afford to pay his workers more money too. This hasn't happened. And it won't happen.

Have you heard of a Lewis Turning Point? It won a Nobel prize. Labor cannot always and forever be in increasing demand. These things run in long term cycles based on market forces. But yeah, I could throw a similar temper tantrum over Obama! too.

Thirdly, this has created a very uncertain future. Many businesses are sitting on cash. I believe I read that Apple is sitting on billions and billions of cash because demand for their products hasn't reached the point for them to actually spend on to create jobs. They'd rather sit on the cash. And why not? The focus has shifted via Reaganomics from building a long-term stable business to essentially raiding a business, cutting labor, pumping up the stock value, impressing/deceiving the shareholders, and getting out asap before the company dies off.

Sitting on huge cash piles is a very prudent practice for mega-tech that are susceptible to fierce competitive forces destroying them overnight. Do you really want Apple to go out of business to a Taiwanese company and lay off hundreds of thousands of Americans overnight?

The myth that the rest of the corporations are sitting on huge piles of cash was thoroughly debunked over two years ago. If anything, they're levering up with these extremely cheap interest rats. They are greedy, after all.

Fourthly, and most importantly, without buying power the lower classes cannot dig themselves out of the hole they're in. Hence, why class mobility here in the States is one of the worst in the industrialized world. Many western European countries (and some, former USSR satellites) enjoy better class mobility than ours. Many will use globalization and technology as excuses. Foxnews is infamous for using this lame *** excuse. Doesn't Germany have to deal with globalization?

Link?

In fact, in the 70s many of these same European countries saw less economic mobility. Meaning, if you were born poor you were most likely to die poor.

I choose to celebrate such a change in fortunes. Using it to fear monger a political agenda elsewhere is beneath me.

Whereas, the USA was the "Land of Opportunity." Not since... The tables have turned. In these European countries the mobility has dramatically increased (despite the surge in globalization, immigration, and innovation/technology) while we have headed in the opposite direction. Why? Reaganomics doesn't work!!! Eroding the safety nets, workers' rights, regulation in the banking and finance industry, commodities market, and taxes, we have put our middle-class and poor at a significant disadvantage... While those at the top enjoy privilege.

Another thoroughly debunked myth. Class mobility in America is alive and well.

Is that strawman #19 burned down? I'm having a hard time keeping track.

 

[franklin]

Even though this seems to be contrary to common sense... It's what actually happened.

Or am I just dreaming about what happened in 2008?

Buying rental properties and McMansions on loans supports your bleeding heart debt cuz kant afford ta live fear mongering how?

 

[♪alt13]

You'll be hard pressed to find any objective measure that says otherwise (i.e. % disposable income spent on food is in an ever downward trend).

Because slaving over a stove, washing poop from cloth diapers, churning butter from milk fat, grinding wheat, and washing cloths on a washboard wasn't work?

People weren't churning their own butter 30-40 years ago. Most families that I know of still have to feed themselves and take care of their children irregardless of whether mommy works.

Women entering the workforce was a result of wealth creation no matter how the christian conservatives or the bleeding heart liberals try to spin it. As usual, the common myth is exactly opposite of reality.

^Circular logic,bro. Women entering the workforce was a driver for wealth creation not the other way around. Most women over the past 30-40yrs have taken home less than their share for the work they do compared to men. I.E. corporations took advantage of a cheap workforce.

And yes, studies show that American workers in the poor and middle classes have more leisure time than in 1980. The rich did the opposite and now work longer hours.

Please Share your study. In the meantime here is one that says we have less leisure time and the study goes back to 1973.
https://www.prsa.org/SearchResults/view/7722/105/Americans_today_have_less_free_time_study_says

.

 

[Gameface]

I have a boner for franklin. Most objective person I've ever listened to on any of these issues and very very knowledgeable to boot.

I've really backed off trying to spout off on economic stuff because I hate listening to ignorant people talk like they're know what they're saying...and I figure most other people do too.

 

[[size/HUGE] fixed [/size]]

I have a boner for franklin. Most objective person I've ever listened to on any of these issues and very very knowledgeable to boot.

I've really backed off trying to spout off on economic stuff because I hate listening to ignorant people talk like they're know what they're saying...and I figure most other people do too.

