How did he do it?

He did it by being fresh with his policies. Less than 25 years old fresh.

>>2852824
i dont know, maybe you werent bombing sheepherderds in the middle of nowhere?

Tax increases on the wealthy combined with economic growth. However, this economic growth was sort of "blowing a load" because it was backed by more household debt than ever before, meaning that everything ran too hot, leading to issues later on (the 2008 crisis). Same issues Reagan would create in another form 15 years earlier, where he prioritized high growth and spending over market stability.

ride that dot com boom baby

>>2852824
Conservatives don't understand economics.

Got all the economic benefits of Regan era policies finally panning out

File: 20967064.png (111KB, 500x522px) Image search: [Google]

111KB, 500x522px

>>2852824
He embraced neoliberalism.

>>2852824
He had a Congress that was willing to work for a balanced budget and not hash it out in the trenches at the slightest provocation. He also made a lot of compromises regarding welfare. None of this mattered, because the next administration tanked the budget almost immediately.

>>2852824
It's almost like he figured out that tax cuts on the wealthy don't trickle down.

>>2852851
>Got all the economic benefits of Regan era policies finally panning out

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAH

>>2852879

Notice how he comes in on the rise and leaves just as it begins to fall

>>2852897
Reaganomics is a meme, bud

>>2852879
>>2852897

A bit of calculus:
Don't just looks at the troughs and peaks of the graphs, look at how they're changing.

At the tail end of Bush Sr's years, we see a slope that is getting *less negative* until there's a reversal.
It's important to note not just the reversal but the trend before it, as that illustrates a successful movement happening.
The famous line "if we just stick it out a little longer..." you often hear from dems who talk about social services. "It'll work, just gibb a little more time and money" has a certain weight if you can show a slope getting "less negative" like that.

It does look like, at the beginning of the clinton years, we continue on with that trend, with a sudden spike, and a very hardcore pulldown toward the end.
Maybe he did do something right.

But again, that sort of drop doesn't come from nothing. There had to be a trend boiling up before it. Something he did was causing his upward movement to become "less positive", culminating in a peek, and a dramatic fall, that continues into Bush Jr.'s term much in the same way Clinton got a bit of the rise from Sr.'s

Conservatives will tell you this dramatic spike and consequent dip is from artificially pumping up those numbers by borrowing heavily from social security.
The consequent downturn would make a lot of sense then.

>>2852960
>all of this from looking at the graph

You are a moron. The surplus is there not because of Reagan (senile retard) but due to Clinton's increase in taxes.

File: Untitled.png (360KB, 1026x1312px) Image search: [Google]

360KB, 1026x1312px

>>2852960
>>2852959
Reaganomics may be meme-worthy, but it's not quite as persistent or dangerous as the 70-year meme of Keynesian deficit spending that's been rampant in this country since the Great Depression.

Besides, it wasn't just Reagan doing the work.
Supply-side econ would be a better term. Still a "meme" of a system, admittedly.

>>2852963
Economic analysis has a great deal to do with graphs, dude.
Graphs are numbers visualized. We have them for a reason. Area under the curve has real-world significance, slope is a real thing.

If the surplus came from Clinton's borrowing, so did the ensuing deficit trend.

>>2852824
>republicans incharge of deficit
>lose money and wonder why cutting tax to rich doesn't work

>democrats incharge of deficit
>regain the lost money by taxing the rich

>>2853055
>regain the lost money by taxing the rich

What about when they start losing money again?

File: the law of large numbers doesn't exist.jpg (145KB, 1921x1081px) Image search: [Google]

145KB, 1921x1081px

>>2853153

>What about when they start losing money again?

Why are Republicans so ass-ravaged?

File: 8355.png (64KB, 193x192px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 193x192px

>>2852828
Underrated.

>>2852824
2017-25=1992
Mods pls delet

>>2853157
It's true though, they always end up losing money.
At which point they realize the rich just don't have enough.

Clinton's spike was just illustrated as the dishonest result of borrowing, on top of the upturn bleeding over from Bush Sr.. It ended with a sharp downturn that carried over into Bush Jr's regime, which only dug deeper with needless war spending.

