Thread: The Minimum Wage Fallacy

Originally Posted by Arbo

Talk about what bozos post here, and amazing things they come up with....

They say that those who refuse to learn from history are doomed to repeat it. I would suppose that propsects are dimmer still for those who don't even know what it was to begin with.

Originally Posted by Rhapsody1447

What? Inflation and interest rates fell dramatically by the end of Reagan's first term. What economic variables support that Reagan produced the "worst economic collapse since the Great Depression"?

Yes, our economy did improve. But it got worse before it improved (kind of like what has happened under Obama). If you took averages of all of the economic metrics during the 8 years that Reagan was prez, and compared that to Clinton or GW Bush, I am fairly confident that the best economy existed under Clinton.

Originally Posted by imagep

Yes, our economy did improve. But it got worse before it improved (kind of like what has happened under Obama). If you took averages of all of the economic metrics during the 8 years that Reagan was prez, and compared that to Clinton or GW Bush, I am fairly confident that the best economy existed under Clinton.

Of course the best economy existed under Clinton. No one denies that. How does that support anything about your previous claim?

Originally Posted by Rhapsody1447

What? Inflation and interest rates fell dramatically by the end of Reagan's first term. What economic variables support that Reagan produced the "worst economic collapse since the Great Depression"?

I am reminded of Abraham Lincoln's story of a man convicted of murdering his parents pleading for mercy on the grounds that he was an orphan.

Reagan inherited the tail end of of an oil supply crisis that was principally already worked through. But he was obsessed with his anti-Carter, "new morning in America" notions of wringing inflation out of the economy, so he slammed the monetary policy door and sent the economy reeling into its worst tailspin in 50 years. There was no such term as "Rust Belt" in popular parlance until Reagan came along. Nine consectuive months of unemployment above 10%. Even the Great Bush Recession produced only one.

Originally Posted by Cardinal Fang

I am reminded of Abraham Lincoln's story of a man convicted of murdering his parents pleading for mercy on the grounds that he was an orphan.

Reagan inherited the tail end of of an oil supply crisis that was principally already worked through. But he was obsessed with his anti-Carter, "new morning in America" notions of wringing inflation out of the economy, so he slammed the monetary policy door and sent the economy reeling into its worst tailspin in 50 years. There was no such term as "Rust Belt" in popular parlance until Reagan came along. Nine consectuive months of unemployment above 10%. Even the Great Bush Recession produced only one.

Paul Volcker, appointed by Carter, wrung inflation out of the economy not Reagan. You'd be hard pressed to find someone who doesn't praise the results of his policy.

Originally Posted by washunut

Your response in the first part is non responsive as I was not talking about paying off the debt, not even about a balanced budget but the need to get the deficit at what most economists would call a sustainable level.

Then the point isn't "Spending more than you take in through taxes" after all, is it.

Originally Posted by washunut

Next you talk to Greece as if it is the only country that is in trouble piling up so much debt. What about Spain, with France not behind. You should know that Japanese debt is mostly held by it's public so not at risk to market forces. BTW, how has keeping interest rates low for more than a decade worked out for the Japanese economy?

The Japanese economy -- the world's fourth largest national economy -- is in fact fine. They were among the first to emerge from the global version of the Great Bush Recession and have posted solid growth since. Their unemployment rates have been at levels the US last saw under Clinton. And you should know that the burdens imposed by debt are not diminished through the characteristics of the noteholder. It isn't as if the GOJ can simply tell its citizens that it isn't going to make its scheduled payments this or any other month. The terms of the debt are set by the notes themselves regardless of who holds them.

Originally Posted by Rhapsody1447

Paul Volcker, appointed by Carter, wrung inflation out of the economy not Reagan. You'd be hard pressed to find someone who doesn't praise the results of his policy.

Appointed by Carter, but the latter was a lame duck. Volcker was calling Reagan's tune, just as Greenspan adapted to Bush's policies and Bernanke to Obama's. Fed Chairmen do not operate to frustrate the policies of an incoming President.

As for hard-pressed, people who ridiculed Reagan's economics were a dime a dozen at the time and remain so today. His first-term stewardship in particular was a disaster.

Originally Posted by Rhapsody1447

Of course the best economy existed under Clinton. No one denies that. How does that support anything about your previous claim?

I honestly don't remember what lead into this. Someone brought up something about Reagan I believe I and was simply pointing out that no economic theory was proven (or disproven) under the Reagan administration.

Regardless, many ignorant people like to claim that our economy during the Reagan administration was fantastic. That simply isn't true, although it was fairly good towards then end of his administration before it got worse under Reagan II (Bush I). I am glad that you are not one of the ignorant.

Originally Posted by imagep

Regardless, many ignorant people like to claim that our economy during the Reagan administration was fantastic. That simply isn't true, although it was fairly good towards then end of his administration...

Well, you'd have to overlook the stock market crash of 1987, and it wasn't very hard for him to be better in the second term than he was in the first, but in general, the point is well enough taken. Those tax increases in 1982, 83, 84, 85, 86, and 87 were a help for the most part. Why Bush-41 was so resistant to more of them isn't clear.

Originally Posted by Cardinal Fang

Well, you'd have to overlook the stock market crash of 1987, and it wasn't very hard for him to be better in the second term than he was in the first, but in general, the point is well enough taken. Those tax increases in 1982, 83, 84, 85, 86, and 87 were a help for the most part. Why Bush-41 was so resistant to more of them isn't clear.

Thats true. I was in college during the stock market crash of '87, and I was taking a couple of economics classes at the time. We spend an entire day in one of those classes discussing the crash. Seems like the media dubbed it "Black Thursday" or something like that. That was a long time ago, my memory fades.