Talk:Reaganomics/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

Tax revenue section

My qualm is with the following claim: "According to a United States Department of the Treasury economic study,[43] the major tax bills enacted under Reagan, in the short term, increased total tax revenue and reduced the tax burden on the economy (~-1% of GDP)." The claim that Reagan's tax cuts lead to increased revenue (which is not what the Treasury Department's study actually said, btw) is pretty dubious, as tax revenue had increased more as a percent of GDP the previous 4 decades (it went up 502.4% during the 40's, 134.5% during the 50's, 108.5% during the 60's, and 168.2% during the 70's). Can we just get rid of that sentence?

ObiBinks (talk) 21:56, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, without any objections, then, I'm going to get rid of that sentence. If you have a problem with it, I'd be happy to discuss it here.
ObiBinks (talk) 15:54, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

More Charts

Shows income tax rate, revenue and job creation http://libertyworks.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/reagan-tax-cut-rev-and-jobs.gif

Shows income tax rate and tax revenue rate under Reagan http://www.heritage.org/static/reportimages/CA3A2E8DA1F365A2820416F00109FC10.gif?w=365&h=233 &as=1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dunnbrian9 (talk • contribs) 21:47, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Taxation of Social Security Benefits were conceived after the election of Ronald Reagan

I am new to Wikipedia and don't have time to read about protocol and procedure. Forgive my Wikepedia ignorance.

I would question that that the taxation of Social Security Income began in 1977. The citation that is provided is Justfacts.com. This website says it's resource on public policy for "free thinkers." This term may signify a broad range of perspectives and does not preclude bias.

The idea of taxation of SS benefits was initiated by the Greenspan Commission which was appointed after Reagan was elected and therefor not during the Carter administration. The information below concerning the taxation of Social Security benefits is dircty from the Social Security website and claims the following:

"The taxation of Social Security began in 1984 following passage of a set of Amendments in 1983, which were signed into law by President Reagan in April 1983. These amendments passed the Congress in 1983 on an overwhelmingly bi-partisan vote.

The basic rule put in place was that up to 50% of Social Security benefits could be added to taxable income, if the taxpayer's total income exceeded certain thresholds.

The taxation of benefits was a proposal which came from the Greenspan Commission appointed by President Reagan and chaired by Alan Greenspan (who went on to later become the Chairman of the Federal Reserve).

The full text of the Greenspan Commission report is available on our website.

President's Reagan's signing statement for the 1983 Amendments can also be found on our website.

A detailed explanation of the provisions of the 1983 law is also available on the website."

http://www.ssa.gov/history/InternetMyths2.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Extremoz (talk • contribs) 23:49, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Review Section on Keynesian Interpretation

I feel this section is largely biased and unscholarly.

"In this view, Reaganomics was not a refutation but rather a confirmation of Keynesian economics: the expansion was primarily a recovery from the 1982 recession, which was created by the textbook Keynesian monetary policy of Volcker,[citation needed] not the tax policy of Reagan. At the start of the Reagan administration, inflation was high. The textbook Keynesian prescription for high inflation is high interest rates (contractionary monetary policy),[citation needed] designed to create a sustained period of high unemployment to break the price/wage spiral. Volcker did precisely this, creating the 1982 recession, then lowered interest rates once inflation was under control, resulting in economic growth and the unemployment rate coming down gradually."

This entire paragraph seems to either need to be largely expanded on or removed as it seems to be nothing but an unsourced criticism of Reaganomics.

"Krugman argues that there is nothing unusual about the economy under Reagan – because unemployment was reducing from a high peak, it is entirely consistent with Keynesian economics for the economy to grow as employment increases while inflation remains low – the expansion was a cyclical recovery, but did not feature an increase in the structural rate of growth as its supply-side proponents argued."

I feel this paragraph has potential but should require statistics or at the least citation.

The final paragraph is well done, though the last sentence should be elaborated upon or sourced in some way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaspuhler (talk • contribs) 01:04, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Paul Krugman citations

Mlebauer (talk) 15:39, 19 August 2011 (UTC) Why is Krugman cited so prominently in an article about Reaganomics? As an ardent political opponent, not just in the sphere of economics, that prominence seems to violate the neutral point of view. If Krugman must be mentioned, his views should be qualified as from Reagan's most ardent critic among economists. It would be more balanced to use a Keynesian economist with less strident opposition to Reagan's politics to provide a counterpoint.

On that note, we should remove the CATO institute "study". It is a well known fact that they are not a scholarly source of work, they are paid to find whatever conclusions the donors instruct them to find. 99.169.66.28 (talk) 07:58, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Re: Krugman - He's actually a centrist. The fact that he is criticizing Reaganomics should be interpreted as reflecting that our growth rate dropped by 1/3 since 1980 and our national debt went from 30% of GDP when he was elected to over 60% of GDP by the time Clinton came to power. It shouldn't be interpreted as meaning he is some massive liberal who is lying. A real liberal would claim that starting the study of economics by assuming equilibrium is like starting the study of football by assuming no passing. A real liberal could tell you that the only first world countries to become first world since the classical consensus arrived in the middle 1800s have been countries like South Korea and Japan that completely ignored the classical consensus (and basically did the opposite). Paul Krugman has claimed none of this and is basically a monetarist who believes that Government spending is a necessary counter-cyclical tool for fighting recessions. Really mainstream, moderate stuff.70.113.72.73 (talk) 03:27, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Wow

Wow is all I can say. Such a respectible man and the pathetic liberal wikipedia tries to make him look bad in the wiki with assinine statements like "During Reagan's presidency the annual deficits averaged 4.2% of GDP[3] after inheriting an annual deficit of 2.7% of GDP in 1980 under president Carter.[3] The rate of growth in federal spending fell from 4% under Jimmy Carter to 2.5% under Ronald Reagan.[2]" Everyone knows that both of those factors were resultant form the democratic run congress, not from policies promoted by Reagan. It is also sad to see that no one put the fact that when he cut taxes by 20% it double the federal budget within a year. Let's stop being biased and get our facts straight, and if we are going to put useless stones of informaiton in the lead, at least tell the whole truth and attribute it to the designer and not some shtick about how Reagan's policies didn't actually work when they clearly did.