Your graph is then missing Obama's second term, and Roosevelt's before Truman's, both of which were financed by WWII.

Based Truman the fiscally conservative Democrat is actually famous for uncovering enormous amounts of government waste when he went around the country auditing New Deal programs.

Does this sound like partisan butthurt to you?

File: Revenue-by-Source-9-2-14.v3[1].gif (48KB, 1622x920px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 1622x920px

>>2852824
he got lucky with an economic boom that vastly increased tax revenue

>>2852824
Three things in order of importance:

1. Economic boom that had little to do with Clinton himself.
2. Cutting spending (welfare reform, military cuts, etc.)
3. Increased taxes, but still below Carter-era tax rates.

>>2852824
That was Gingrich not Clinton.

>>2852824
Robbed the social security/medicare savings fund. Alongside Republican/Democrat support. =]

>>2852965
Keynesian economics (or proto-Keynesian in earliest cases) is the source of the worst economic disasters obviously but Reagan's mistakes were even easier to predict. Low taxes, high spending. In his opinion he had a war to win but still.

>>2853157
I made this copypasta three years ago when this came out


1. Since 1949 the Democrats have been in office for less time than the Republicans. That can skew the data.
2. Republicans generally take office after a Democrat starts a war: Woodrow Wilson, Truman, JFK/LBJ.
When you end wartime public spending, there's almost always a huge GDP growth slowdown.
3. Republicans are generally the ones that change economic/monetary policy. Eisenhower moved away from the absolute Keynesian controls of FDR/Truman. This led to a steep slowdown in public sector spending. Nixon changed the economy towards Monetarism, which contributed to the price shocks in the 70's. Reagan adopted neoliberalism as an economic policy, which facilitated the globalization/tech boom of the 90's-2000's.
4. Republican presidents have bad luck. Eisenhower inherited a high-inflation, high public spending economy. Nixon did as well. So did Reagan.
Bush 2 inherited the dotcom crash of 2000. He also inherited the failed deregulatory policies of Reagan/Clinton in the 2008 crash.
It's hard to see how a Democratic president would have done much better in these situations.
5. Democrats generally redistribute wealth towards the demand side of the economy. This usually boosts short-term GDP growth (and in my opinion, helps those who are most disadvantaged in society).
Republicans generally spend on the production side of the economy. This boosts long-term productivity gains and reorients the competitive advantage of the economy. It also leads to concentrated job losses.
Both sides are useful though, and that's partly why the US is one of the richest economies in the world.

>>2852824
People seem to forget who was controlling the purse strings during the """"surplus"""" years. I'll give you a hint: it wasn't Slick Willy or his Democrat Band. Either way, it's widely recognized by economists that the surplus was an accounting fiction which becomes painfully obvious when you realize that the debt continued to grow during the "surplus" years.

>>2852842
You're right. We were bombing "sheepherderds" in the middle of the Balkans.

>>2853684
I really dislike this meme republican talking point.

Every government fucks with the stats. That's a reality.

What you idiots aren't stating is the obvious. Clinton was president during the tech-boom and dotcom bubble. You all seem to think the government controls the economy or decides when it recedes or grows. In the USA, 90% of the control of the economy is private business. 5% is foreign events. Only 5% is the government (since Reagan).

>>2853806
>stating the obvious that the surplus was numbers fuckery is a meme talking point
I'm sorry what

>>2853818
When I state that the numbers are always fucked with, that means they are always fucked with by every president and every party.

Therefore complain about a fake surplus doesn't necessarily change the fact it wasn't a Bush-tier/Reagan-tier/Obama deficit

File: 1466577677270.jpg (43KB, 908x483px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 908x483px

>>2852824
>le budget deficit meme
READ STEVE KEEN
http://digamo.free.fr/keen2011.pdf

Bill Clinton was worthless and neoliberalism is bullshit.

