Economics 101

[CultureCitizen]

So you think the problem would be solved by eliminating the minimum wage in both the US and México? That's nonesense.

That is nonsense. So why would you say something so stupid? Because not only did I not say that - I didn't even imply anything remotely close to it.

For starters - Mexico is a sovereign nation. We couldn't change their labor laws if we had 100% support in America. And, if both were eliminated, why would jobs come home when labor would still be just as cheap there? The cost to move everything back wouldn't make much sense.

This is business 101 and just plain common sense as well. When you go shopping for a new Ford - you're not going to pay $54,000 from one dealership when you can go to another dealership and purchase the exact same vehicle for $39,000. A consumer shops for the best deal. Businesses are consumers too. They shop for the best deal. America has given them the ultimate screw-job. They set the Ford price at $54,000 while other nations are offering it for $39,000. Only an idealist idiot wouldn't understand something so basic.

When Social Security was created and implemented by the Dumbocrats in (1938?) it was $0.25 per hour. Adjust for inflation, that comes out to $4.23 per hour today. Yet minimum wage is nearly twice that much and idiots are pushing for a $15 per hour minimum wage (which will completley decimate the economy). If minimum wage had grown along with inflation as it should have - we wouldn't have lost millions of jobs to other nations.

Ok Patriot you said :

Exactly....labor is cheaper. It's not the free market that has driven up the cost of labor in the U.S. It is government labor laws (like minimum wage) and government regulations (like those which stipulate an organization must negotiate with a union).
So back to YOUR point: we get rid of the MW and unions.
Exactly how many legal US citizens do you know who would work for $4.20 an hour or less ?
And how does that change the decreasing labour to gdp participation ? ( sory , but you can't really produce things if people don't have the purchasing power to buy them ).
You seem to be ignoring the charts I posted previously: increasing industrial production with a decreasing number of jobs. What does that mean ? What does the "genius" Milton have to say about that ?

Your frustration is palpable as the realization sets in that your precious ideology and little left-wing charts don't hold up to reality.

Businesses are consumers. Whoever makes them the best deal will win their business. Now, we can either embrace an idiotic failed socialist ideology or we can work together as a nation to provide business with best deal so that jobs and tax dollars flock here. It really is that simple. You've clearly chosen ideology and as a subsequent Cuban-style economy of poverty. I choose to embrace reality and a thriving economy.

Time to start macro 101.

 

[P@triot]

No. Because government (thanks to liberalism) has made doing business unsustainable.

Why is it, then, that Real GDP has grown every year since the Great Republican Recession year of 2009?
US Real GDP Growth Rate by Year

Why is it then that Barack Obama is the only president in U.S. history to not see even one single year of 3% GDP growth or more. Boom! Game over princess.

The reason we've seen any growth at all is because the American people turned to conservatives in the 2010 mid-terms to save them. They turned the House and the Senate over to conservatives. But most of all - they turned their states over to conservatives and the states have done a marvelous job of creating jobs under the circumstances. Barack Obama has done everything within his power to collapse the U.S. economy (and came awfully close).

 

[P@triot]

So you think the problem would be solved by eliminating the minimum wage in both the US and México? That's nonesense.

That is nonsense. So why would you say something so stupid? Because not only did I not say that - I didn't even imply anything remotely close to it.

For starters - Mexico is a sovereign nation. We couldn't change their labor laws if we had 100% support in America. And, if both were eliminated, why would jobs come home when labor would still be just as cheap there? The cost to move everything back wouldn't make much sense.

This is business 101 and just plain common sense as well. When you go shopping for a new Ford - you're not going to pay $54,000 from one dealership when you can go to another dealership and purchase the exact same vehicle for $39,000. A consumer shops for the best deal. Businesses are consumers too. They shop for the best deal. America has given them the ultimate screw-job. They set the Ford price at $54,000 while other nations are offering it for $39,000. Only an idealist idiot wouldn't understand something so basic.

When Social Security was created and implemented by the Dumbocrats in (1938?) it was $0.25 per hour. Adjust for inflation, that comes out to $4.23 per hour today. Yet minimum wage is nearly twice that much and idiots are pushing for a $15 per hour minimum wage (which will completley decimate the economy). If minimum wage had grown along with inflation as it should have - we wouldn't have lost millions of jobs to other nations.