and all I can say is I am appalled by your commands. Reagan as a president and his economics were by far the most disastrous of the last century. If you are genuinely interested in the issues, get yourself educated first instead of embarrassing yourself with such baseless opinions. --386-DX (talk) 14:19, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
While there may be merit to the 20% figure you mentioned, a more important figure by contrast is how Reagan's tax cuts facilitated in tripling the federal debt of the US during his term. Adjusted for inflation, our federal debt went from under a trillion (where it had been in real dollars for about nearly 200 years) to roughly three trillion dollars. This makes your point rather moot, for the purposes of summarizing the financial consequences of Reaganomics for the readers of this entry. Therewillbefact (talk) 00:27, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
He was respectable as a person, but most of that 'fantastic' leadership was conducted by a... professional actor, who was often the hero of whatever flick he was in. His economic and foreign policies were disasters. Reaganomics were the real catalyst of the destruction of the American middle class. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.231.117.36 (talk) 15:09, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
I don't know what fantasy world you got your information from, but the statistics clearly showed he had a massive positive effect on the economy and I wouldn't call collapsing the Soviet Union a foreign policy disaster. The middle class prospered under Reagan. If you would like to deny reality that is fine, but I prefer the article stick to the facts (most of which are against you). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.184.220.115 (talk) 21:16, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
While I agree with your comments, I think it would be more productive to substantiate your claims with verifiable data if you want to put Reaganomics into appropriate perspective. Thanks, Therewillbefact (talk) 22:10, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Deregulation

Instead of the words regulation and deregulation, can we actually get examples of the policies that ronald reagan implemented that actually were deregulation, instead of just saying that he did deregulate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.148.24.123 (talk) 22:21, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I second the need to clarify. The analysis chapter has three authors claiming Reagan did not significantly increase deregulation and only one author who disagrees. What is more, that author does not have any arguments besides the number of pages in the Federal Register which declined during Reagan's presidency. I can't believe someone cited the venerable Friedman with this pseudo argument. --Juda loeb (talk) 12:50, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Mentioning voodoo economics in the lead

There was no mention of "voodoo economics" as another commonly-used pejorative term for Reaganomics. I've gone ahead and revised the lead with this edit. Therewillbefact (talk) 01:46, 13 February 2012 (UTC) Voodoo economics still leads here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.167.226.175 (talk) 07:18, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Employment growth by top tax rate image

I've started a centralised discussion here regarding File:Employment growth by top tax rate.jpg, which is used in this article. Gabbe (talk) 09:59, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

EIU Quality-of-Life Index

Took out the text: In 1988, the United States ranked first in the world in the Economist Intelligence Unit "quality of life index" and third in the Economic Freedom of the World Index.[1] The blogger in this source is misinformed; the EUI did not publish a Quality-of-Life index until 2005. See http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2013/01/daily-chart. Puts the source under WP:QS, and not acceptable in this article. Gnassar (talk) 16:57, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

  1. ^ Star Parker (December 17, 2012).Tea Partiers must hang tough.Urbancure.com

usgovernmentspending.com as a reference

This website appears to be entirely self-published, and is not RS by definition. A blog or similar site may have info that is correct and reliable (e.g., my personal website says "the sun is the center of our solar system and is very hot", but no one ever cites it.) We are required by WP:SOURCES to look at the publisher of the material. usgovenmentspending.com is no more reliable than I am. Other sources (from which USGspend.com got its data from) should be used. – S. Rich (talk) 17:40, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

I disagree with your assessment of the website and do not view it as just some blog. The site is quite rigorous in its usage of data and it clearly states where the data is coming from. The site is also clearly more rigorous than most news websites which often just throw facts around without giving clear links to the original data. I think we are going to disagree on this topic and should get a second opinion or take the issue to the reliable notice board. Guest2625 (talk) 02:29, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
I did post at WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#usgovernmentspending.com. Getting only one response in 46 hours, I decided to do removals of the source (as I did here) with the object of raising interest (such as yours). As for the website, I think the sources that the "blogger" uses are better and they are the ones that should be used. He simply is not a publisher and is not any more rigorous than I am. So, let's see what opinions and assessments come in from other editors. (Thanks.) – S. Rich (talk) 03:12, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
I just now removed usgovernmentspending.com as a reference and tagged the sentence as cn. The website is SPS and not WP:RS. Here is the archive page on the RSN mentioned above: [1]. Chantrill's website is SPS. He has self-published a book, but for him to be used as an expert his book must be published by a third-party publisher. According to WorldCat, his books are not stocked by any library. – S. Rich (talk) 18:34, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

some protest somewhere

I removed the following addition as irrelevant trivia:

In 1981 and 1982, the Community for Creative Non-Violence set up tent cities dubbed "Reaganville" (an allusion to the "Hoovervilles" of the Great Depression) in Lafayette Park near the White House to protest the growing problem.

First, it is unsourced. Second, barring a source that says otherwise, i see no indication that this tent city protest is in any way an important aspect of Reganomics. So per wp:BRD, I am reverting the bold additon and we can discuss if you like. Bonewah (talk) 13:10, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Did Reagan simplify tax codes?

