Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Reaganomics Vs. Obamanomics: Facts And Figures

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Reaganomics Vs. Obamanomics: Facts And Figures

    While listening to Mark Levin tonight, he read from this article. I find it comprehensive and definitive. What say you?



    In February 2009 I wrote an article for The Wall Street Journal entitled “Reaganomics v Obamanomics,” which argued that the emerging outlines of President Obama’s economic policies were following in close detail exactly the opposite of President Reagan’s economic policies. As a result, I predicted that Obamanomics would have the opposite results of Reaganomics. That prediction seems to be on track.

    When President Reagan entered office in 1981, he faced actually much worse economic problems than President Obama faced in 2009. Three worsening recessions starting in 1969 were about to culminate in the worst of all in 1981-1982, with unemployment soaring into double digits at a peak of 10.8%. At the same time America suffered roaring double-digit inflation, with the CPI registering at 11.3% in 1979 and 13.5% in 1980 (25% in two years). The Washington establishment at the time argued that this inflation was now endemic to the American economy, and could not be stopped, at least not without a calamitous economic collapse.

    All of the above was accompanied by double -igit interest rates, with the prime rate peaking at 21.5% in 1980. The poverty rate started increasing in 1978, eventually climbing by an astounding 33%, from 11.4% to 15.2%. A fall in real median family income that began in 1978 snowballed to a decline of almost 10% by 1982. In addition, from 1968 to 1982, the Dow Jones industrial average lost 70% of its real value, reflecting an overall collapse of stocks.

    President Reagan campaigned on an explicitly articulated, four-point economic program to reverse this slow motion collapse of the American economy:

    1. Cut tax rates to restore incentives for economic growth, which was implemented first with a reduction in the top income tax rate of 70% down to 50%, and then a 25% across-the-board reduction in income tax rates for everyone. The 1986 tax reform then reduced tax rates further, leaving just two rates, 28% and 15%.

    2. Spending reductions, including a $31 billion cut in spending in 1981, close to 5% of the federal budget then, or the equivalent of about $175 billion in spending cuts for the year today. In constant dollars, nondefense discretionary spending declined by 14.4% from 1981 to 1982, and by 16.8% from 1981 to 1983. Moreover, in constant dollars, this nondefense discretionary spending never returned to its 1981 level for the rest of Reagan’s two terms! Even with the Reagan defense buildup, which won the Cold War without firing a shot, total federal spending declined from a high of 23.5% of GDP in 1983 to 21.3% in 1988 and 21.2% in 1989. That’s a real reduction in the size of government relative to the economy of 10%.

    3. Anti-inflation monetary policy restraining money supply growth compared to demand, to maintain a stronger, more stable dollar value.

    4. Deregulation, which saved consumers an estimated $100 billion per year in lower prices. Reagan’s first executive order, in fact, 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%.

    These economic policies amounted to the most successful economic experiment in world history. 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. This set a new record for the longest peacetime expansion ever, the previous high in peacetime being 58 months.

    During this seven-year recovery, the economy grew by almost one-third, the equivalent of adding the entire economy of West Germany, the third-largest in the world at the time, to the U.S. economy. In 1984 alone real economic growth boomed by 6.8%, the highest in 50 years. Nearly 20 million new jobs were created during the recovery, increasing U.S. civilian employment by almost 20%. Unemployment fell to 5.3% by 1989.

    The shocking rise in inflation during the Nixon and Carter years was reversed. Astoundingly, inflation from 1980 was reduced by more than half by 1982, to 6.2%. It was cut in half again for 1983, to 3.2%, never to be heard from again until recently. 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.

    Real per-capita disposable income increased by 18% from 1982 to 1989, meaning the American standard of living increased by almost 20% in just seven 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.