>>2853891
It was though. The debt increased 1.3 Trillion dollars over Clintons Presidency, 200 billion of which was during the surplus years. H.W. Bush had a debt increase of 1.6 Trillion. Reagan 1.8 Trillion. Slick Willy may have come slightly under, but let's not pretend he wasn't in the ball pak. Not only was he in the ball park, he was in the diamond, sitting right on first fucking base.

File: 1478482097529.jpg (47KB, 619x449px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 619x449px

>>2852965
reminder that debt as a % of GDP plunged during the keynesian era (1945-1975ish)

people like paul krugman aren't keynesians, they're new-neoclassical-synthesis shills who want to sound cuddly. (the same way British Liberals call themselves socialists to sound more working class.)

>>2853946
I really want to post a criticism of this but I'm afraid I'll invoke the wrath of Mod

File: 1475531355182.png (77KB, 834x612px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 834x612px

>>2853977
The graph or the book?

The graph is just the first thing that was lying around. I'll save any graph that shows things getting worse.

>>2853977

It was probably a fairly shit criticism you had in mind if you can't even discuss economic policy without saying something that would get deleted.

>>2853989
I didn't read either, but it seems that today most are blaming neo-keynesian macroeconomic theory for the income gap, but it seems far more likely that the culprits are outsourcing and automation. This becomes particularly true when you look at income grown across the globe as a whole rather than just the United States.

>>2853989
I posted it anyways. It's actually not a poor criticism but a more common one. All of these posts are risking the wrath of Mod as they're well outside the scope of this board and are breaking not one, but two rules. I better not get banned for this shit.

>>2853946
>average
Pretty disengenous don't you think?

>>2852969
take literally the first class in college on using graphs in econ and they spend the entire time teaching you about how graphs can be used to mislead, literally the entire first day is that. Don't be an idiot, don't pretend you can look at a single graph that shows extremely generalized events and start drawing conclusions from it.

If you're going to pretend to be educated at least pretend like you actually know what college is like and aren't just assuming shit like an idiot.

>>2853961
Among Keynesians there are bad and less bad but they still need to fuck off. Just ask them if they believe in digging and burrying ditches to fight unemployment to see if he is who he claims.

>>2853946

> reagan halves taxes for the top 10%
> all the income growth goes to them

really makes you think.

File: 1484906488761.jpg (27KB, 656x362px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 656x362px

>>2854015
the book itself doesn't do this (Actually, it doesn't really talk about deficits very much, it's just a good rundown on why the new neoclassical synthesis is bad and should feel bad.), it's more about banking than about wider political economy
though i would consider outsourcing part of the free-trade, free-capital-flow policies that are generally advocated by mainstream macroeconomists. (dude comparative advantage lmao.)

>>2854018
i'm not inclined to believe so - the general trend is definitely there, although i can't find the better graph that breaks income distribution up more.
(the gist of it is since the 1970s in first world countries: bottom have stagnated or declined, middle have seen a tiny increase, income at the top has exploded. global poverty has plunged as incomes in China grew, but for the west things are pretty shit.)

mostly i just want to spread pessimism. The most fascinating projection I've yet heard is that real wages in 2021 will be no higher than in 2008. Even in the "dark days" of the 1970s, most people ended the decade paid better than they entered it. Not us.

>>2854048
>Just ask them if they believe in digging and burrying ditches to fight unemployment to see if he is who he claims.
this is a strawman.
(although "ask if he believes in solving unemployment or just fucking with le money multiplier meme" would actually be a pretty good test.)

File: harold v blair.jpg (108KB, 1005x289px) Image search: [Google]

108KB, 1005x289px

>>2854048
>ree keynes
R E M I N D E R

>>2854053
And how did they look before? Not everyone considers progressive tax bullshit fair.

File: 126998-L.jpg (37KB, 333x500px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 333x500px

>>2854058
Oh you bring up the golden age. Splendid.
I have a book for you.
I bet you think WWII itself is responsible for the end of the Great Depression.

File: 1478228653387.png (36KB, 425x561px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 425x561px

http://www.redpepper.org.uk/Their-crisis-our-challenge/
reminder that mass immigration is a component of anti-labour policy.

