doublegunshop.com - home Forums Ken Burn's Teddy R.

Was Reagan a Keynesian? The numbers indicate so. From Wikipedia:

"Economist Paul Krugman argued the economic expansion during the Reagan administration was primarily the result of the business cycle and the monetary policy by Paul Volcker. Krugman argues that there was nothing unusual about the economy under Reagan because unemployment was reducing from a high peak and that it is consistent with Keynesian economics for the economy to grow as employment increases if inflation remains low.

The CBO Historical Tables indicate that federal spending during Reagan's two terms (FY 1981�88) averaged 22.4% GDP, well above the 20.6% GDP average from 1971 to 2009. In addition, the public debt rose from 26.1% GDP in 1980 to 41.0% GDP by 1988. In dollar terms, the public debt rose from $712 billion in 1980 to $2,052 billion in 1988, a three-fold increase. Krugman argued in June 2012 that Reagan's policies were consistent with Keynesian stimulus theories, pointing to the significant increase in per capita spending under Reagan."

Are you referring to the reductions of deductability? Can you give an example of one of the changes that caused increased taxes? Did the incomes of the people you refer to increase as well? Are you denying that the changes Reagan made decreased the overall burden on the private sector? Are you saying that his actions did not create the massive economic growth and a near doubling of the amount of revenue collected as taxes? I still do not see your point. Are you trying somehow to say that high taxes are good for an economy?

Bad steer, Ken. He's saying no such thing.

Ahh, the revisionist Volcker argument. Comrade King, I'm sure Arthur Laffer would be interested to know that he is really a Keynesian, rather than an Austrian economist. The statist religious sociopath Krugman, who successfully portrays himself as an economist, has said this many times. Reagan had Volcker restrict the money supply, it was the only was to kill the inflation of the Carter years. This created a brief recession, and then due to the other private sector stimulative actions, the massive growth of a real recovery. Contrast this with the non-existent "Obama" recovery.

You're brought in another red herring, Ken. Leave Krugman out of it and look at the numbers. Pure Keynes.

More like Austrian. I take it that you're attributing the economic expansion of the Reagan years on the delayed effects of Carter economic policies? True, there was increased spending during the Reagan years on the military. I dispute utterly that the expansion was due to Keynesian policies. It was the increased availability of capital in the private sector.

REAGAN�S ECONOMIC SUCCESS
Reagan conservative policies amounted to the most successful economic experiment in world history:
20 million new jobs were created.
Unemployment fell to 5.3% by 1989.
The top income tax rate was cut from 70% to 28%.
The Reagan Recovery took off once the tax rate cuts were fully phased in.
Total federal spending declined to 21.2% of GDP in 1989 (even with the Reagan defense buildup, which won the Cold War.)
Eliminated price controls on oil and natural gas. Production soared, and aided by a strong dollar the price of oil declined by more than 50%.
Real per-capita disposable income increased by 18% from 1982 to 1989 (meaning the American standard of living increased by almost 20% in just 7 years.)
The poverty rate declined every year from 1984 to 1989, dropping by one-sixth from its peak.
The stock market more than tripled in value from 1980 to 1990 (a larger increase than in any previous decade.)
The Reagan recovery started in official records in November 1982, and lasted 92 months without a recession until July 1990 (when the tax increases of the 1990 budget deal killed it.)
During this 7-year recovery, the economy grew by almost one-third (equivalent of adding the entire economy of West Germany to the U.S. economy.)
In 1984 alone real economic growth boomed by 6.8%, the highest in 50 years.
The inflation from 1980 (in the Carter era) was reduced from 13.5% to 3.2% by 1983.
(The contractionary, tight-money policies needed to kill this inflation inexorably created the steep recession of 1981 to 1982, which is why Reagan did not suffer politically catastrophic blame for that recession.)
The Reagan Recovery kicked off a historic 25-year economic boom (with short recessions in 1990 and 2001.)
The period from 1982 to 2007 is the greatest period of wealth creation in the history of the planet. In 1980, the net worth�assets minus liabilities�of all U.S. households and business was $25 trillion in today�s dollars. By 2007, net worth was just shy of $57 trillion. Adjusting for inflation, more wealth was created in America in the 25-year boom than in the previous two hundred years.
Economic growth averaged 7.1% over the first 7 quarters.

REAGANOMICS, THE ECONOMICS OF SUCCESS
The economic policy pursued by Ronald Reagan is often called �Reaganomics� or �supply-side� economics. Fortunately, this policy meant a radical cut of Keynesianism where consumption was stimulated with massive government spending. Keynes put the emphasis of economic policy on the demand-side (consumption). Reagan, by contrast, put the emphasis on the supply-side (production). Keynes believed that demand would create supply, but Reaganomics started from the opposite idea, namely that supply would create demand. In this way of thinking, the supply side of the economy (economic activity, production etc�) had to be stimulated in order to create wealth. The best way to do this was to cut the marginal tax rates on personal income. Such a tax cut would create a strong incentive to increase economic activity and would have spectacular effects on growth, investment, risk-taking and saving.