    In The End of Prosperity, supply side guru Art Laffer and Wall Street Journal chief financial writer Steve Moore point out that this Reagan recovery grew into a 25-year boom, with just slight interruptions by shallow, short recessions in 1990 and 2001. They wrote:

    We call this period, 1982-2007, the twenty-five year boom–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 twenty-five year boom than in the previous two hundred years.

    What is so striking about Obamanomics is how it so doggedly pursues the opposite of every one of these planks of Reaganomics. Instead of reducing tax rates, President Obama is committed to raising the top tax rates of virtually every major federal tax. As already enacted into current law, in 2013 the top two income tax rates will rise by nearly 20%, counting as well Obama’s proposed deduction phase-outs.

    The capital gains tax rate will soar by nearly 60%, counting the new Obamacare taxes going into effect that year. The total tax rate on corporate dividends would increase by nearly three times. The Medicare payroll tax would increase by 62% for the nation’s job creators and investors. The death tax rate would go back up to 55%. In his 2012 budget and his recent national budget speech, President Obama proposes still more tax increases.

    Instead of coming into office with spending cuts, President Obama’s first act was a nearly $1 trillion stimulus bill. In his first two years in office he has already increased federal spending by 28%, and his 2012 budget proposes to increase federal spending by another 57% by 2021.

    His monetary policy is just the opposite as well. Instead of restraining the money supply to match money demand for a stable dollar, slaying an historic inflation, we have QE1 and QE2 and a steadily collapsing dollar, arguably creating a historic reflation.

    And instead of deregulation we have across-the-board re-regulation, from health care to finance to energy, and elsewhere. While Reagan used to say that his energy policy was to “unleash the private sector,” Obama’s energy policy can be described as precisely to leash the private sector in service to Obama’s central planning “green energy” dictates.

    As a result, while the Reagan recovery averaged 7.1% economic growth over the first seven quarters, the Obama recovery has produced less than half that at 2.8%, with the last quarter at a dismal 1.8%. After seven quarters of the Reagan recovery, unemployment had fallen 3.3 percentage points from its peak to 7.5%, with only 18% unemployed long-term for 27 weeks or more. After seven quarters of the Obama recovery, unemployment has fallen only 1.3 percentage points from its peak, with a postwar record 45% long-term unemployed.

    Previously the average recession since World War II lasted 10 months, with the longest at 16 months. Yet today, 40 months after the last recession started, unemployment is still 8.8%, with America suffering the longest period of unemployment that high since the Great Depression. Based on the historic precedents America should be enjoying the second year of a roaring economic recovery by now, especially since, historically, the worse the downturn, the stronger the recovery. Yet while in the Reagan recovery the economy soared past the previous GDP peak after six months, in the Obama recovery that didn’t happen for three years. Last year the Census Bureau reported that the total number of Americans in poverty was the highest in the 51 years that Census has been recording the data.

    Moreover, the Reagan recovery was achieved while taming a historic inflation, for a period that continued for more than 25 years. By contrast, the less-than-half-hearted Obama recovery seems to be recreating inflation, with the latest Producer Price Index data showing double-digit inflation again, and the latest CPI growing already half as much.

    These are the reasons why economist John Lott has rightly said, “For the last couple of years, President Obama keeps claiming that the recession was the worst economy since the Great Depression. But this is not correct. This is the worst “recovery” since the Great Depression.”

    However, the Reagan Recovery took off once the tax rate cuts were fully phased in. Similarly, the full results of Obamanomics won’t be in until his historic, comprehensive tax rate increases of 2013 become effective. While the Reagan Recovery kicked off a historic 25-year economic boom, will the opposite policies of Obamanomics, once fully phased in, kick off 25 years of economic stagnation, unless reversed?
    Peter Ferrara is director of policy for the Carleson Center for Public Policy and senior fellow for entitlement and budget policy at the Heartland Institute. He served in the White House Office of Policy Development under President Reagan, and as associate deputy attorney general of the United States under President George H. W. Bush. He is the author of America’s Ticking Bankruptcy Bomb, forthcoming from HarperCollins.
    Should be required reading for every voter before the next election!

