What Is So Good About Reagan?

[steelers07]

charming, charismatic .. great head of hair .. literally a movie star .. that's why they loved him .. much like obama

 

[Uchi Mata]

People like him because he's a city boy that like to dress up and pretend he was a cowboy.

But he's so avuncular and photogenic!

 

[Uchi Mata]

charming, charismatic .. great head of hair .. that's why they loved him .. much like obama

That's true enough.

 

[Jack V Savage]

charming, charismatic .. great head of hair .. that's why they loved him .. much like obama

I think Obama and Clinton are popular because they have objectively had a lot of major successes. Reagan was kind of just there. But, like I said, all Republican presidents since Eisenhower have been embarrassments in one way or another, other than Reagan.

 

[Uchi Mata]

I think Obama and Clinton are popular because they have objectively had a lot of major successes. Reagan was kind of just there. But, like I said, all Republican presidents since Eisenhower have been embarrassments in one way or another, other than Reagan.

Obama's record is pretty mixed. And I voted for him twice.

Clinton was popular for the same reason Reagan was: the nation was awesome when he was president. How much of that was him is hard to say, but I think that's a big part of it.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Obama's record is pretty mixed. And I voted for him twice.

Clinton was popular for the same reason Reagan was: the nation was awesome when he was president. How much of that was him is hard to say, but I think that's a big part of it.

The nation wasn't really awesome when Reagan was president. For example, unemployment didn't get below 8% until the end of his first term or below 6% until the end of his second term. Lots of negative metrics, actually. But he was president as we fully recovered. That's important to how someone is remembered. There is a sense in which Obama and Reagan are similar, though of course Obama's actual accomplishments have been far greater.

 

[Cold Front]

Reagan's reputation rests on two indisputable accomplishments. He conquered stagflation, and he defeated the Soviet Union. Both were the defining problems of the era in which Reagan came to power.

Stagflation began soon after spending on LBJ's Great Society and the Vietnam War were twisted full throttle.

Before LBJ, low unemployment and low inflation were mutual features of the U.S. economy. In 1963, the last year Kennedy was president, inflation was 1.24 percent and unemployment 5.7 percent. When Nixon won the presidential election in 1968, inflation was at 4.27 percent.

And Nixon made inflation an even worse problem. He deliberately fueled an inflationary expansion of the U.S. economy in 1972 to win re-election. By the time Nixon was forced out of office two years later, inflation stood at 11.03 percent.

Ford tried to "Whip Inflation Now," but was only moderately successful during his short tenure.

Carter made the problem worse, although by the end of his presidency he began to realize the scope of the problem and allowed Volcker to take charge of the Fed. (Some claim Carter had no clue what Volcker was about to do.)

But where LBJ, Nixon, Ford and Carter all failed, Ronald Reagan would succeed. And he did it by giving Volcker the room to operate. To do that, Reagan gave up some short-term popularity - in 1982, Reagan's poll numbers were at Carteresque levels - to win a permanent victory over stagflation.

When Reagan was elected president in November 1980, inflation that month was 12.65 percent. Eight years later, when Reagan's vice president, GHWB, was elected president, inflation was 4.25 percent. And largely forgotten.

*****

Reagan was similarly successful dealing with the Soviet Union. When he took office, even many Republicans thought the Soviet Union would be a permanent feature of the world's geopolitical system. As Francis Fukuyama pointed out, scholars were still debating in the md-80s what the Soviet economy would look like in 2020. No one was predicting the USSR's demise any time soon.

No one except Reagan.

And it happened exactly the way Reagan said it would happen. He said the Soviets would be unable to keep up with American military spending. He was willing to finance some deficits in the short term if it meant a peace dividend at the end.

And that's exactly what happened. By the end of the Reagan's tenure, he could see the end of the Cold War - to the point that some conservative began to worry that he was going soft. Four years later, the nearly fifty-year-old Cold War was over.

*****

Reagan made some serious mistakes. Most notably Iran/Contra. But compared to his successes, they were small potatoes. He took on the biggest problems of his day and won major battles. He is now considered among the greatest presidents of the twentieth century by scholars who are not inclined to like Reagan's political ideology.

 

[Uchi Mata]

Reagan's reputation rests on two indisputable accomplishments. He conquered stagflation, and he defeated the Soviet Union. Both were the defining problems of the era in which Reagan came to power.

Stagflation began soon after spending on LBJ's Great Society and the Vietnam War were twisted full throttle.