Ok Patriot you said :

Exactly....labor is cheaper. It's not the free market that has driven up the cost of labor in the U.S. It is government labor laws (like minimum wage) and government regulations (like those which stipulate an organization must negotiate with a union).
So back to YOUR point: we get rid of the MW and unions.
Exactly how many legal US citizens do you know who would work for $4.20 an hour or less ?
And how does that change the decreasing labour to gdp participation ? ( sory , but you can't really produce things if people don't have the purchasing power to buy them ).
You seem to be ignoring the charts I posted previously: increasing industrial production with a decreasing number of jobs. What does that mean ? What does the "genius" Milton have to say about that ?

Your frustration is palpable as the realization sets in that your precious ideology and little left-wing charts don't hold up to reality.

Businesses are consumers. Whoever makes them the best deal will win their business. Now, we can either embrace an idiotic failed socialist ideology or we can work together as a nation to provide business with best deal so that jobs and tax dollars flock here. It really is that simple. You've clearly chosen ideology and as a subsequent Cuban-style economy of poverty. I choose to embrace reality and a thriving economy.

Time to start macro 101.

Ah....now you run from the topic at hand and post something that was never discussed or argued about. Beautiful.

 

[Rshermr]

[P@triot, post: 15066011, member: 30955"]

No. Because government (thanks to liberalism) has made doing business unsustainable.

Why is it, then, that Real GDP has grown every year since the Great Republican Recession year of 2009?
US Real GDP Growth Rate by Year.
"P@triot, post: 15066011, member: 30955"]["Rshermr, post: 15059553, member: 37424"][m) has made doing business unsustainable.

Why is it, then, that Real GDP has grown every year since the Great Republican Recession year of 2009?
US Real GDP Growth Rate by Year[/QUOTE] [/QUOTE]
Why is it then that Barack Obama is the only president in U.S. history to not see even one single year of 3% GDP growth or more. Boom! Game over princess.
Wow, what a simple question. Only a person with no knowledge, and probably a janitor, would not understand.
Lets explain. Try to keep up, me boy:
1. In 2008 we had the great republican recession of 2008.
2. In the years of 2008 and 2009, we had NEGATIVE growh, under republican policies.
3. We came close to the biggest depression in our history.
4. Obama saved us with a stimulus that every single republican voted against.
5. After the stimulus, which brought us back to positive growth, absolutely ZERO republicans brought forward a actual jobs bill.
6. Republicans admitted they wanted just to cause Obama to loose his second election, and did not care what they voted against.
7. Republicans voted against every single jobs bill brought forward by democrats.

So, there you go. And as a con troll janitor, you believe the con talking points, which include your present statement. Truth is, as RATIONAL people know, it is amazing that the economy has done well.
So, there you go. Game over, me janitorial princess.

The reason we've seen any growth at all is because the American people turned to conservatives in the 2010 mid-terms to save them. They turned the House and the Senate over to conservatives. But most of all - they turned their states Conservatives who did not bring forward a single jobs bill. And did what they could to ruin the economy. over to conservatives and the states have done a marvelous job of creating jobs under the circumstances. Barack Obama has done everything within his power to collapse the U.S. economy (and came awfully close)
That is, of course, a con lie. Normal from the con janitor. A janitor should provide a link to an impartial source to back up his ignorance.

 

[Rshermr]

Ok Patriot you said :

Exactly....labor is cheaper. It's not the free market that has driven up the cost of labor in the U.S. It is government labor laws (like minimum wage) and government regulations (like those which stipulate an organization must negotiate with a union).
So back to YOUR point: we get rid of the MW and unions.
Exactly how many legal US citizens do you know who would work for $4.20 an hour or less ?
And how does that change the decreasing labour to gdp participation ? ( sory , but you can't really produce things if people don't have the purchasing power to buy them ).
You seem to be ignoring the charts I posted previously: increasing industrial production with a decreasing number of jobs. What does that mean ? What does the "genius" Milton have to say about that ?[/QUOTE]
Your frustration is palpable as the realization sets in that your precious ideology and little left-wing charts don't hold up to reality.