Millions of words in the US tax code and federal tax regulations, 1955-2005 according to The Tax Foundation (taxfoundation.org). [1=income tax code; 2=other tax code; 3=income tax regulations; 4=other tax regulations; solid line= total]

As of 2017-01-11, the section on "Historical context" includes the claim that, "Reagan enacted lower marginal tax rates as well as simplified income tax codes". No citation is given, and it seems to contradict the accompanying plot of the numbers of words in federal tax code and regulation: If he actually simplified the tax code, why did the number of words in tax code and regulations INCREASE FASTER between 1975 and 1995 than before or since? DavidMCEddy (talk) 23:21, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, the Tax Reform Act of 1986 is frequently cited as the last successful attempt to simplify the tax code. I added two references in the "Policies" section. CatPath (talk) 00:40, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
@DavidMCEddy, regarding your recent addition [2], even the Tax Foundation says that the 1986 Act simplified the tax code. See [3] and [4]. The following addition to the article appears to be original research since the Tax Foundation doesn't talk about this apparent inconsistency (unless I missed it in their website): "The claims of tax simplification seem inconsistent with the fact that the number of words in federal tax code and regulations grew faster between 1975 and 1995 than before or since, according to the counts from the conservative Tax Foundation; see the accompanying plot." Without reading the tax code ourselves, we can't really say why the number of words in the tax code continued to increase. CatPath (talk) 02:04, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Article Evaluation

Checking a few of the links they were all working, placed in the correct spots, and backed up the claims of the article. A couple links that were checked in detail were link number 4 (Reagan's Policies Gave Green Light to Red Ink), link 42 (http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/USARGDPC/downloaddata?cid=32267). These two links had factual material that backed up what the article Reaganomics stated. Link 42 gave a data chart that gave actual numbers to reinforce the percentages given by Reaganomics. Then went through a few more links such as Link 16 (Tragic Death of the Temporary Tax Cut), Link 34 (Civilian Unemployment Rate), and Link 59 (Will the Tax Cuts Ultimately Pay for Themselves). These links were all in working condition and gave factual information that proved the information given by Reaganomics. These links were factual, working, and helped to reassure the points given by Reaganomics. Jay1844 (talk) 02:49, 2 November 2017 (UTC)Jay1844

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Reaganomics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:21, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Income stats from other years

My removal of the income stats (from Soibangla's edit) was because it appears to be original research. (No issue with the source.) Making the comparisons from 1961-1969 & 1971-1979 is not only irrelevant but it's original research from a source that carries just stats.Rja13ww33 (talk) 01:34, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough, but Stephen Moore is a notoriously bad analyst and nothing he asserts can be accepted at face value. Not ever. When he's not being stupid, he's busy being a brazen liar. Seriously. I will endeavor to find secondary reliable sources. soibangla (talk) 01:49, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
What would probably work is something like "Moore says this....but [say] Krugman says [insert slowest income growth in decades or whatever]".Rja13ww33 (talk) 01:56, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Going through this article, I see that other editors have done a lot of calculations from FRED charts and other sources that might be considered original research, so my edit here (some simple subtractions) does not appear to be a significant deviation from prior practice. Perhaps the edit should be restored on that basis (or many other edits need to be removed if we're going to strictly enforce OR here). soibangla (talk) 17:56, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

We may need other editors to weigh in. (So no edit war gets rolling.) I haven't been monitoring the Reaganomics page for that long. (maybe a few months.) For now, I will say: To go from 1961-1969 & 1971-1979 seems pretty arbitrary. What would make more sense is from 1973-1981 (or something like that).Rja13ww33 (talk) 18:07, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
It's neither arbitrary nor irrelevant. Moore wants us to believe that $4000 is some kind of special number, but all one needs to do is find one eight-year period prior to Reagan that's higher to prove the $4000 is nothing special, and I found two. And in one case it's over three times higher. Moore does this bogus kind of "analysis" all the time. One cannot always find a secondary source that refutes every other source, so if no OR is allowed, a bogus assertion like Moore's stands unchallenged, and thus "true," here. We at least should be consistent: either we allow OR or we don't, and if we don't, a lot of content in this article needs to go. soibangla (talk) 18:40, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
I am not trying argue about Moore......I am saying to go from the years given (1961-1969 & 1971-1979) seems like cherry picking. (Not to mention violating wiki's rule on OR. And your concerns on the article as it stands now are noted.) They include recession and non-recession years, multiple presidents, and not even the 8 years prior to Reagan. Hopefully we can get other editors to weigh in and get consensus.Rja13ww33 (talk) 19:29, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
It's not cherrypicking at all. Moore's claim is about 8 years of Reagan, and all that's needed is just one other previous 8-year period that's higher to show his $4000 figure is nothing special. It doesn't even matter when those 8-year periods begin and end, as long as they're reasonably recent, and they are. soibangla (talk) 21:19, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
It was cherry picking to me. (Especially the previous edit that compared the Reagan years from '76 to '79.) But in any case, we've got it at 81-88 vs. 80-73 now. Which I think is more reasonable. (Thanks for catching that average snafu on 81-88 by the way. Forgot the "-" sign there for '82.)Rja13ww33 (talk) 21:41, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
It simply was not cherrypicking and I have adequately explained why. soibangla (talk) 21:45, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

There was no cherrypicking in my edit

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Reaganomics&diff=845592184&oldid=845588792