He harbors an optimism for progress. It's a certain kind of optimism for capitalism FINALLY WORKING IT OUT. That's the dent in his "objective" armor because there isn't a lot of evidence to support that. (There will, of course, be some evidence that is manufactured).

No doubt, though... franklin is a good one.

 

[franklin]

Come now, heyhey. You're a nice person and I'm not going to troll hammer you too.

1. You can't separate your objective measure of real DPI from the concept of improved living standards? BTW, we know that measure is not reflective of reality for several reasons like health care benefits being excluded. For some reason we don't put any value on living 33% longer and having to pay for it...

2. You misunderstood the women in workforce angle. Wealth allowed them to leave the houses, and yes, increasing labor participation rate was a nice driver for wealth creation. You are correct. But wait, I thought you were just claiming we haven't created any wealth and living standards have gone down hill???

3. Your survey asking 1010 participants if they work more or less is like asking people if they think gas prices are outrageous. Neither mean anything.

I have a boner for franklin. Most objective person I've ever listened to on any of these issues and very very knowledgeable to boot.

I've really backed off trying to spout off on economic stuff because I hate listening to ignorant people talk like they're know what they're saying...and I figure most other people do too.

Thanks dood. I actually enjoy the personal input the most and it means so much more than some demographic stat. I'd much rather read how someone feels or what their personal experience is.

It's the my side vs. your side silliness that nobody cares for. You know what they say about know-it-all teenagers.

He harbors an optimism for progress. It's a certain kind of optimism for capitalism FINALLY WORKING IT OUT. That's the dent in his "objective" armor because there isn't a lot of evidence to support that. (There will, of course, be some evidence that is manufactured).

No doubt, though... franklin is a good one.

No, not really (as I've told you before). It's more like I have faith in people being well intentioned and see plenty innovative minds wanting to change the world for the better. Capitalism, socialism... doesn't really make a difference in my appreciation for the better among us.

That and being chicken little is so dammed tacky.

 

[Stoked]

I have a boner for franklin. Most objective person I've ever listened to on any of these issues and very very knowledgeable to boot.

I've really backed off trying to spout off on economic stuff because I hate listening to ignorant people talk like they're know what they're saying...and I figure most other people do too.

That is why I stay out of economics. Uninformed.

 

[Revolution 9]

The rest of your post merely described a typical recession and had little reflection on long term trends.

Not long term? These are complete changes in the way the core of our country is run. Military going from millions of active duty to around a half million.
Cutting bases, jobs, servicemen, defense contracts across the globe in dramatic fashion.
Postal Service cutting hundreds of locations, and cutting services that we have been used to all our lives.
The music industry completely reinventing itself which has been going on for over two decades.
Clear Channel buying out radio stations all over the world, and slashing stations/jobs in a huge way. This has completely changed radio/music/concert business as well know it.
Bands are having to tour more just to keep up. Everyone is feeling it.

What we are seeing here is beyond a recession. It's a huge shift in the way our country is run. In the industries I know, and have been apart of
has been slowly over many many years downsizing. Less jobs. Less money. Weakened dollar.

For me, and my experience, which has been world wide. We are not the force we once were. That's all I'm saying. The jobs are fewer, and farther between in the places
i've been associated with. There are more people fighting over a smaller piece of pie.

 

[franklin]

I get what you're saying now so let me give a better shot at it.

Not long term? These are complete changes in the way the core of our country is run. Military going from millions of active duty to around a half million.
Cutting bases, jobs, servicemen, defense contracts across the globe in dramatic fashion.
Postal Service cutting hundreds of locations, and cutting services that we have been used to all our lives.

This one is most definitely a response to this recession and the sequester.

I don't see why downsizing the military would bother you though. WTS, I'm a proponent of countercyclical policy and cutting jobs during deflationary pressure is never a good idea. But the military destroys wealth in the good times and should be downsized so the burden to true wealth creation isn't so high.

The music industry completely reinventing itself which has been going on for over two decades.
Clear Channel buying out radio stations all over the world, and slashing stations/jobs in a huge way. This has completely changed radio/music/concert business as well know it.
Bands are having to tour more just to keep up. Everyone is feeling it.