Businesses are consumers. Whoever makes them the best deal will win their business. Now, we can either embrace an idiotic failed socialist ideology or we can work together as a nation to provide business with best deal so that jobs and tax dollars flock here. It really is that simple. You've clearly chosen ideology and as a subsequent Cuban-style economy of poverty. I choose to embrace reality and a thriving economy.

Time to start macro 101 [./QUOTE] [ /QUOTE]

Ah....now you run from the topic at hand and post something that was never discussed or argued about. Beautiful.

If you translate Patriot's post, he does not understand, and does not want to understand, very, very simple economic macroeconomics. So he needs to attack it. Because, as a janitor, he does not have any understanding of economics and simply makes a fool of himself when trying to discuss it. And poor Patriot can not understand that
So, Patriot does not know that the graphic that Culturcitisen provided gave anyone with half a brain the answer to all of the issues revolving around this subject. Poor igorant con troll.

 

[CultureCitizen]

So you think the problem would be solved by eliminating the minimum wage in both the US and México? That's nonesense.

That is nonsense. So why would you say something so stupid? Because not only did I not say that - I didn't even imply anything remotely close to it.

For starters - Mexico is a sovereign nation. We couldn't change their labor laws if we had 100% support in America. And, if both were eliminated, why would jobs come home when labor would still be just as cheap there? The cost to move everything back wouldn't make much sense.

This is business 101 and just plain common sense as well. When you go shopping for a new Ford - you're not going to pay $54,000 from one dealership when you can go to another dealership and purchase the exact same vehicle for $39,000. A consumer shops for the best deal. Businesses are consumers too. They shop for the best deal. America has given them the ultimate screw-job. They set the Ford price at $54,000 while other nations are offering it for $39,000. Only an idealist idiot wouldn't understand something so basic.

When Social Security was created and implemented by the Dumbocrats in (1938?) it was $0.25 per hour. Adjust for inflation, that comes out to $4.23 per hour today. Yet minimum wage is nearly twice that much and idiots are pushing for a $15 per hour minimum wage (which will completley decimate the economy). If minimum wage had grown along with inflation as it should have - we wouldn't have lost millions of jobs to other nations.

Ok Patriot you said :

Exactly....labor is cheaper. It's not the free market that has driven up the cost of labor in the U.S. It is government labor laws (like minimum wage) and government regulations (like those which stipulate an organization must negotiate with a union).
So back to YOUR point: we get rid of the MW and unions.
Exactly how many legal US citizens do you know who would work for $4.20 an hour or less ?
And how does that change the decreasing labour to gdp participation ? ( sory , but you can't really produce things if people don't have the purchasing power to buy them ).
You seem to be ignoring the charts I posted previously: increasing industrial production with a decreasing number of jobs. What does that mean ? What does the "genius" Milton have to say about that ?

Your frustration is palpable as the realization sets in that your precious ideology and little left-wing charts don't hold up to reality.

Businesses are consumers. Whoever makes them the best deal will win their business. Now, we can either embrace an idiotic failed socialist ideology or we can work together as a nation to provide business with best deal so that jobs and tax dollars flock here. It really is that simple. You've clearly chosen ideology and as a subsequent Cuban-style economy of poverty. I choose to embrace reality and a thriving economy.

Time to start macro 101.

Ah....now you run from the topic at hand and post something that was never discussed or argued about. Beautiful.

Not so. That is actually my first post and the reason I think Milton is wrong on so many issues:

Economics 101
"Milton completely disregarded the cyclic nature of the economy: I have never seen a lecture in which he mentions it. He treats macro as microeconomy mulptiplied by N. "

I have only come in full circle to the starting point. But to further clarify:
If the corporate and banking sectors start growing faster than households, eventually you will get a recession. You can keep growing by increasing credit, but eventually credit will become a bubble which will burst. This is what happened in 2008.
For many years the corporate and banking sectors have grown at a faster rate than household incomes, the growth was largely supported by increasing household debt. But eventually the debt became too large to pay. The bubble bursted and the economy contracted.

Exception to the above scenario: If you have exports growing faster than gdp you can keep growing until your exports fall ( like what happened in China ) , the only ways to keep the economy from collapsing in that case is through debt, either private or public.