  • #2
    But, he inherited it from Bush!
    Meddle not in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.

    Abusing Yellow is meant to be a labor of love, not something you sell to the highest bidder.

    Comment


    • #3
      The article is somewhat self serving. Firstly Reagan didn't have to deal with a budget deficit of historic proportions. (Any economists out there please correct me if I am wrong - I am relying on memory not statistical records). Obama doesn't have the luxury of "cutting taxes" to anywhere near the extent that Reagan did and no President, be they Republican or Democrat will for some time to come. Every president since Washington has known that the best way to get elected is to promise "lower taxes" but the kick is you can only lower taxes indefinately if you also reduce public spending to an similar degree. If you don't eventually it comes back to bite you on the bum - which is what is happening now.

      Secondly (and please correct me if I am wrong) but any significant cuts to (non discretionary) public spending in the US require the assent of both Congress and the Senate, every one of whose members is all for a cut to the budget - just so long as it occurs in their opponents voting district. "Roll out the pork barrel, lets have a barrel of fun".

      Thirdly, inflation isn't the issue in the current economic climate but until such time as house prices stabilise and unemployment drops - deflation is, so how much sense does it make to then to apply Reagan's policies? Opposite economic problem, opposite policy.

      Lastly there's "deregulation" which has a number of issues accompanying it. Firstly and on a philosophical level deregulation actually requires politicians to recant the entire idea of "interfering". This is not how politics and politicians work, they need to be seen to be "doing something" otherwise they stand open to the allegation that they are lazy. Then there is the fact that some constituent or lobby group will always have a problem that needs "fixing". Even big business has issues they want addressed via legislation. For example I’m sure car companies would love to be free of OH & S, pollution and tax laws that limit the manner in which they operate within the U.S. but at the same time I’m also certain they would have no qualms about legislation affecting the manner in which their foreign competitors operate there. The benefits of “deregulation" very much depends on which end of the gun you are staring at - prior to the latest financial crisis the US had a (relatively) deregulated mortgage finance system and that all worked out for best didn't it. I'm sure the big banks would love to return to the relatively unregulated regime they operated in prior to the crisis but I’m not sure their customers would be so appreciative. In any case the real killer for small business at least is not so much Federal Legislation but State and local - I‘ve read that businesses in California for example are particularly hampered by red tape. Again not necessarily an issue that Obama can address easily

      Finally your political system is expressly designed to limit the legislative powers of the President. It all very well to chasten the current administration for its perceived failure to manage the economy but all Presidents of whatever flavour have to deal with the Congress and Senate they inherit. Whether America “sinks or swims” is down largely to them – and sadly based on my perception of these august body's current performance I think you might all need to buy a set of scuba gear.
      Last edited by Monash; 15 Jun 11,, 13:32.
      If you are emotionally invested in 'believing' something is true you have lost the ability to tell if it is true.

      Comment


      • #4
        unfortunately, the writer is rather dishonest in his use of statistics and the way he frames his argument.

        going from point to point:

        1. Cut tax rates to restore incentives for economic growth, which was implemented first with a reduction in the top income tax rate of 70% down to 50%, and then a 25% across-the-board reduction in income tax rates for everyone. The 1986 tax reform then reduced tax rates further, leaving just two rates, 28% and 15%.
        true-- then he fails to mention the reagan tax increases in 1982, 1983, 1984. similarly, the bush tax increases in 1991, and the clinton tax increase in 1993. the economic growth of this entire period, too, is all given to reagan-- no mention at all of the impact that bush I had in decreasing defense spending or reducing the deficit, or the free-trade deals/welfare reform under clinton.