Before LBJ, low unemployment and low inflation were mutual features of the U.S. economy. In 1963, the last year Kennedy was president, inflation was 1.24 percent and unemployment 5.7 percent. When Nixon won the presidential election in 1968, inflation was at 4.27 percent.

And Nixon made inflation an even worse problem. He deliberately fueled an inflationary expansion of the U.S. economy in 1972 to win re-election. By the time Nixon was forced out of office two years later, inflation stood at 11.03 percent.

Ford tried to "Whip Inflation Now," but was only moderately successful during his short tenure.

Carter made the problem worse, although by the end of his presidency he began to realize the scope of the problem and allowed Volcker to take charge of the Fed. (Some claim Carter had no clue what Volcker was about to do.)

But where LBJ, Nixon, Ford and Carter all failed, Ronald Reagan would succeed. And he did it by giving Volcker the room to operate. To do that, Reagan gave up some short-term popularity - in 1982, Reagan's poll numbers were at Carteresque levels - to win a permanent victory over stagflation.

When Reagan was elected president in November 1980, inflation that month was 12.65 percent. Eight years later, when Reagan's vice president, GHWB, was elected president, inflation was 4.25 percent. And largely forgotten.

*****

Reagan was similarly successful dealing with the Soviet Union. When he took office, even many Republicans thought the Soviet Union would be a permanent feature of the world's geopolitical system. As Francis Fukuyama pointed out, scholars were still debating in the md-80s what the Soviet economy would look like in 2020. No one was predicting the USSR's demise any time soon.

No one except Reagan.

And it happened exactly the way Reagan said it would happen. He said the Soviets would be unable to keep up with American military spending. He was willing to finance some deficits in the short term if it meant a peace dividend at the end.

And that's exactly what happened. By the end of the Reagan's tenure, he could see the end of the Cold War - to the point that some conservative began to worry that he was going soft. Four years later, the nearly fifty-year-old Cold War was over.

*****

Reagan made some serious mistakes. Most notably Iran/Contra. But compared to his successes, they were small potatoes. He took on the biggest problems of his day and won major battles. He is now considered among the greatest presidents of the twentieth century by scholars who are not inclined to like Reagan's political ideology.

You do realize that Ronald Reagan had no control over what Volcker did at the Fed, right? But he did take a very effective line against the USSR, hard to argue with that.

 

[Cold Front]

The nation wasn't really awesome when Reagan was president. For example, unemployment didn't get below 8% until the end of his first term or below 6% until the end of his second term. Lots of negative metrics, actually. But he was president as we fully recovered. That's important to how someone is remembered. There is a sense in which Obama and Reagan are similar, though of course Obama's actual accomplishments have been far greater.

Jack leaves out an important consideration. To squeeze inflation out of the economic system, unemployment was deliberately raised in the early 80s by the Fed tightening the money supply.

But once inflation was wrung out of the system, the unemployment rate dropped like a rock. In November 1982, the unemployment rate was 10.8 percent. Just six years later, when Reagan's vice president was elected president, the unemployment rate was 5.3 percent. That's half of what it had been six years earlier.

If Obama had been as successful in his first six years, as Reagan was in his last six years, we'd have an unemployment rate under four percent right now.

Jack should quit fooling himself. Reagan was still popular in his second term, despite Iran/Contra, and the reason he was popular was because he was widely seen as having defeated the boogieman of stagflation.

 

[Cold Front]

You do realize that Ronald Reagan had no control over what Volcker did at the Fed, right?

Oh yeah?

You do realize that presidents from LBJ to Richard Nixon have been squeezing the Fed's balls to loosen the money supply so they can win elections, don't you?

Why do you think inflation lasted as long as it did? It was a perpetual problem for the U.S economy from the late sixties to the early eighties.

Reagan gave Volcker the political space to operate. Without that space - with, say, Nixon as president - Volcker would have been squeezed to loosen up on the controls.

 

[Cold Front]

Some things for Uchi Mata to consider before he again claims that Reagan had nothing to do with Volcker's policies.

How Richard Nixon Pressured Arthur Burns: Evidence from the Nixon Tapes

http://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/jep.20.4.177

The Education of Ben Bernanke

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/20/m...=2&oref=slogin&ref=magazine&pagewanted=print&

Martin ran into even tougher pressure from Lyndon B. Johnson, who tried to browbeat him into easing rates. One version of what occurred, according to Richard Fisher, the current head of the Dallas Fed, who has studied the history, is that

 

[Kevin Rudd]

Jack leaves out an important consideration. To squeeze inflation out of the economic system, unemployment was deliberately raised in the early 80s by the Fed tightening the money supply.