 

[P@triot]

Not so. That is actually my first post and the reason I think Milton is wrong on so many issues:

Economics 101
"Milton completely disregarded the cyclic nature of the economy: I have never seen a lecture in which he mentions it. He treats macro as microeconomy mulptiplied by N. "

I have only come in full circle to the starting point.

Come "full circle"? You haven't even started. You've yet to grasp that business is a consumer which shops for the best deal. That's Economics 100. For 3rd graders. The thing is you know it too - you're just not willing to admit it.

 

[CultureCitizen]

Not so. That is actually my first post and the reason I think Milton is wrong on so many issues:

Economics 101
"Milton completely disregarded the cyclic nature of the economy: I have never seen a lecture in which he mentions it. He treats macro as microeconomy mulptiplied by N. "

I have only come in full circle to the starting point.

Come "full circle"? You haven't even started. You've yet to grasp that business is a consumer which shops for the best deal. That's Economics 100. For 3rd graders. The thing is you know it too - you're just not willing to admit it.

Business is a consumer, true, but eventually it all goes into households ( or government which is not in this simplified diagram). Yes there is B2B trade but eventually you reach a point in which a business has to produce something for household : spare parts for airplanes, oil, fuel, chemicals, packing material it is all to produce goods which will eventually reach households.

"Consumption is the sole end and purpose of all production; and the interest of the producer ought to be attended to only so far as it may be necessary for promoting that of the consumer... But in the mercantile system the interest of the consumer is almost constantly sacrificed to that of the producer; and it seems to consider production, and not consumption, as the ultimate end and object of all industry and commerce."
Adam Smith

... so much for supply side economics... not even Adam Smith seemed to support that folly

 

[Rshermr]

Not so. That is actually my first post and the reason I think Milton is wrong on so many issues:

Economics 101
"Milton completely disregarded the cyclic nature of the economy: I have never seen a lecture in which he mentions it. He treats macro as microeconomy mulptiplied by N. "

I have only come in full circle to the starting point.

Come "full circle"? You haven't even started. You've yet to grasp that business is a consumer which shops for the best deal. That's Economics 100. For 3rd graders. The thing is you know it too - you're just not willing to admit it.

Business is a consumer, true, but eventually it all goes into households ( or government which is not in this simplified diagram). Yes there is B2B trade but eventually you reach a point in which a business has to produce something for household : spare parts for airplanes, oil, fuel, chemicals, packing material it is all to produce goods which will eventually reach households.

"Consumption is the sole end and purpose of all production; and the interest of the producer ought to be attended to only so far as it may be necessary for promoting that of the consumer... But in the mercantile system the interest of the consumer is almost constantly sacrificed to that of the producer; and it seems to consider production, and not consumption, as the ultimate end and object of all industry and commerce."
Adam Smith

... so much for supply side economics... not even Adam Smith seemed to support that folly

If you examine the presidency of the great conservative hero, ronald reagan, you see that he did indeed voice great support for supply side economics, or Reaganomics as his followers named it. And nut case economists followed suit. And universities and colleges taught courses in the subject. Problem is, it did not work. At all. And the citizenry of this country lost patience and interest in the economic THEORY of supply side economics. Suddenly, economists that supported the theory found themselves alone on small islands. Classes in supply side economics, in most cases, went away. Now, you have to go to Liberty University or some similar far right wing college to find any courses on the subject.
Things came to an end for most people during the Reagan administration when the following occurred:
1. Reducing taxes did not result in increases in tax revenue.
2. The idea of trickle down did not occur.
3. A MAJOR recession occurred after the great tax decrease, bringing unemployment to 10.8%. The second highest rate in the past 100 years.
4. Reagan was forced to raise taxes, and more importantly, spend stimulatively more than all presidents before him COMBINED.
5. Spending and the increase in the size of the federal government, both denounced policies by Regan before he was elected, were used after the Reagan Recession to end it.
6. Everyone , in general, learned that stimulus worked and supply side policies did not.

At the end of the Reagan experiment, Supply Side economists left the theory in droves, with a few hard core economists left to preach to conservative believers. Only conservatives today try to push the theory.

 

[Rshermr]

Not so. That is actually my first post and the reason I think Milton is wrong on so many issues:

Economics 101
"Milton completely disregarded the cyclic nature of the economy: I have never seen a lecture in which he mentions it. He treats macro as microeconomy mulptiplied by N. "

I have only come in full circle to the starting point.