There was cherrypicking in the edit it replaced, which compared Reagan's expansion (excluding recession) to a period that contained two recessions (and also compared it to Carter, when he wasn't president during one of those recessions). My edit compared Reagan's expansion to the expansion that immediately preceded it, as well as to an 8-year expansion, 1961-69, which is entirely appropriate because they're averages. But if you want to compare 8-year periods, you can do that; just don't call the other method "cherrypicking." soibangla (talk) 21:39, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Why add this section? Isn't it covered above?Rja13ww33 (talk) 21:41, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
No, this is the second time you have incorrectly said I've cherrypicked, on a different topic. soibangla (talk) 21:43, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
Well, I'm not sure why you've added this section.....but to compare '61-'69 & '76-'79 to '83-'90 sure seems like it to me. But in any case, it appears we will not agree on this point.Rja13ww33 (talk) 21:47, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
No, what Moore et al. routinely do is cherrypicking: they omit historical context, so readers cannot tell how the numbers they cite compare to other periods. It's called lying by omission. And you can't compare a "pure" expansion to a period that contains TWO recessions. You have to compare expansions to expansions, recessions to recessions, apples to apples. soibangla (talk) 21:52, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
Stop bringing up Moore. This edit doesn't concern him. And comparing just 3 years of a expansion to 8 years seems like a trick. (We can go '83-'85 if you want.) This article is about Reaganomics so the history before and during seems relevant to me. Going back to the 60's (before the advent of high inflation and the emergence of strong overseas competition) also doesn't seem relevant.Rja13ww33 (talk) 21:58, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
It is not a trick. It uses averages. If it used absolute values, then it would be a trick (and I would catch it). One cannot adequately discuss economics without comparing it to prior performance. Some people like to say that since things were good under "their guy" that it means it was better than before, just like some people today think that Trump came into office and the economy suddenly became great again, but they ignore everything good before him. soibangla (talk) 22:06, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
To compare the 8 years during to the 8 years previous seems pretty straight forward (and fair) to me. (And that includes one of the worst post WW II recessions in 1982.) The fact that the longest period of expansion from '73 to '80 is just 3 years shouldn't be a reason to detract from Reagan's expansion. (If anything, it supports it.)Rja13ww33 (talk) 22:13, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
I already said your alternative approach is OK, and I just made a new edit consistent with that approach, although comparing "pure" expansions is very meaningful and common. The previous expansion was 4 years, BTW. The 1970s had extraordinary circumstances like oil shocks and persistent inflation due to bad Fed policy, neither of which Reagan fixed himself, he was a bystander after they were fixed. Sometimes it's better to be lucky than to be good. I am not cherrypicking, so I'd appreciate you not accusing me of that, thanks. soibangla (talk) 22:22, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
It wasn't meant in any kind of hard, accusatory way. Everyone on here edits from their pov (it's unavoidable). As far as Reagan just being a bystander.....I wouldn't say it was 100% that. Volcker himself has credited Reagan with sticking by him as he progressively turned the screws in the early 80's. (Needless to say inflation was not conquered by '81.) Volcker even credited Reagan with busting PATCO as a "watershed" moment in the fight against inflation. On oil, Reagan pressured the Saudis to increase production and he deregulated oil pricing regs (which (I admit) was on Carter's agenda).Rja13ww33 (talk) 22:31, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
This article is a sloppy mess of misinformation, and some disinformation bordering on propaganda. I have done this kind of data analysis since Reagan was president, and I know all the tricks people use to play with numbers. I am endeavoring to correct this mess and neutralize some of the blatant hagiography, not introduce my own POV. BTW, Volcker also said re: PATCO, "I am told that the [Reagan] administration pretty much took off the shelf plans that had been developed in the Carter administration, but whether the Carter administration ever would of done it is the open question. That was something of a watershed." Carter appointed Volcker in 1979 knowing full-well he was a vocal inflation hawk, everyone knew that, and everyone knew what his remedy would be to kill inflation once and for all. And that's why he did it immediately after Reagan's election, so by the time 1984 rolled around it would be behind us. soibangla (talk) 22:46, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
A lot of articles on here are hagiographys. So you'd have your hands full. (The JFK article (for example) doesn't even mention Operation Mongoose.) I don't know if Carter was counting on it taking that long (or being that hard). What everyone forgets now is: Carter took some shots at the FED as his fortunes waned in the '80 campaign.Rja13ww33 (talk) 22:55, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
Reagan, and now Trump, have particularly cult-like followers who lie quite a lot more than average. Like, off the charts lying. I'll play whatever small part I can to correct them here. Cheers. soibangla (talk) 23:02, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Growth Reagan vs. Carter in Federal Spending

I know original research is a no-no.....but since the topic has come up in the article edit.....this source has it in 2009 dollars:

https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/historical-tables/

(see Column F)

Growth of Federal outlays average 4.0% per year under Carter vs. 2.56% per year under RR. (Going from 1977 to 1981 then 1982 to 1989.) Which almost exactly what we have anyway.Rja13ww33 (talk) 02:41, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

I forgot OMB/CBO did real numbers for that, thanks. So I get 2.6% Reagan and 4.6% prior 8 years for fiscal years. This source https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=k9Li is actually calendar years, so it's more accurate than using fiscal years from those tables, even more so because the govt changed their fiscal year from Jun to Sep in 1976 and there's a one-time "transitional quarter" adjustment in there that makes things messy. The FRED source doesn't have that problem. Hmmm...what to do? soibangla (talk) 02:59, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
By the calculations I did, the clock starts running with fiscal year 1977 which started on October 1st 1976, and every year thereafter. Therefore it is a apples to apples comparison. And given the fact my (OR) numbers are just about identical to what is in the article.....it's probably best left alone.Rja13ww33 (talk) 03:31, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

world's largest creditor nation to the world's largest debtor

In the introductory portion of the article this statement is made: "the U.S. went from being the world's largest creditor nation to the world's largest debtor in under eight years". I've heard this one quite a few times over the years.....but the context/significance of it is never clarified. The debt held by foreigners went from 138 billion (Q1 1981) to 373 billion (Q1 1989). As a percentage of overall debt, this actually represents a decrease in foreign held debt. Isn't this just a function of rising debt? Should it be clarified further?Rja13ww33 (talk) 20:03, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Stephen Moore again!

I removed this statement https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Reaganomics&diff=845752076&oldid=845733425 :

real compensation "rose from $15.00 per hour to $16.50 per hour between 1981 and 1988."

