Opinion: Reagan the Keynesian

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/08/opinion/krugman-reagan-was-a-keynesian.html?_r=1&ref=opinion

Krugman is absolutely correct. Reagan would preside over massive increases in local and state government spending, while initiating his Republican form of Keynesianism on the federal level. His policies, along with Volcker's conquering of inflation, would provide necessary economic stabilization.

Percent change in government spending under Reagan would exceed that under the current Obama Administration. Consequently, economic stimulus should render agreed consensus, not partisan debauchery.

Edit: Moderators, please move this thread to current events. Thank you.

 

It seems like no matter how many times I say it, people discard it. Why hasn't the economy come back like it did under Reagan? Why did Bush have so little job growth in his 8 years? The lose of thousands of manufacturing plants and the millions of jobs that they employed here. That's why this economy is slow to come back. I can't see why that is so hard to figure out.

 

Efficient Keynesian stimulus is closer to Reagan's approach than the Obama administration approach. Military spending is one of few direct expenditures, leading to large multipliers. Actual tax cuts also create favorable stimulative effects.

 

Of course the collapse of the world's banking system hasn't helped out one bit. Europe is our biggest trading partner. As she goes, so do we. But put it all together and you'll know why the economy hasn't come back as we want it to.

 

We are fighting a war, we have military expenditures too, although not as big as Reagan's.

 

The technological side of military spending yields better stimulative effects than the conflict side. Reagan's commitment to first-rate military technological superiority is one of his most practical fiscal policies. The Obama Administration, on the other hand, takes a hesitant stance on such matters. Research and development may be one of the first cuts in military expenditures :

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/06/obama-defense-cuts-house-congress_n_1258237.html

 

Reagan was not an economist, his Wall St team were Keynesian. He and Bush did help push the nation to Peak Government, which is never reversed as it spirals into an unsustainable imperialistic machine.

So what should Obama pour money into this time? More for the bankers perhaps? More for failed green energy companies, if they even actually exist? More for the police state? More for GM to move to China? How many millions per job? Space alien invasion per Krugman? chuckle

 

Be that as it may, but it has nothing to do with why this economy hasn't come back like we want it to. Millions of jobs are gone to Free Trade and NAFTA. The banking crises that hit us and Europe has caused great harm. I don't think it would make much difference who was President. Although I will admit Obama hasn't helped matters with his policies.

 

Only an imbecile could write this sentence.

 

Cons are awfully quiet when presented with facts. Such as these set of facts, showing that their hero Reagan would be considered a "communist" "crazy leftist loon" if judged by the same standards they use in evaluating present day officials.

 

Reagan was shot. There was probably a reason for it.

SHOVEL-READY

 

uh....lol?

 

Green jobs might have worked out if China hadn't under cut them every chance they got. Trouble with Obama, after bailing out the banks and auto companies, instead of pouring billions into infrastructure where permanent jobs would have developed, he was more interested in saving government union jobs. Once that money was gone those government union went too. Listen to him now. He wants more money for those same union jobs.

 

Right, we know how much Liberals hate Reagan. Much like they hate Fox. Reagan was one of our better Presidents.

 

Reagan had to be taught not to mess with the money-sycophants. He had a job as an actor to inspire and bring together Americans, and succeeded. Divisive Obama can't even do that right.

 

Oh, you're one of those guys. Who do you think put Hinckley up to it exactly?

 

Government infrastructure development would not be necessary if the private sector would promote such projects. One policy of mine is to allow private equity to take advantage of their role in the economy as 'development banks' so to speak. Bain Capital and Co. must have liberalized business environments to work towards becoming better job creators than they already are. Growth and venture capital can serve a viable purpose in building new roads, bridges, airports, sewage systems, dams, smart grids, renewable energy systems, alternative energy systems, etc.

 

For all the destruction private equity creates, most institutions are net job creators.

 

While we're at it, let's make baseball a more liberalized environment so the Chicago Cubs can become a more successful franchise than they already are.

 

Let's make Chris Christie's kitchen a more liberalized environment so he can become even more physically fit than he already is.

 

Let's make music a more liberalized environment so Stevie Wonder will have even better vision than he already has.

 

False equivalency. As I state in the previous post, private equity is highly destructive in practice, yet most firms still are net job creators. For all of Bain Capital's business transgressions and destructive capitalism, under Mitt Romney, the firm would render 100,000 jobs.

 

Love it!! Reagan is Keynes' dream candidate. As Keynes said, you can simply bury money in the sand and have people dig it out. It's not entirely about the job being performed it's putting the money in circulation. Regardless of why Reagan spent the money he did, he almost tripled the national debt, the public sector went crazy with public debt, and he cut taxes. He literally lit the economy on fire with money. Amazing how we need wars to justify spending money while at the same time looking at the economic data that happens afterward and not realizing the correlation.

The country simply needs more money.

 

I hope someone has pointed out to you that Reagan WAS an ECONOMIST! He graduated from Eureka college with a Bachelors degree in Economics. Why Paul Krugman who has been a life long critic of Reagan and "Reganomics" or "Trickle down economics" suddenly has decided that Reagan was actually a fellow Keynesian is incomprehensible. Unless he wishes to compare the present economic condition with the Reagan Era in an attempt to compare Obama's failed Keynesian economic policies and Obama himself with Reagan. I'll take the word of Arthur Laffer over Krugman, who actually work on Reagan's economic team. The economic theory that they actually advocated is really known as Supply Side Economics.