        2. Spending reductions, including a $31 billion cut in spending in 1981, close to 5% of the federal budget then, or the equivalent of about $175 billion in spending cuts for the year today. In constant dollars, nondefense discretionary spending declined by 14.4% from 1981 to 1982, and by 16.8% from 1981 to 1983. Moreover, in constant dollars, this nondefense discretionary spending never returned to its 1981 level for the rest of Reagan’s two terms! Even with the Reagan defense buildup, which won the Cold War without firing a shot, total federal spending declined from a high of 23.5% of GDP in 1983 to 21.3% in 1988 and 21.2% in 1989. That’s a real reduction in the size of government relative to the economy of 10%.
        i note he fails to look at where non-defense discretionary spending was in reagan's SECOND term. also, note that he uses "total federal spending relative to economy". that's fine, but OTOH, when centrists like me point out that clinton did a rather better job in the '90s, conservatives say "government accounting, he didn't REALLY lower spending, the economy just grew!"

        3. Anti-inflation monetary policy restraining money supply growth compared to demand, to maintain a stronger, more stable dollar value.
        yes, volcker-- not reagan-- did a great job. OTOH, we were facing stagflation, not a severely deflationary environment of 2008-9.

        4. Deregulation, which saved consumers an estimated $100 billion per year in lower prices. Reagan’s first executive order, in fact, 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%.
        conflation here. i have no doubt that deregulation played its role in lowering prices, but much more important was the famed 1980s oil glut, which came about from a large fall in oil demand due to the 70s' embargoes.

        trying to compare the responses to two different crises plainly shows this to be a political hitpiece rather than a serious economic discussion. moreover, it's pretty clear that he attempts to selectively choose reagan administration actions to form a cohesive argument-- ie the republican mantra to solve everything, "lower taxes/deregulate". again, i'd have more respect for the argument if he actually chose to look at the whole picture instead of cherry picking.
        There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

        Comment


        • #5
          Ah, the joys of mixing political budgeting with real world economics.

          My favorite line here is “In constant dollars, nondefense discretionary spending . . .”

          Apparently defense spending doesn’t have an impact on the economy, either way, so we don’t have to actually include it in any historical analysis. And, everyone knows entitlements are exactly the same as defense spending – politically untouchable – so we’ll leave those out, too. Sheesh.

          Let’s go to the CBO—

          Year_ _ _ _Change over one year, in Nominal US$ billion, in
          _ _ _ _ _ _ _ GDP _ _ Spending _ _ Discretionary _ _ _ Defense
          1981 _ _ _ +$338.7 _ +$87.3 _ _ _ _ +$29.7 _ _ _ _ _ +$35.3
          1982 _ _ _ +$126.4 _ +$67.5 _ _ _ _ +$14.6 _ _ _ _ _ +$35.3
          1983 _ _ _ +$281.4 _ +$62.7 _ _ _ _ +$32.7 _ _ _ _ _ +$26.7
          1984 _ _ _ +$396.3 _ +$43.5 _ _ _ _ +$35.4 _ _ _ _ _ +$19.8
          1985 _ _ _ +$286.6 _ +$94.5 _ _ _ _ +$32.9 _ _ _ _ _ +$28.5
          1986 _ _ _ +$242.6 _ +$44.0_ _ _ _ ($18.7) _ _ _ _ _ _ ($5.1)
          1987 _ _ _ +$276.3 _ +$13.7 _ _ _ _ +$7.9 _ _ _ _ _ _ ($1.9)
          1988 _ _ _ +$364.0 _ +$60.4 _ _ _ _ +$7.5 _ _ _ _ _ _ +$4.3

          Bottom line: Under the Reagan Administration, discretionary spending rose by an average annual amount equal to 6.2% of the rise in GDP, and defense spending by 7.7%.

          But, defense doesn’t matter in budgetary politics, so we’ll just ignore that. Sheesh.

          = = = = =

          The discussion of how wonderful the 1982-90 period was is also a politically inspired perspective awaiting dissection. True, the economy grew 4.0% p.a. during that period, as compared to 3.1% in the years between the 1991 and 2001 recessions, and 2.5% p.a. between the 2001 recession and the Little Depression.