Which came from the not-so-reliable Cato, here:

https://capx.co/busting-the-lefts-myths-about-reaganomics

Which is contradicted by the official data, here:

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/COMPRNFB

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/RCPHBS

So I contacted the Cato author to ask how he got his data, and he pointed me here:

https://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/pa261.pdf

Which is by the infamous Stephen Moore!

Who cites this article in a footnote:

https://object.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa172.pdf

Which says nothing remotely close to what Moore asserts.

LOL! soibangla (talk) 22:07, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Seems to me like the original text is making a point about overall compensation while the chart added is observing it about a certain segment. The original text may be inaccurate, but looking at the link you gave, I do see a rise in the index for the "non-farm business sector". I don't have any real objection to the chart....but it seems pretty narrow in it's scope.Rja13ww33 (talk) 22:20, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
The reality is that some people (like, you guessed it, Moore) are desperate to find some way to say wages increased under Reagan. The real wage is a pure, atomic figure that cannot be danced around. If others want to add compensation numbers as supplements, they can do that, but real wages are vital. soibangla (talk) 22:29, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
Unless I missing something here, wages did increase under Reagan. (By your own source.) And please, will you knock off the I-hate-Moore stuff? Looking like you have an axe to grind won't give you credibility as editor.Rja13ww33 (talk) 22:33, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
If you're going to insist "wages did increase under Reagan," I'm not sure you and I have much to talk about. I'll shut up about Moore as soon as he stops lying and others mindlessly copy his lies and still others mindlessly regurgitate them here, thank you very much. soibangla (talk) 22:43, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
According to the St. Louis FED sources you gave above, they DID increase. Why would you not discuss that? Are you denying that?Rja13ww33 (talk) 22:48, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
No source I provided asserts they rose. soibangla (talk) 22:52, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
In that case I would go back to these sources and look again (from 1981 to 1989):
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/COMPRNFB
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/RCPHBS
Keep in mind, these are YOUR sources. And they (both) show a rise from 1981 to 1989.Rja13ww33 (talk) 22:56, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
Compensation is not the same thing as wages. soibangla (talk) 23:00, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
You are moving the goal posts. Your original complaint in this section was Moore's claim "real compensation "rose from $15.00 per hour to $16.50 per hour between 1981 and 1988.". NOW you are talking about wages. In any case, by your own source, compensation rose during RR's years.Rja13ww33 (talk) 23:03, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
You appear confused. I have moved no goal posts, I have not cherrypicked, and your assertions are bordering on personal attacks. Please cease or I may need to seek administrative remedies. soibangla (talk) 23:07, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
Go for it. I'd like to see what other editors or the admin would say about all this original research and someone clearly with a axe to grind.Rja13ww33 (talk) 23:11, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
I have no ax to grind, only data you don't like, and yet several of my edits have made Reagan look good. Why? Because I deal only in facts, that's why. There was lots of OR in this article before I got here. I've met many people over many years who are convinced that Reagan was a saint who singlehandedly saved America and that his tax cut was the greatest single event in human history, and they vociferously attack any evidence that might tarnish his halo. Might you be among such people? Just askin' soibangla (talk) 01:15, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
You have no axe to grind yet you freely admit you are approaching this with a agenda (on Moore and Reagan). I want the facts too. And I am not personally attacking anyone. So if you feel the need to report me....go right ahead. I stand by everything I've said/done here and we'll see what a admin says about the conduct of all involved.Rja13ww33 (talk) 01:22, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
I have never expressed any ax with Reagan, I have expressed an ax with Moore because he is a total fraud and clown and there is a lot of lying about Reagan's record by many people. I suggest we drop this matter now. soibangla (talk) 01:32, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, you have no axe to grind with Reagan with statements like "Reagan, and now Trump, have particularly cult-like followers who lie quite a lot more than average. Like, off the charts lying. I'll play whatever small part I can to correct them here." & "I've met many people over many years who are convinced that Reagan was a saint who singlehandedly saved America and that his tax cut was the greatest single event in human history, and they vociferously attack any evidence that might tarnish his halo."? Sounds like (along with all the Moore slamming) something that goes against WP:NPOV & WP:SOAPBOX to me. So like I said: if you want to put this in front of a admin....be my guest.Rja13ww33 (talk) 01:45, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
That's not an ax against Reagan, it's ax against people who lie about Reagan. They can lie all they want on social media, but I will play whatever small part I can to correct their lies here. Enough, already. soibangla (talk) 01:51, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
Lord knows no left-wingers lie or distort the record about Reagan right? That sure isn't on the agenda is it? Whatever floats your boat.Rja13ww33 (talk) 01:55, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps you should broach that with left-wingers who lie, of which I am neither. soibangla (talk) 01:58, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
I sure don't see you broaching that topic with them. (Not that I am surprised.)Rja13ww33 (talk) 02:00, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
Your feeble attempt to bait me is duly noted. soibangla (talk) 02:02, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
So is your lack of impartiality.Rja13ww33 (talk) 02:05, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
Lack of impartiality, you say? "The S&P 500 Index increased 113.3% during the 2024 trading days under Reagan, compared to 10.4% during the preceding 2024 trading days." There's more: "The number of federal civilian employees increased 4.2% during Reagan's eight years, compared to 6.5% during the preceding eight years." And more than that, too. Now, what were you saying? soibangla (talk) 02:08, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
I can pretty much guess your interpretation of that (given your comments on income/wealth growth). And what you've added to this speaks for itself. (Including the silly comparisons you tried above.) To change the subject: Look, cut out the OR. You are violating WP:OR and another editor may just can it anyway. You've got probably the bulk of what you want....so stop with the reverts.Rja13ww33 (talk) 02:13, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
You've made plenty of guesses, all of them wrong. I made no silly comparisons, you lost the thread of the discussion, that's all. "so stop with the reverts?" HAHAHA! You just reverted my edits twice, even after I changed the title to accommodate the part you summarily removed, apparently out of spite from this conversation. Go ahead, have all the OR removed, including all the lies that were here before I arrived this week. I fully expected to encounter the typical zombie liars here. Whatever. Cheers! soibangla (talk) 02:20, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, you've made some silly ones. Remember the edit that compared the Reagan years to '76 to '79? As of now I am not removing any OR. But you are turning the whole thing into OR. I'm actually on your side with that BUT I've had my hand slapped for filling a article with it. It cannot be the whole thing. (They seem to let a little pass but not a lot.) "Zombie liars"? What was that you were saying before about "personal attacks"?Rja13ww33 (talk) 02:25, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
HAHAHA! "the edit that compared the Reagan years to '76 to '79?" You mean the one that replaced the totally cherrypicked edit that compared Reagan's expansion (excluding his recession) to a period that contained TWO recessions? Yeah, that's a real legitimate comparison there. HAHAHA! And there were TWO of those pieces of trash. And I used averages to enable proper comparisons. But we've already been through all this before, haven't we, yet you still don't get it. Don't want to get it, is more likely. And I didn't call you a zombie liar. I'm done here, but still...HAHAHA! soibangla (talk) 02:33, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
HAHAHA indeed. Comparing his 8 years to the previous 8 years seems legit. Again: if the best those previous 8 years had was 3 straight years of growth...well, that's kind of the point. (In terms of understanding the historical context and justification.) In any case, using the Cato piece (that involves Moore) isn't OR. (It just isn't impartial.) That's how it works here. It's not like we don't have Krugman in there.Rja13ww33 (talk) 02:41, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
"Comparing his 8 years to the previous 8 years seems legit." Of course that's legit, but that's not what the original edits did. They excluded Reagan's recession and counted ONLY his expansion and compared it to a period containing two recessions. Not one — TWO! You still don't get this? Really? There is not a single reputable analyst on this planet who would say that's a fair comparison, and anyone who thinks it is should refrain from editing WP. So I compared the averages of his six-year expansion to the averages of the preceding four-year expansion, from 76-79. And by using averages, it makes it a legitimate comparison. And if you don't like four years, I also gave the eight years of the 1960s, but you had a problem with that, too. Get it NOW? Of course not. HAHAHA! soibangla (talk) 02:55, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
So much for being "done here". If that is what it was then it wasn't right.....but what you put in wasn't either. We want a apples to apples comparison here. The justification for Reaganomics came with a lot of things that happened mostly in the 70's. That's why the 60's comparison doesn't quite work.Rja13ww33 (talk) 03:03, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
I changed apples to oranges to apples to apples. Period. soibangla (talk) 03:05, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
Glad you kept that chart. That was kind of interesting. (Good historical context.) Hopefully no OR police object.Rja13ww33 (talk) 23:04, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Charts

