"I helped create the GOP tax myth. Trump is wrong. Tax cuts don't equal growth."

As I showed, you go well beyond merely pointing out errors.

 

Right - the party of insults and personal attacks now complains about someone who points out errors. That's rich.

 

Are you going to stop or shall I ignore you?

 

You haven't factored in the definition changes. It most certainly went above 4 million using pre-1979 definitions.

No they didn't. Thatcher was genuinely right wing attempt at economic change. Reaganomics was boring Military Keynesianism.

Thatcher bought the snake oil sold by Friedman and Hayek. Her understanding of economics was woeful, ensuring that she implemented bad ideas poorly.

 

That's absurd - what definition changes ??

Reagan and Thatcher acted on the same principles.

Where do you get this garbage ??

 

I will never stop exposing false statements.

 

British unemployment figures are derived from definition of unemployment benefit recipients.i.e. They changed definition such that unemployed people would receive other benefits, rather than the dole.

This is very naive. Reaganomics increase military spending and cut taxes. Standard demand management. His success is only in convincing right wingers they were voting for something different.

Real world economics. You're not going to like it.

 

You are saying that there are double the unemployed by definition ?? That's absurd.

Military spending has nothing to do with supply side economics. Reagan's decision to increase military spending was a foreign policy and national security decision.

Your real world is anything but.

 

Don't fib now, even the official figures went over 3 million.

Of course not. Military spending was just a crucial part of Keynesian demand management of the economy, making a mockery of your supply side claims.

 

The data does not fib. Unemployment double due to the actions Thatcher took to reduce the 25% inflation rate in the UK. Unemployment did not quadruple.

Your comments on Reagan's military spending are just stupid. He stated that he was going to destroy the evil empire and he did.

 

I love your insistence that the government can be trusted. The reality is of course different. But let's spend a couple of minutes at least appreciating how you think the government doesn't fib..........

This isn't an educated response. Did Reaganomics significantly increase military expenditure? Yep. Did it also reduce taxes? Yep. Standard Military Keynesianism. You seem to struggle with economics.

 

That's funny - now you are somehow privy into gov data manipulation with unemployment statistics ??

The suggestion that Reagan increased military spending as a Keynesian economic stimulus is stupid.

 

You think they can redefine the dole and no one notices? Crikey, you do seem to think the government is most splendid. Ironically, Thatcherites don't agree.

Their efforts at justification is irrelevant. Reaganomics was just bland Military Keynesianism. Shame you don't understand government impact...

 

That's bizarre ^^

 

That isn't an economic response. Given you're insistent on the government being righteous, let's give you some slack!

 

Reaganomics is gov military spending Keynesianism ?? This is a Monty Python sketch. Hilarious.

 

I don't understand what you're arguing.

Keynesianism simply predicts the effects of massive government spending. I don't think anyone is saying that Reagan planned it as a Keynesian strategy, but the fact remains that the economy reacted exactly the way Keynes would have predicted as a result of massive government expenditures.

You need to think of the deficit simply as the government's contribution to the private sector. If the government cuts taxes at the same time, that's just the government saying, here, keep more of the government's contribution. Under Reagan, the government did both and the economy did well as a result.

The truth is that this shatters the dogma you peddle about supply-side.

 

That's ridiculous. The added military spending was miniscule compared to the US gdp.

 

Here is a comparison for you. Military spending increased by 11% from 1980 (on the left) compared with 1983 (on the right). Similarly, the US budget deficit hit it's the highest point relative to GDP to any point in history prior to 2008 (figure 2).

Figure 1




Figure 2


This has Keynes written all over it.

Ironically, the surplus that existed under Clinton is not Keynesian at all. It accomplishes the exact opposite and was terrible long term for our economy.

Republicans and Democrats have all bought into neoliberal economic policies.

 

We are talking about the increase in spending relative to the US economy. And the surplus under Clinton was the result of supply side economic policies.

 

Which is demonstrated by the graph at the bottom

Yes, and it was an unmitigated disaster that resulted in 2 recessions over the next 7 years. One of the worst economic decisions made by any administration since the great depression. The only reason it took 8 years for the economy to totally collapse as a result of the surplus is that the private sector tried to borrow money to prevent the ensuing collapse. We know how that worked out.[/QUOTE]

 

Are you kidding me ?? High rates of economic growth resulting in budget surpluses are responsible for 2 recessions in the next 7 years ?? That's a truly bizarre conclusion based on a complete lack of knowledge of the particulars of each of those recessions. Amazing.

 

High rates of economic growth did not result in budget surpluses. The Congress, under Clinton, chose to eliminate spending to the point that taxes exceeded expenditures. However, the effects of a lack of spending are buffered by the private sector's capacity to save and borrow.

If I'm right and government surplus' cut income to the private sector, then predictably we should see the private sector respond by decreasing it's savings and increasing it's borrowing in order to make up for the loss of income. That is exactly what happens. The high rates of economic growth helped create savings and credit in the private sector which delay the onset of a recession. That's compounded by the fact that the private sector reaches deep and begins to pull value out of their homes. All of this keeps the economy growing, but the burden of debt is shifted from the public sector to the private sector as the government has run a surplus and now the economy must correct as a result. A correction, as I already stated, that was delayed via borrowing in the private sector.

Personal savings during the surplus:



Credit:



Savings and credit add the money back to the economy that the government is removing via surplus.

The problem is that families are limited to the amount of credit they can create. After a while, a tipping point comes and the private sector stops borrowing and the music ends.

 

That's ridiculous. Tax revenues are independent of whatever is going on with regards to gov spending. Savings and credit likewise are independent. That's a bizarre analysis.

 

I didn't say "tax revenues", I said expenditures effect savings and credit. When the government spends less, the private sector spends savings and/or increases borrowing. If the private sector no longer has an adequate surplus of savings and/ or credit is tapped out, recession sets in until government spending increases.