Come "full circle"? You haven't even started. Sorry, me boy. You totally missed it. You've yet to grasp that business is a consumer which shops for the best deal. He has not missed that fact. What you missed is that business to business demand goes away if consumer demand decreases to a point that the businesses goods are no longer purchased in sufficient quantity. You see, B2B demand is totally dependent on consumer demand. And is WAY smaller always. That's Economics 100. For 3rd graders. You just proved you know nothing about college classes in economics. Econ 100 is most often a college class in economics for non economics majors. The thing is you know it too - you're just not willing to admit it. So, you post a nonsensical idea that demand by businesses push the economy, and you can not prove it with a link, and then suggest the problem is we who understand the issue. Perhaps you have a link? Nah, of course not. You just think people should believe you based on your self professed understanding of economics. All the while proving you have no such understanding.

 

[P@triot]

If you examine the presidency of the great conservative hero, ronald reagan, you see that he did indeed voice great support for supply side economics, or Reaganomics as his followers named it. And nut case economists followed suit. And universities and colleges taught courses in the subject. Problem is, it did not work. At all.

Of course it did. It was the greatest economic success story ever. Reagan took over the second worst economy in U.S. history from Jimmy Carter and when he left office, had created one of the biggest economic booms the U.S. had ever seen. It was astounding. It was so successful, we were able to ride it for two decades until Bill Clinton's 1997 Community Re-Investment Act finally collapsed the housing market which nearly collapsed the U.S. economy.

1. Reducing taxes did not result in increases in tax revenue.

The Laffer Curve is an indisputable reality.

2. The idea of trickle down did not occur.

It absolutely occurred. But you wouldn't know because your inbred, outback ass was sitting with the aborigines unaware of what was actually occurring in the U.S. As I already stated above, Reagan took over the second worst economy in U.S. history and created one of the greatest economies ever. There has never been a bigger turn around. The indisputable reality is that poor people do not create jobs. It is the wealthy that create jobs. And they can't hire people if they don't have money in their pockets. There are only two economic choices - trickle down economics (implemented by conservatives - who actually understand economics - which creates wealth and prosperity for all) or flood up poverty (implemented by ignorant liberals who prefer ideology over reality - which creates poverty for everyone as seen by Cuba, Cambodia, and even Detroit).

 

[P@triot]

Not so. That is actually my first post and the reason I think Milton is wrong on so many issues:

Economics 101
"Milton completely disregarded the cyclic nature of the economy: I have never seen a lecture in which he mentions it. He treats macro as microeconomy mulptiplied by N. "

I have only come in full circle to the starting point.

Come "full circle"? You haven't even started. Sorry, me boy. You totally missed it. You've yet to grasp that business is a consumer which shops for the best deal. He has not missed that fact. What you missed is that business to business demand goes away if consumer demand decreases to a point that the businesses goods are no longer purchased in sufficient quantity. You see, B2B demand is totally dependent on consumer demand. And is WAY smaller always. That's Economics 100. For 3rd graders. You just proved you know nothing about college classes in economics. Econ 100 is most often a college class in economics for non economics majors. The thing is you know it too - you're just not willing to admit it. So, you post a nonsensical idea that demand by businesses push the economy, and you can not prove it with a link, and then suggest the problem is we who understand the issue. Perhaps you have a link? Nah, of course not. You just think people should believe you based on your self professed understanding of economics. All the while proving you have no such understanding.

I notice you still have not figured out how to use this website. Anyone too ignorant to use a website should not even attempt to discuss economics.

 

[P@triot]

You've yet to grasp that business is a consumer which shops for the best deal.

He has not missed that fact. What you missed is that business to business demand goes away if consumer demand decreases to a point that the businesses goods are no longer purchased in sufficient quantity. You see, B2B demand is totally dependent on consumer demand. And is WAY smaller always.

Bwahahahahaha! The fact that your dumb-ass believes my quote about businesses "shopping for the best deal" is in regards to "business to business" is not only an illustration of your astounding ignorance but also a real indictment on your reading comprehension.

Sweetie...we have been talking about government regulations on business for like 10 pages now. When I said business were shopping for the best deal - it was not in the context of goods and services from other businesses. It was in the context of governments. Which ever nations would provide them with the best deal of the lowest taxes, the least costly regulations, the least costly labor demands, all of which have the biggest impact on costs to the business which in turn have the biggest impact on profits.