>One of the major barriers to continuous capital accumulation back in the 1960s and early 1970s was the labour question. There were scarcities of labour both in Europe and the US, and labour was well-organised, with political clout. So one of the big barriers to capital accumulation during that period was: how can capital get access to cheaper and more docile labour supplies? There were a number of answers.

>One was to encourage more immigration. In the United States there was a major revision of the immigration laws in 1965 that in effect allowed the US access to the global surplus population (before that only Europeans and Caucasians were privileged). In the late 1960s the French government was subsidising the import of Maghrebian labour, the Germans were bringing in the Turks, the Swedes were bringing in the Yugoslavs, the British were drawing upon their empire. So a pro-immigrant policy emerged, which was one attempt to deal with the labour problem.

>The second thing you go for is rapid technological change, which throws people out of work. Thirdly, you had people like Reagan and Thatcher and Pinochet to crush organised labour. And finally capital goes to where the surplus labour is by off-shoring. This was facilitated by technical reorganisation of the transport systems: one of the biggest revolutions that happened during this period is containerisation, which allowed you to make auto parts in Brazil and ship them for very low cost to Detroit or wherever. And the new communications systems allowed the tight organisation of commodity chain production.

>>2854055
>though i would consider outsourcing part of the free-trade
Truish, but really it's a phenomenon that predates the more recent trend of MUH FREE TRADE. MUH FREE TRADE is actually a product of the outsourcing of good production rather than the other way around. You can actually pinpoint it to the invention of the modular shipping container. I'm not even shitting you.

>>2854073
Skiming around the generalities (i.e. I've briefly looked into it, obviously I can't read it all in the lifetime of this thread): Why did it end in the 1970s then, even though Regan amped defence spending?

>>2854073
Or that FDR managed to do it even before it.
Or that Hoover's plan to combat depression was any different or whatever myths your kind has about this period.

File: 1483020403006.png (603KB, 712x840px) Image search: [Google]

603KB, 712x840px

>>2854088
>your kind
i mean if you want to mudsling
https://mises.org/library/children-and-rights
>Applying our theory to parents and children, this means that a parent does not have the right to aggress against his children, but also that the parent should not have a legal obligation to feed, clothe, or educate his children, since such obligations would entail positive acts coerced upon the parent and depriving the parent of his rights. The parent therefore may not murder or mutilate his child, and the law properly outlaws a parent from doing so. But the parent should have the legal right not to feed the child, i.e., to allow it to die.2 The law, therefore, may not properly compel the parent to feed a child or to keep it alive.3 (Again, whether or not a parent has a moral rather than a legally enforceable obligation to keep his child alive is a completely separate question.) This rule allows us to solve such vexing questions as: should a parent have the right to allow a deformed baby to die (e.g., by not feeding it)?4 The answer is of course yes, following a fortiori from the larger right to allow any baby, whether deformed or not, to die. (Though, as we shall see below, in a libertarian society the existence of a free baby market will bring such "neglect" down to a minimum.)
FREE
BABY
MARKETS

>>2854085
Two things: all winners except for USA were absolutely spent after WWII and many regulations intriduced by Hoover and FDR during the crisis were thankfully revoked. This boom lasted about 30s and it was a natural duration.

>>2854098
Don't bring Mises to a Hayek fight.
https://mises.org/library/hayek-and-praxeology

Turns out different people have different opinions but there's also his defense.

https://mises.org/blog/3-ways-critics-get-praxeology-wrong

File: quote33.jpg (62KB, 850x400px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 850x400px

>when bad guys lose

There was a really good discussion with Jim Powell about the Great Depression. I don't know if it was Mises Institute or Cato or whatever but they were actually challenging him and it wasn't a circlejerk at all, which is a nice change from all the lib discussion boards that I know that are only good for some bibliography.

Computers

Why are American republicans so shit at economics? Why are American democrats so shit at society and culture?