THE FUNDAMENTAL FLAW IN KEYNESIAN LOGIC
A lot of recent studies indicate that an increase in public spending (as advocated by Keynes) does not stimulate the economy. The main reason is that money that could otherwise be spent efficiently by the private sector, is instead siphoned off for pork-barreling public works, very often with little or no return. Money to pay for deficit spending must come from somewhere else and, as usual, it is the taxpayer who must pay. The fundamental flaw in Keynesian logic is that it hardly makes sense to tax money away from productive people, thereby reducing their rewards, so as to spend it on unproductive goals. Some call it robbing Peter to pay Paul. The United Kingdom, home of Keynesianism, experimented with this medicine for years - only to get sicker and sicker, until Margaret Thatcher stopped it. A more recent example is Japan. This country has provided one of history�s best demonstrations that the Keynesian demand stimulus is a deeply flawed economic philosophy. Despite huge government outlays, the Japanese economy is still wallowing in the slump that has afflicted it for more than ten years. This point of view is confirmed by a recent study (based on multiple regression analysis) from the Flemish independent think tank WorkForAll. According to their analysis of the relationship between economic growth and the size of governments in 16 European countries, the two main causes leading to poor growth performance are excessive government spending and a demotivating tax structure, which put a heavy burden on work, income and profit.

STAGFLATION BECAME RECESSION, EXPANSION FOLLOWED
Four young economists (Paul Craig Roberts, Robert Mundell, Norman Ture and Steve Entin) and a journalist (Jude Wanniski) convinced Reagan to completely reverse the economic policy of that time. Their point of view was that high marginal tax rates were a disincentive to produce, to take risk, to invest and to save. In their opinion this �economy of discouragement� had to be transformed into an �economy of encouragement�. The reasoning was as follows: people are producing because it pays to do so. Consumption alone will not result in increased production when the incentives to do so are not there. When tax rates are raised, people reduce their participation in taxed activities, such as working, risk taking, saving and investing. When tax rates fall, people increase their participation. Fortunately, Reagan understood this logic immediately. Few people know that Reagan had a major in economics, which he obtained at the Eureka College (Illinois) in 1932. The economic theory he was taught was untouched by Keynesian thinking and, as a consequence, very appropriate to the problems of the eighties. Reagan followed the advice and took action. The top marginal tax rate of 70% was lowered in two phases: to 50% with the �ERTA� (Economic Recovery Tax Act of October 1, 1981) and in a later phase to 28% (The Tax Act of 1986). These tax cuts created 18 million new jobs in 8 years, lowered inflation to 4.3% and cut unemployment from 9.7% to 5.4%. One of the longest and strongest economic expansions since World War II had begun, with an average annual growth rate of 3.5%. But the first two years (1981 and 1982) were lost for Reagan. Fed chairman Paul Volcker fought inflation with a tight monetary policy and high interest rates. The Reagan administration urged Volcker to decrease monetary growth by a maximum of 50%, in order not to kill the tax cut program. But as the Federal Reserve is totally independent, Volcker cut money growth by 75% in 1981. The recession became even worse, and unemployment rose further. But after inflation had been defeated, money growth resumed and the Reagan expansion took shape.

DID THE POOR GET POORER AND THE RICH RICHER?
�Reagan gave money away to the rich, at the expense of the poor�, many critics claim. The table below proves the contrary. At the end of the Reagan presidency, the rich paid comparatively more taxes than before. As for the poor, their share in total tax revenues decreased. There was a simple reason for this: the lower tax rates were an important incentive for the rich to expand their economic activity.The tax base had become broader, and the lower rate on the broader tax base resulted in higher tax revenues.

Percentage of paid income tax
Income Percentage of taxes paid

1984 1986 1987
$0 - $15,000 5.8% 4.0% 2.8%
$15,000 - $30,000 21.1% 16.8% 14.7%
$30,000 - $50,000 29.0% 25.9% 23.0%
$50,000 - $100,000 22.0% 24.3% 27.7%
$100,000 - $200,000 8.6% 10.2% 11.9%
+ $200,000 13.4% 18.9% 19.8%

100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Source: IRS
In the table below we can see that the poor benefited most from the economic growth. Not only did they pay less taxes, but the 20% poorest people enjoyed an increase in income of 77 % in 9 years.

Incomes and Social Mobility
(1991 dollars)
Average Family Income of 1977 Quintile Members in
1977 Quintile 1977 1986 % Change
Bottom 20% $15,853 $27,998 77%
Second 20% $31,349 $43,041 37%
Third 20% $43,297 $51,796 20%
Fourth 20% $57,486 $63,314 10%
Top 20% $92,531 $97,140 5%
All $48,101 $56,658 18%
Source: Urban Institute

HAMBURGER JOBS?
Critics claim that the growth in employment was realized mainly through the creation of crappy �hamburger jobs�. De Wit: "This is not correct. Universities could not follow to deliver enough high qualified graduates. As you can see in the following table, job growth was mainly in managerial functions. Low paid jobs in services increased very little and in farming, employment decreased".

Job Creation in the Eighties
Jobs Created, Jan. 1982 � Dec. 1989
Job Category Number (Mils.) Percentage Increase 1989 Median Earnings
Managerial/Professional 7.600 33.10% $32,873
Production 2.194 19.00% $25,831
Technical 6.630 21.80% $20,905
Operators 1.374 8.20% $19,886
Services 2.210 16.80% $14,858
Farming -0.116 -3.70% $13,539
Total 19.892 20.30% $23,333
Source: Bureau of Labour Statistics (employment), Census Bureau (earnings)