          But, unemployment was 6.7% in the first period, 5.4% in the second and 5.3% in the third. Considering that inflation was 3.9%, 2.7% and 2.8%, respectively, that means the “Reagan Recovery” had a Misery Index* about 30% higher than the other two.

          And, to bring it back to budgeting, the deficits were 3.7% of GDP, 1.9% and 2.5%, respectively.


          = = = = =

          Monash, you are right about the size of the deficit he inherited, but that was back in the days when GOPers were thought to be fiscal conservatives. Ronald Reagan killed that old canard.

          .

          .

          .

          * The Misery Index was Reagan's way of bashing Jimmy Carter in the 1980 election campaign. Inflation Rate + Unemployment Rate = Misery Index. Clearly he didn't understand the concept of an index.
          Trust me?
          I'm an economist!

          Comment


          • #6
            AKA, Why Obama isn't Jimmy Carter reincarnate.

            Except that he is, and the economy reacts the same way as it did back then....

            The more things change, the more they stay the same I guess.

            Economies counterpunch. 8th grade algebra equations aren't up to the task.
            "We will go through our federal budget – page by page, line by line – eliminating those programs we don’t need, and insisting that those we do operate in a sensible cost-effective way." -President Barack Obama 11/25/2008

            Comment


            • #7
              Doesn't matter how anyone spins the numbers, Reagan inherited a mess from Carter and turned it around. Obama inherited a mess(?) from Bush and worsened it.

              How does anyone explain that Bush's failed economic policies produced an average unemployment rate of less than 6% over 8 years while Obama's brilliant economic policies couldn't keep unemployment below 9%?
              "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

              Comment


              • #8
                I'm sure the economy would be soaring if we could afford to increase the deficit and sustain the increase for as long as Reagan did. We can't though can we and oops we couldnt then which is how we ended up here the culmination of the real legacy of Reaganomics massive goverment debt.
                Where free unions and collective bargaining are forbidden, freedom is lost.”
                ~Ronald Reagan

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by gunnut View Post
                  Doesn't matter how anyone spins the numbers, Reagan inherited a mess from Carter and turned it around. Obama inherited a mess(?) from Bush and worsened it.

                  How does anyone explain that Bush's failed economic policies produced an average unemployment rate of less than 6% over 8 years while Obama's brilliant economic policies couldn't keep unemployment below 9%?
                  So you believbe things were better after 2.5 years of Reagan than when he took office? You do know the recession that is closest to the one Obama inherited started in 1982? If you blame carter for that then I guess going forward will be obamanomics and you were blaming Bush till now.............
                  Where free unions and collective bargaining are forbidden, freedom is lost.”
                  ~Ronald Reagan

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Roosveltrepub View Post
                    So you believbe things were better after 2.5 years of Reagan than when he took office? You do know the recession that is closest to the one Obama inherited started in 1982? If you blame carter for that then I guess going forward will be obamanomics and you were blaming Bush till now.............
                    "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Roosveltrepub View Post
                      I'm sure the economy would be soaring if we could afford to increase the deficit and sustain the increase for as long as Reagan did. We can't though can we and oops we couldnt then which is how we ended up here the culmination of the real legacy of Reaganomics massive goverment debt.
                      Well your man is on the right track. Just don't stop the presses.

                      It is funny to me when someone blames Reagan's administration for the economy (guess because they can't on foreign politics - USSR).

                      Well, if you think he sucks big time, look movies from before and after his mandate. Look at the cars, cloths, buildings and compare it with UK and France in the same period.
                      No such thing as a good tax - Churchill

                      To make mistakes is human. To blame someone else for your mistake, is strategic.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Doktor View Post
                        Well your man is on the right track. Just don't stop the presses.

                        It is funny to me when someone blames Reagan's administration for the economy (guess because they can't on foreign politics - USSR).