>>2854118
>He explains how economics has lost its way by trying to emulate the physical sciences and their empirical method.
See, I'm inclined to the exact opposite view. The problem with economics is abandoning empiricism when it suits them or coming up with ad-hoc justifications because lol assumptions don't matter, so long as you preserve the sloping supply and demand curve.

Though I have a soft-spot for the austrians, since they (a) recognise that something is wrong, and (b) tend to be less smug and closed to discussion than synthesis neoliberals. At least there's some sense of intellectual consistency. I'd say I almost get a sense of how Keynes and Hayek got along personally even though they vehemently disagreed on economic matters.

Though I don't think I could forgive Hayek for his advice to start free-market think tanks ( http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/adamcurtis/entries/fdb484c8-99a1-32a3-83be-20108374b985 ), especially the IEA. They're very annoying background noise in British politics. (He says, not unaware of the hypocrisy, after citing the IFS* projection for wage growth...)
*Founded because some financial services Tories got upset that the government introduced capital gains taxes.

>>2854191
desu both parties are essentially as bad as one another and the electoral cycle just smooths things over.
There's almost certainly a recession coming which people will blame on president two-scoops xD even though the groundwork was laid in 2008.

>>2854191
Ideology? idk

>>2854055
What the fuck is Poland doing to get numbers like that?

>>2854264
This is why I don't believe statistics. They can be manipulated so easily and never tell the whole story.

>>2854264
>>2854275
Manufacturing things for Germany.
Basically inside the Euro, countries like France get royally fucked because their fiscal policy is restrained, while Germany gets an export advantage from being undervalued. (Hence why their growth is also strong.)

Because Poland is starting from such a low baseline, they see rapid improvement, but other countries get fucked.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WAvmGI4OZ-E

Gee, I wonder (((who))) could be behind all this economic woe.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sVXnoanopzA

>>2854290
Wtf I love outsourcing now. I'm gonna wate for my raise then.

>>2854063

> progressive tax bullshit

says the person who benefits from progressive tax.

Nobody that posts on 4chan falls remotely within the 1%.

>>2853639
Reagan's "mistakes" were concrete political strategy the Republican Party adopted in the mid 70's. Starve the beast was a way Republicans could have their cake and eat it, too. Cut taxes, but don't cut spending in a way that would upset your base, and when the Dems take back the government they'll have to either raise taxes or cut spending in a way that would hurt them in the next election cycle.

>>2854290
Jesus that Mark Blyth video was depressing

>>2854319
I don't know and how is that relevant? Still overtaxed.

>>2854380

They are taxes that benefit you...

I mean, if you personally want to pay more taxes to fund government programs, be my guest, just don't file for tax returns next year.

File: 1466352876901.gif (504KB, 1080x1080px) Image search: [Google]

504KB, 1080x1080px

>>2854380
>be underpaid
>whine about being overtaxed instead

>>2854275
Do you really believe that everyone who measures everything is manipulating everything in exactly the same way so that it all agrees? The country that actually bullshits is China, and we still have a rough grasp on what is actually going on because by teasing apart inconsistencies and independent reports we can find the truth. I recall in the 70s there was a French economist who did much the same for Soviet stats, to the point of predicting shit hitting the fan by 2000. I wish I could pull up the study, but I doubt it's even online.

>>2854030
I think you're upset because this particular graph says something you don't happen to agree with.

I didn't post the graph, someone else did. Somehow it wasn't misleading until I broke down what it said. Why would they teach you graph math in school and immediately tell you never to use it because it's all biased and wrong?

>>2853649

Very well said dude, much appreciated

>>2853649
Strictly speaking it was Carter who began the moves to neoliberalism, he was just lukewarm about it.
He began the moves towards banking, airline and trucking deregulation for example.

It's kind of a shame because his "malaise forever" speech was amazing.
>In a nation that was proud of hard work, strong families, close-knit communities, and our faith in God, too many of us now tend to worship self-indulgence and consumption. Human identity is no longer defined by what one does, but by what one owns. But we’ve discovered that owning things and consuming things does not satisfy our longing for meaning. We’ve learned that piling up material goods cannot fill the emptiness of lives which have no confidence or purpose.