Rshermr - I'm sorry. I really am. But you simply don't have the intellect to be in these discussion. You want so badly to be American and be bright enough to be involved but you need to accept who and what you are. Come to grips with it. Nobody was even hinting at "B2B" and yet that's what you got out of the discussion because you can't follow along. Now please - set down the mouse, pick up your 12 foot spear and your didgeridoo, and leave discussions about the U.S. to Americans.

So once again here for the infinitely ignorant - businesses shop for the best deal (from nations/governments). The idiot ideology of liberalism has driven millions of U.S. jobs overseas because liberal taxes, liberal labor laws, and liberal regulations have made it nearly impossible to conduct business in America. When and if liberals wake up to this indisputable reality and cultivate a competitive business environment in the U.S. - jobs will come rushing back. We need to have the lowest corporate tax rate in the world, the least amount of regulations, and the least costly labor laws. When that happens, we will have a flourishing economy. Barack Obama is the only president in U.S. to not experience at least one year of 3% GDP growth or more. After 8 years, that is a clear indication that the liberal ideology is a failed ideology - especially when it comes to economics.

 

[P@triot]

Renowned economist Friedrich Hayak taught that those that try to control an economy are guilty of not only fatal conceit, but also of fatal errors - which inevitably doom planned economies. History has also taught as much.

That really epitomizes liberals. Conceit. Arrogance. And ignorance. They believe they always know best instead of just leaving people free to do what they want to do.

 

[P@triot]

I suspect this is why people like Rshermr desire the failed liberal/socialist ideology. It absolves them of any responsibility. Sit back and let government do everything for you like an infant does with a parent. But just like an infant with a parent, it also robs the individual of a life of freedom and personal choice.

 

[edthecynic]

Reagan took over the second worst economy in U.S. history from Jimmy Carter and when he left office, had created one of the biggest economic booms the U.S. had ever seen. It was astounding. It was so successful, we were able to ride it for two decades until Bill Clinton's 1997 Community Re-Investment Act finally collapsed the housing market which nearly collapsed the U.S. economy.

Pure BULLSHIT!
Reagan CREATED the second worst economy in US history at the time, only surpassed by Bush crashing the housing market with his ADDI, and also crashing the world economy.

 

[P@triot]

Reagan took over the second worst economy in U.S. history from Jimmy Carter and when he left office, had created one of the biggest economic booms the U.S. had ever seen. It was astounding. It was so successful, we were able to ride it for two decades until Bill Clinton's 1997 Community Re-Investment Act finally collapsed the housing market which nearly collapsed the U.S. economy.

Pure BULLSHIT!
Reagan CREATED the second worst economy in US history at the time, only surpassed by Bush crashing the housing market with his ADDI, and also crashing the world economy.

Lying about reality doesn't change reality. Jimmy Carter created the second worst economy in U.S. history (behind only the Great Depression) and Ronald Reagan created out of that one of the most successful economies in U.S. history.

 

[edthecynic]

Reagan took over the second worst economy in U.S. history from Jimmy Carter and when he left office, had created one of the biggest economic booms the U.S. had ever seen. It was astounding. It was so successful, we were able to ride it for two decades until Bill Clinton's 1997 Community Re-Investment Act finally collapsed the housing market which nearly collapsed the U.S. economy.

Pure BULLSHIT!
Reagan CREATED the second worst economy in US history at the time, only surpassed by Bush crashing the housing market with his ADDI, and also crashing the world economy.

Lying about reality doesn't change reality. Jimmy Carter created the second worst economy in U.S. history (behind only the Great Depression) and Ronald Reagan created out of that one of the most successful economies in U.S. history.

The Great Reagan Recession BEGAN the second half of St Ronnie's first year and extended until the end of 1982.