                        Well, if you think he sucks big time, look movies from before and after his mandate. Look at the cars, cloths, buildings and compare it with UK and France in the same period.
                        yeah and they all had cradle to grave medical care instead of payments for the Jags and BMWs in our driveway. Again if you look at the growth of gdp and the inflation rate as well as unemployment Clinton was the real succuss of the last 30 years. Oh please the increase as a percentage from the previous administration and Regan's first was staggering....Obama inherited a trillion dollar defict and it's not going to be a 3 trillion dollar one in 2 yrs
                        Where free unions and collective bargaining are forbidden, freedom is lost.”
                        ~Ronald Reagan

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Hmm... I remember a lot of Fords in the movies from the 80s. Not so many in the 90s and very few today
                          No such thing as a good tax - Churchill

                          To make mistakes is human. To blame someone else for your mistake, is strategic.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            gunnut,

                            Doesn't matter how anyone spins the numbers, Reagan inherited a mess from Carter and turned it around. Obama inherited a mess(?) from Bush and worsened it.
                            I, for one, am certainly glad you aren’t going to let mere facts get in the way of your preconceived notions about history.

                            = = = = =

                            Actual History:

                            Ronald Reagan increased the national debt by a larger amount than Presidents Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford and Carter combined. He actually managed to increase the debt by $996.7 billion more than all of the cumulative increases in the 35 years since WWII ended.

                            In the last four years of the Clinton Administration, the US ran a budget surplus averaging $139.8 billion a year, or 1.4% of GDP. Four years later, those figures were -316.6 billion and -2.7% of GDP, the biggest turn-around in fiscal well-being since the 1930s.

                            Doubting Thomass are directed to cbo.gov where they will be able to gather and analyze the data for themselves.
                            Trust me?
                            I'm an economist!

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by DOR View Post
                              ...Ronald Reagan increased the national debt by a larger amount than Presidents Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford and Carter combined. He actually managed to increase the debt by $996.7 billion more than all of the cumulative increases in the 35 years since WWII ended.
                              No one gives a shit about the national debt when Eisenhower was president. Reagan didn't leave us with a debt that couldn't be paid off.

                              In 1980 I paid 21% interest for a car loan. I think the mafia was charging 15% at the time.

                              The US freaking boomed after Reagan came in.

                              Carter was a disaster, Obama is a disaster.

                              Does the term capital strike mean anything to you?

                              Originally posted by DOR View Post
                              ...In the last four years of the Clinton Administration, the US ran a budget surplus averaging $139.8 billion a year, or 1.4% of GDP. Four years later, those figures were -316.6 billion and -2.7% of GDP, the biggest turn-around in fiscal well-being since the 1930s.
                              None of that's true by treasury numbers. The US national debt never decreased under Clinton.

                              Put the US gov't under GAAP and accrual accounting and you'll see the real numbers.

                              And hang the Fcuking bankers.

                              Originally posted by DOR View Post
                              ...Doubting Thomass are directed to cbo.gov where they will be able to gather and analyze the data for themselves.
                              No need, we know the numbers.

                              The first 6 years of Bush Jr. we ran $100-130 Billion deficits. In 2007 the dems took the Congress and it jumped to $450 Billion, the next year was the TARP and it jumped to a Trillion.

                              Government ran on C.R.'s No appropriations bills.

                              It continued to climb with Obama, the second $350 Billion of TARP and the $863 Billion porkulus, much of which got shoved into annual appropriations. Car company bailouts, tons and tons of idiotic spending.

                              So 2009, $1.6 Trillion deficit.
                              2010, no budget, another $1.5 Trillion deficit.
                              2011, no budget, another $1.6 Trillion deficit.

                              This is the course we're on.
                              "We will go through our federal budget – page by page, line by line – eliminating those programs we don’t need, and insisting that those we do operate in a sensible cost-effective way." -President Barack Obama 11/25/2008

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X