But once inflation was wrung out of the system, the unemployment rate dropped like a rock. In November 1982, the unemployment rate was 10.8 percent. Just six years later, when Reagan's vice president was elected president, the unemployment rate was 5.3 percent. That's half of what it had been six years earlier.

If Obama had been as successful in his first six years, as Reagan was in his last six years, we'd have an unemployment rate under four percent right now.

Jack should quit fooling himself. Reagan was still popular in his second term, despite Iran/Contra, and the reason he was popular was because he was widely seen as having defeated the boogieman of stagflation.

LOL @ this post. How and more importantly why would a government deliberately raise unemployment?

Monetary policy is used to control inflation, not to deliberately increase unemployment.

Monetary policy is also controlled by an independent authority which has nothing to do with the government.

Conclusion = Reagan didn't do what you said he did.

 

[Jack V Savage]

LOL @ this post. How and more importantly why would a government deliberately raise unemployment?

Monetary policy is used to control inflation, not to deliberately increase unemployment.

Monetary policy is also controlled by an independent authority which has nothing to do with the government.

Conclusion = Reagan didn't do what you said he did.

The post is dumb for a lot of reasons, but monetary tightening probably did contribute both to lower inflation and higher unemployment in the short run. And monetary loosening contributed to unemployment falling (as did high deficits and the end of the oil shortage, which had constrained supply). I gather, too, that he was suggesting that tight money caused unemployment to fall after initially driving it up, but obviously that isn't true. It was the loosening afterward that caused it to fall. There are other viable points of view here, but that particular aspect of his post wasn't bad.

 

[Kevin Rudd]

The post is dumb for a lot of reasons, but monetary tightening probably did contribute both to lower inflation and higher unemployment in the short run. And monetary loosening contributed to unemployment falling (as did high deficits and the end of the oil shortage, which had constrained supply). I gather, too, that he was suggesting that tight money caused unemployment to fall after initially driving it up, but obviously that isn't true. It was the loosening afterward that caused it to fall. There are other viable points of view here, but that particular aspect of his post wasn't bad.

The post is dumb because it implies the government has anything to do with monetary policy.

And Federal banks certainly don't tighten it to deliberately increase unemployment so again his post is stupid. Sure that may be a consequence, but realistically they are tightening it to try and get control of inflation.

 

[Rhood]

Does Alan Greenspan ring a bell?
Anyone?

 

[Cold Front]

LOL @ this post. How and more importantly why would a government deliberately raise unemployment?

Monetary policy is used to control inflation, not to deliberately increase unemployment.

The point is that everyone involved - not just the Fed, but the Reagan White House and members of both parties - knew exactly what raising interest rates would do to employment. So it took political will and foresight to accomplish it.

That was something notably lacking in the Oval Office from the late sixties until Reagan arrived.

Monetary policy is also controlled by an independent authority which has nothing to do with the government.

Conclusion = Reagan didn't do what you said he did.

I just gave you two examples of how the Fed was pressured to raise rates by sitting presidents.

Smarten up. I can't school you all day for free. Someone's got to help pick up the tab for your education. Might as well be you.

 

[LucasWithLidOff]

The post is dumb because it implies the government has anything to do with monetary policy.

Stopped reading here and started laughing out loud.

 

[PainIsLIfe]

The nation wasn't really awesome when Reagan was president. For example, unemployment didn't get below 8% until the end of his first term or below 6% until the end of his second term. Lots of negative metrics, actually. But he was president as we fully recovered. That's important to how someone is remembered. There is a sense in which Obama and Reagan are similar, though of course Obama's actual accomplishments have been far greater.

But it kicked ass compared to Nixon/Ford and Carter.

 

[Jack V Savage]

The post is dumb because it implies the government has anything to do with monetary policy.

And Federal banks certainly don't tighten it to deliberately increase unemployment so again his post is stupid. Sure that may be a consequence, but realistically they are tightening it to try and get control of inflation.

Maybe. Rising unemployment was a foreseeable and foreseen consequence of the tightening. So it's not a big stretch to say that unemployment was deliberately increased, but yeah, it's not quite right either. And, yeah, the gov't's connection to monetary policy is pretty weak (and, of course, Carter appointed Volker).

 

[Jack V Savage]

But it kicked ass compared to Nixon/Ford and Clinton.

Not really, no. The country was in much, much better shape in the 1990s than it was in the 1980s. And the 1970s were a little better than the 1980s.