 

[Rshermr]

"Rshermr, post: 15077219, member: 37424"]2. The idea of trickle down did not occur.
It absolutely occurred. [/QUOTE] [/QUOTE]
Of course it didn't If you believe it did, you need to prove it. Here, on the other hand, is why id did not:
1. After decreasing taxes greatly in 1981, the unemployment rate rocketed upward for a full year, until it was at 10.8%. That, me boy, is what the second highest unemployment rate in history was. December of 1982 after the great reagan tax cut of March 1981. You have the wrong year, the wrong president.
2. Regan, when the unemployment rate was soaring, late 1981, began Keynesian policies, increasing taxes 11 times and spending like a drunken sailor. He:
A Tripled the national debt, the only president to ever do so.
B. Spent more than all previous presidents combined.
C. Increased the size of the federal government greatly.
3. The economy responded, and by 1986 had recovered and was great thanks to Keynesian methods.

So, assuming that Reagan recognized the recession his policies had caused by 1981, you may want to explain why he did not decrease taxes again, or try to balance the budget and cease spending.

It was the greatest economic success story ever. Hardly. Reagan took over the second worst economy in U.S. history from Jimmy Carter and when he left office, No, he did not. The economy was marginally bad with an unemployment rate of 7.3% The second WORST economy ever, me boy, was his, in 1982 when the ue rate reached 10.8%. Only surpassed once in the past century, which was during the Great Republican Depression of 1929. had created one of the biggest economic booms the U.S. had ever seen. But not his tax cut policy. The boom only started after the great Keynesian policies of continuous spending stimulus It was astounding. The great Republican Recession of 1982 was indeed astounding. It was so successful, we were able to ride it for two decades until Bill Clinton's 1997 Community Re-Investment Act finally collapsed the housing market which nearly collapsed the U.S. economy. Sorry, me boy. The Reagan economy ended with the first George Bush economy. The bush recession was not terrible, like Reagan's, but it ended any continuing boom. The result of Bill Clintons tax increase and stimulus spending did, however, result in the best economy of any president in history. Again, you missed it. Wrong year, wrong president.
But you wouldn't know because your inbred, outback ass was sitting with the aborigines unaware of what was actually occurring in the U.S, Look, me boy.. You are the one with no education and a job as a janitor. Please try to provide proof. To economists, the Laffer curve is a joke. It is referred to by most as the Laugher curve. As I already stated above, Reagan took over the second worst economy in U.S. history and created one of the greatest economies ever. As I proved, me boy, he created the second worst economy in US history. You need to stop lying. There has never been a bigger turn around. The indisputable reality is that poor people do not create jobs. As reagan learned, the wealthy do not hire when demand is low. So, tax decreases caused the worst increase in unemployment except for the Great Republican depression of 1929, The ue rate went to 10.8%. It is the wealthy that create jobs. No, they do not. You believe that increasing demand will be done if you give the countries wealth to the wealthy through tax decreases. Reagan tried it. He got, instead, the second deepest recession since the Great Republican Depression of 1929. But stimulus spending created aggregate demand from the poor and the middle class. And they can't hire people if they don't have money in their pockets. If they have no money in their pockets, they are already out of business, and not paying taxes already, me boy. You just proved you are totally ignorant. And, for those that do have a running business, tax cuts puts money in their accounts that they typically save, or use for personal investments. They do not ever, however, increase production, because if buyers have insufficient economic demand, they will not buy because there is more stock in suppliers warehouses. As Reagan learned. There are only two economic choices - trickle down economics (implemented by conservatives - who actually understand economics - which creates wealth and prosperity for all) or flood up poverty (implemented by ignorant liberals who prefer ideology over reality - which creates poverty for everyone as seen by Cuba, Cambodia, and even Detroit).
Wrong again, me poor janitor. You need links to sources, because your claims are easy to show to be untrue. What rational people believe is that supply side economics and trickle down economics has failed, year after year after year. There are other economic theories, many of them. And your comments just proved without question that you have no clue of what they are, or how they work.
If you check below, you will find that your totally ignorant claim that Reagan inherited the second worst economy on record was WRONG. If you examine the months during his predecessors years in office, you will find he had decent but not great years. If you check Reagans, you will find his years of 1982 and 1983 stunk.
Here are the years, you can check out the individual months for yourself. Though I am sure you will not.