Look, we've got employment/unemployment data in the article already. We've got 6 (now 5) charts in the results section alone. Give it a rest.Rja13ww33 (talk) 02:26, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

I have stated in my edit summary why the chart should remain. If you don't understand that, it's your problem, because I and others understand it. Seek consensus from others here before removing it again or I may seek administrative remedies. soibangla (talk) 02:32, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
Who are the "others" that understand it? I'd wait until "others" weigh in. The thing is getting way to crowded.Rja13ww33 (talk) 02:35, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
Until others weigh, show good faith and leave it or I will seek remedies against you. soibangla (talk) 02:36, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
That's my advice to you. You should have cleared this revision here first when the dispute arose. Seek whatever "remedies" you wish.Rja13ww33 (talk) 02:39, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
HAHAHA! soibangla (talk) 02:42, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
HAHAHA indeed.Rja13ww33 (talk) 02:44, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
You know, there have been occasions when I have arrived at an article, found it to be a steaming pile, and proceeded to clean it up with a burst of edits, and there's always one guy — just one — who blows a gasket because he seems to think I'm some kinda uppity interloper who's invaded "his" turf, and especially when the edits I make give him extreme cognitive dissonance because they don't comport with his belief system. People can be "funny" that way, you know? HAHAHA! soibangla (talk) 02:51, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
How many times do I have to tell you: I haven't even been monitoring this thing for that long. You can look at the edits to verify that. (I was thinking about some clean up work on it myself.) You've done some good things and some things I disagree with. NOW, if we can drop all this personal stuff......as a compromise, what would you think of maybe combining the 4 charts like it is done in this section (to avoid a crowd):https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_policy_of_the_Bill_Clinton_administration#Deficits_and_debtRja13ww33 (talk) 03:02, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree that there are too many charts, perhaps they could be combined as suggested. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 06:59, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

I think the charts created by soibangla should remain. This editor has made many helpful improvements to economics and budget articles lately. Let them do their thing!Farcaster (talk) 12:49, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Trendlines

This edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Reaganomics&oldid=846017488 appears to add a chart that has a added trendline (not by the source). Am I correct on that? If so, it violates WP:OR and WP:DUE. I will give the editor a chance to respond to this before any revision. (I've noticed this on another chart as well.....which may have to be changed.)Rja13ww33 (talk) 19:02, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Looking further at the FRED chart it appears a user defined line can be inserted as a straight line between 2 points (the value at the date start and date end). So it's not even really a trendline (in terms of a average or any other statistical evaluation). It's definitely OR.Rja13ww33 (talk) 19:37, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
They are actual regression lines. HAHAHA! soibangla (talk) 17:24, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
They are user added. It constitutes OR. The graphs themselves are sufficient without user created annotation.Rja13ww33 (talk) 00:38, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
If you are sincerely concerned with OR, you should refrain from making any edit that contains even the slightest computation that you have made from a primary source. I have had to correct a number of your edits that contain your calculations, and your "errors" were typically in Reagan's favor soibangla (talk) 00:54, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
We are allowed to do some computations. But a user added trendline to a graph is a whole other ball game. That is not an exception to OR (which allows some basic calculations). And the "errors" I have made have simply been disagreements about which years to go to. I wish you'd knock off the personal stuff.Rja13ww33 (talk) 01:03, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
Nope, your calculations from primary sources constitutes OR. Hypocritical double standard much? You can knock off the personal stuff by not reflexively and capriciously removing my edits in their entirety and instead showing good faith by throwing the matter to Talk, which I had to do, then you can't articulate what is factually wrong with my edit. A reasonable person might begin to wonder if such behavior constitutes partisan trolling. soibangla (talk) 01:13, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
I suggest you check the rule, we ARE allowed to do basic calculations from reliable sources:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:About_valid_routine_calculations I have articulated everything wrong with edits I have changed. And it's funny you accuse me of "partisan trolling" when you have clearly shown which side of the fence you are on in this.Rja13ww33 (talk) 01:18, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
I am on WP solely to present facts and exterminate lies. That makes some folks really, really angry soibangla (talk) 01:28, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
You are clearly presenting them from your POV which is unavoidable.....but that POV can't creep into the article to the point it violates NPOV. And statements like ""Reagan, and now Trump, have particularly cult-like followers who lie quite a lot more than average. Like, off the charts lying. I'll play whatever small part I can to correct them here." & "I've met many people over many years who are convinced that Reagan was a saint who singlehandedly saved America and that his tax cut was the greatest single event in human history, and they vociferously attack any evidence that might tarnish his halo." show you are not approaching this from a particularly objective pov.Rja13ww33 (talk) 01:31, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
Obviously you cannot distinguish what is said on Talk and what is said in edits, but I can. I assiduously avoid allowing my views of zombie liars to seep into my analysis. You likely assume I can't because you yourself can't and you assume others can't either. That's a sign of a weak, inferior mind. This article was, and still is, a Reagan hagiography and I have acted to neutralize that glaring bias, and you really hate that soibangla (talk) 01:42, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
You want to say you are editing this from a NPOV.....but just about every last thing you added to the intro and Analysis section was anything but and clearly anti-Reaganomics. Calling me names won't change any of that.Rja13ww33 (talk) 01:45, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
Here are the facts: the empirical evidence from the Reagan tax cut, and the overwhelming consensus of economic analysis across the political spectrum, show that these types of tax cuts do not pay for themselves. And the empirical evidence of the Bush and Kansas cuts further confirm that. And despite all that, we are doing it all over again. It’s now that old definition of insanity: doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. And once again, it’s not economists calling for this new tax cut, it’s strictly Republican politicians. They are the outliers, and they are throwing out every argument that they can think of to get their tax cut. I might respect them if they just said “we hate taxes, cut ‘em,” but knowingly rejecting all objective empirical evidence and analysis gets them no respect from me, nor should it from any rational person. They’re simply liars who are detached from reality, and their lies should not be entitled to equal treatment in this or any other article. It creates a false equivalence of legitimacy. It was true in 1988 and it remains true today. This is the lasting legacy of Reaganomics, and that lasting legacy deserves to be mentioned in the lede, which I accurately did. It is an indisputable fact that Republican politicians are the only group that continue to advance this nonsense, and that’s not a biased, partisan POV, it is a simple fact. And granting them (false) equivalence in this article only lends credence to politics masquerading as legitimate economics. That will be all. soibangla (talk) 03:55, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
Again the point is quite obvious you are not editing from a NPOV.....and that is a issue. The topic of this article is the Reagan era tax cuts. That's it. To start connecting it to other tax cuts (decades after the fact) and calling that it's "legacy" isn't NPOV. What about the Kennedy/Johnson era tax cuts? Couldn't you say the ball got rolling there? After all, that's one of the things the Reagan supporters pointed to justify this. (And it's worth pointing out that conservatives STILL cite those cuts to this day. Limbaugh, Hannity, George Will, etc all brought it up as justification for the Bush era tax cuts. Limbaugh has read the text of JFK's 1962 speech to the Economics Club of New York on his show word for word a bunch of times (going all the way back to the early 90's). Granted they typically leave out the fact that the top marginal rate was in the 90's then. But that's how those types of shows work.) And what do you want to call "these types of tax cuts"? 5% off the top marginal rate? 20? 50? Just 1%? You see what I am getting at? To say any type of tax cut isn't going to "work" isn't what we are supposed to do. We present the data & the POVS of both sides. Then the reader decides.Rja13ww33 (talk) 04:09, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

My edit to the lede

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Reaganomics&diff=846070446&oldid=846069394

Rather than reflexively remove the edit in its entirety within minutes, perhaps the remover might consider modifying the edit to address his stated concerns, or to bring it to Talk for discussion to indicate specifically how the edit constitutes POV/SOAPBOX rather than factual content. By not indicating how the edit deviates from fact, capriciously removing the edit in its entirely suggests POV in itself, and is not in good faith. soibangla (talk) 17:32, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