1. That's called progress. Every industry experiences downsizing sooner or later.

2. I freaking HATE how Clear Channel has monopolized the industry with their advertising metric b.s. Feel free to make the govt. break them up so we can get more stations than living in the past butt rock and such.

What we are seeing here is beyond a recession. It's a huge shift in the way our country is run. In the industries I know, and have been apart of
has been slowly over many many years downsizing. Less jobs. Less money. Weakened dollar..

The dollar is supposed to weaken when we run huge trade deficits as a built in way to balance trade. But we have this bitch called China that doesn't want to play by the rules by spending those dollars back into the US economy, thus creating jobs. Ben Bernanke's massive printing joke is on them, batman.

For me, and my experience, which has been world wide. We are not the force we once were. That's all I'm saying. The jobs are fewer, and farther between in the places
i've been associated with. There are more people fighting over a smaller piece of pie.

I don't want to be the force we have been. I prefer that stay out of it until forced into it mentality preceding WWII (though nukes scare me). Besides, we can wipe anyone faster than ever. Faster than even 5 years ago.

You have to keep in mind that we went into a deep housing recession, so it's the low skilled labor that's suffering the most. The skilled labor has done okay, even though the economic drag of having millions of nail pounders out of work has everyone feeling the pain.

The problem IMO is a failure by individuals or society or whatever in retraining a large pool of unskilled workers into higher skilled jobs.


And that's no knock on construction workers in the least. Those people work their asses off and do damn good work, and deserve more for ripping their bodies apart laboring for the rest of us.

 

[Harambe]

The point i was making, is that these things are naturally occurring. Reaganomics had nothing to do with it, and shouldn't be given credit for it.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using JazzFanz mobile app

 

[♪alt13]

Come now, heyhey. You're a nice person and I'm not going to troll hammer you too.

1. You can't separate your objective measure of real DPI from the concept of improved living standards? BTW, we know that measure is not reflective of reality for several reasons like health care benefits being excluded. For some reason we don't put any value on living 33% longer and having to pay for it...

2. You misunderstood the women in workforce angle. Wealth allowed them to leave the houses, and yes, increasing labor participation rate was a nice driver for wealth creation. You are correct. But wait, I thought you were just claiming we haven't created any wealth and living standards have gone down hill???

3. Your survey asking 1010 participants if they work more or less is like asking people if they think gas prices are outrageous. Neither mean anything.

1. Sure I can. I agree that living standards have improved I differ with you(I think) on the why. I seems to me that most of the improvement in living standards has to do with efficieny and technological advancement not middle class wealth.

2. No I think we have created real wealth for sure. I would argue that part of current economic woes are due to the fact that much of that wealth is in the hands of people who have the luxury not to spend it. Less and less of it is in the hands of ordinary people who would spend a greater percentage of it.

3. I simply cannot agree with you on the leisure time thing. I grew up in a household with a one working parent and most my friends did too.(both of my parents are working now) I know few people who have the luxury to maintain a single breadwinner household these days. Just eight years ago I made less money and had an easier time affording the things my family needs. I would still like to see a link to the study your referencing by the way.

 

[Nate505]

I have a boner for franklin. Most objective person I've ever listened to on any of these issues and very very knowledgeable to boot.

I've really backed off trying to spout off on economic stuff because I hate listening to ignorant people talk like they're know what they're saying...and I figure most other people do too.

When it comes to economics there isn't much of a thing as knowledgeable, other than some basic theories/tenants.

 

[Nate505]

Following up on that thought and envy in human nature, there are a bunch of fun economic studies out similar to the following:

The moderator has a pool of $100 to give out (no strings attached). There are two participants who will split the money. Participant A is given $10, which means that Participant B gets $90. Participant A is then given the choice to either 1) keep what was given to him, OR 2) forfeit his $10 if it also means that Participant B is required to forfeit his $90.

Logic would dictate that everyone should go with option 1. Results are -- I won't say "surprising".

Variation on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimatum_game

Not too shocking. I'm sure people believe in "equity" (at least how they define it) if it doesn't mean a bad loss for them, like $10 is.

Now switch those numbers to $100,000 for the person if the other gets $900,000 and I'm guessing the vast majority keeps the money.