Date Rate
Jun 1, 2016 4.90%
Jan 1, 2016 4.90%
Jan 1, 2015 5.70%
Jan 1, 2014 6.60%
Jan 1, 2013 8.00%
Jan 1, 2012 8.30%
Jan 1, 2011 9.10%
Jan 1, 2010 9.80%
Jan 1, 2009 7.80% Obama
Jan 1, 2008 5.00%
Jan 1, 2007 4.60%
Jan 1, 2006 4.70%
Jan 1, 2005 5.30%
Jan 1, 2004 5.70%
Jan 1, 2003 5.80%
Jan 1, 2002 5.70%
Jan 1, 2001 4.20% Bush 2
Jan 1, 2000 4.00%
Jan 1, 1999 4.30%
Jan 1, 1998 4.60%
Jan 1, 1997 5.30%
Jan 1, 1996 5.60%
Jan 1, 1995 5.60%
Jan 1, 1994 6.60%
Jan 1, 1993 7.30% Clinton
Jan 1, 1992 7.30%
Jan 1, 1991 6.40%
Jan 1, 1990 5.40%
Jan 1, 1989 5.40% Bush
Jan 1, 1988 5.70%
Jan 1, 1987 6.60%
Jan 1, 1986 6.70%
Jan 1, 1985 7.30%
Jan 1, 1984 8.00%
Jan 1, 1983 10.40%
Jan 1, 1982 8.60%
Jan 1, 1981 7.50% Reagan
Jan 1, 1980 6.30%
Jan 1, 1979 5.90%
Jan 1, 1978 6.40%
Jan 1, 1977 7.50% Carter
Jan 1, 1976 7.90%
Jan 1, 1975 8.10%
Jan 1, 1974 5.10% Ford
Jan 1, 1973 4.90%
Jan 1, 1972 5.80%
Jan 1, 1971 5.90%
Jan 1, 1970 3.90% Nixon
http://www.multpl.com/unemployment/tble


Relative to overall worst employment years, corresponding to largest recession:

The highest rate for a single month is shared by November and December of 1982 with an unemployment rate of 10.8%
The year with the highest average unemployment rate was 1982 with an average unemployment rate of 9.71%.
Unemployment Rates in the United States Since 1948

If you check the years out, you will find that the year 1982 had some supply side president named Ronald Reagan. In 1982 he was going from Supply Side economic policies that failed him, to economic stimulus under the Keynesian Theory that worked really really well for him.

Damn. You have no proof for your post. I just gave you two, and have many more if you need them. Best guess is you will be back with more personal attacks.
So there you have it. The three highest unemployment rates were:
1. 1933 25% The Great Republican Depression of 1929.
2. 1982 10.8% The Great Reagan Recession of 1982
3. 2009 10% The Great Republican Recession of 2008.
Three republican depressions of economics, caused by republicans, and fixed by Keynesian methods. Basically, stimulus spending.

 

[Rshermr]

Reagan took over the second worst economy in U.S. history from Jimmy Carter and when he left office, had created one of the biggest economic booms the U.S. had ever seen. It was astounding. It was so successful, we were able to ride it for two decades until Bill Clinton's 1997 Community Re-Investment Act finally collapsed the housing market which nearly collapsed the U.S. economy.

Pure BULLSHIT!
Reagan CREATED the second worst economy in US history at the time, only surpassed by Bush crashing the housing market with his ADDI, and also crashing the world economy.

So Patriot, the self appointed econ expert, states:
Lying about reality doesn't change reality. That is true, me boy. And in my next post, I provided links to prove you are lying. But that I, and Edthecynic are telling the truth. Jimmy Carter created the second worst economy in U.S. history (behind only the Great Depression) Again you are lying. I provided links to prove you are lying. But that I, and Edthecynic are telling the truth. and Ronald Reagan created out of that one of the most successful economies in U.S. history One of the best. And after the recession he created, he used plain and simple Keynesian methods to do so. As that post also explains. He raised taxes. Here:
"Reagan was a serial tax raiser. As governor of California, Reagan “signed into law the largest tax increase in the history of any state up till then.” Meanwhile, state spending nearly doubled. As president, Reagan “raised taxes in seven of his eight years in office,” including four times in just two years. As former GOP Senator Alan Simpson, who called Reagan “a dear friend,” told NPR, “Ronald Reagan raised taxes 11 times in his administration — I was there.”
So, reagan raised taxes and spent more than all past presidents COMBINED. He may have preached supply side, but when the rubber met the road, reagan used tried and true methods.