The issues were numerous with the revised lead. It appeared to be on a SOAPBOX about tax cuts paying for themselves. It also clearly took a position on Reaganomics in general. This is not NPOV. This article should clearly present the facts and not load the dice one way or the other.Rja13ww33 (talk) 00:43, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
Yet you have not articulated what any of those issues might be, and one of the purposes of a lede is to summarize details in the body, so your "issue" that it is redundant to the body doesn't fly. So far your issue sounds like WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Can you articulate how the edit deviates from fact? soibangla (talk) 01:04, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
I just explained it. The revised lead ran with (essentially) "tax cuts never pay for themselves". It went beyond Reaganomics and even dragged Trump and a tax cut in Kansas in. It's clearly SOAPBOXing and violates NPOV. It should be left to the reader to draw conclusions.Rja13ww33 (talk) 01:07, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
Essentially? Nope. It accurately described the centerpiece of Reaganomics. And if you had a problem with the second paragraph, you should have removed only that. But there was the Reagan Revolution, he was a transformative president, particularly for the GOP, which adopted Reaganomics as a core doctrine ever since, as we've seen with the Bush tax cut, the Kansas tax cut, and now the Trump tax cut. This is not a POV, it is objective reality, but perhaps an objective reality you would prefer to ignore and conceal soibangla (talk) 01:24, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
Sorry but you are making judgments. That's not NPOV. (We've got enough judgments as it is in the analysis section.) You added this which wasn't even a direct quote: "Despite the empirical evidence the Reagan tax cut did not increase revenues over what they otherwise would have been,....". I don't know how long you've been posting here.....but I would suggest you learn the rules.Rja13ww33 (talk) 01:29, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
You are hopeless. soibangla (talk) 01:44, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
I'm anything but. Let me give you an example on NPOV (by ME). Over on the MJ-12 page, there was once a section that had good arguments for and against. I happen to think MJ-12 IS a hoax.....BUT that was a excellent presentation of both sides of the argument and I noted that on the Talk page and questioned its removal. (I'm not knowledgeable enough on MJ-12 to make edits so I haven't messed with it.) In other words: I want both sides presented in a balanced way. THAT is NPOV. And that is what people should bring to the table here. On tax cuts, I happen to share your POV that they typically don't pay for themselves (especially in the short-run). But I cannot sanction these edits that push a POV.Rja13ww33 (talk) 01:53, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Results in intro

Recently an editor added some (what he/she likely feels are) positive outcomes from Reaganomics and I deleted them because the number wasn't quite right and it's already in the article. However this got me thinking on the intro. About the only outcome stated was this: "During Reagan's presidency the national debt almost tripled and the U.S. went from being the world's largest creditor nation to the world's largest debtor in under eight years"

In my opinion, this is a violation of NPOV. To have the only outcome stated in the intro be something negative isn't right. And since it is already stated in the article, I see no reason for it to be there. If we are going to discuss outcomes, it can't just be that. Therefore the intro now says nothing on outcomes.Rja13ww33 (talk) 01:59, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

I think it's better to balance properly sourced, on-topic content than remove it. We should have some positives (great job creation, second to Clinton) along with the negatives (higher debt, tax cuts that increased inequality.) Would you like to make the attempt?Farcaster (talk) 03:39, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
I wouldn't have any issue with mentioning both. But since there are a lot of pros and cons.....and both are given in the results section, it seems to me like it could be left as is. Another issue here is: a lot of the causes of the pros and cons are hotly debated. It's hard to prove anything is a direct cause of a economic policy. You can't mention (for example) the outcome of the Reaganomics era without mentioning the end of stagflation. But there are arguments to make on both sides of that as to what (if anything) Reaganomics had to do with it. It's the same thing with higher GDP growth: some will tell you that was just the natural business cycle....the next will say the genius of tax cuts. And on it goes (for both sides). What I like about the article now is it just presents the data (except at the end). That's how a article should be. All that being said.....I see no reason not to try. I'll try to think up something to post here (unless someone beats me to it) and see what everyone thinks.Rja13ww33 (talk) 04:15, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
Ok, I've given it some thought.....how about this (as far as results go) added to the intro: The results of Reaganomics are still debated. Supporters point to the end of Stagflation, stronger GDP growth, and a entrepreneur revolution in the decades that followed. Critics point to the widening income gap, an atmosphere of greed, and the national debt tripling in 8 years which ultimately reversed the 35 year trend after World War II of a shrinking national debt as percentage of GDP. Any comments welcome.Rja13ww33 (talk) 03:32, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
Seems reasonable to me. I'm not familiar with all these points so I'd just ask that you confirm citations in the body if you don't include them with the text. For example, an "atmosphere of greed" is one that people might attack. I'd like to point out he was second only to Clinton in real GDP growth and job creation among Presidents from 1981-2017.Farcaster (talk) 05:35, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
Keep in mind: these are things coming from critics and supporters. So they aren't necessarily objective. I can work up the citations.Rja13ww33 (talk) 13:34, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
I've worked up the citations. The include (Bloomberg's) Business week, D'Souza's book on Reagan, The Washington Post, and Krugman's 'Conscience of a liberal'. As far as the "atmosphere of greed" thing goes....I think it's probably best to say something like "contributed to a atmosphere of greed". It's hard to discuss the 80's (and those policies) without mentioning that. (Some have called it "the decade of greed".) That's why I threw Krugman in there since this is a topic for him. (Along with inequality.) D'Souza is cited because of his his discussion of entrepreneurship (and his interviews with Silicon Valley entrepreneurs on the topic of Reaganomics). Will drop this in the article tomorrow if there are no objections.Rja13ww33 (talk) 21:15, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
Ok, I went ahead and dropped it in. Any comments still welcome. I'll probably be questioned on the "reversed the post-World War II trend of a shrinking national debt as percentage of GDP" statement since the National Debt has always grown....just sometimes it hasn't grown relative to GDP. (For example it (IIRC) doubled in the 8 years prior to Reagan.) I'll also get questioned on the "atmosphere of greed" thing.....but in all the articles here on wiki....I've never seen it mentioned. Talking about a economic policy of the 80's and not mentioning this seems bizarre (I'm showing my age here). It was a frequent point of critics and I think cannot go unmentioned somewhere.Rja13ww33 (talk) 18:06, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
On the "entrepreneur revolution" deal.....I'll probably take some heat there as well. But so many Reagan supporters bring up the computer/.com boom and (right or wrong) point to Reagan's policies as fostering it, it cannot go unmentioned either. One of the links gives both povs.Rja13ww33 (talk) 18:15, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Reaganomics/Archive_2&oldid=911764378"