What Did Reagan Accomplish?

[Da Skinna]

I'm trying to make a pro and con list of what he did and so far I seem to get more cons thans pro so I want to make sure it's right by asking here.

So, fact check.

[Daovonnaex]

• Top marginal tax rate cut to 28% (from 70%, raised to 31% before he left office)
• Top corporate marginal tax rate cut from 50% to 35%
• Trucking, rail, oil, banking, and airlines partially deregulated, with mostly positive effects
• Victory in the Cold War (debateable)

[danzig]

Another achievement which isnt as easy to put a finger on but Reagan got American over its emotional/downcast rut it was in. LBJ and Vietnam nonsense, followed by Nixon's corruption/resignation followed by rather nasty economic recession, soaring energy costs under Carter. Ironically something we need yet again 20+ years later Basically he changed the national mood to one more positive and upbeat.

The cold war is the obvious positive and while saying he "won" it single handily is silly, takes two to tango so to speak there are even more people who seem set on denying Reagan played any role at all in its end which is not silly its idiotic and foolish. Saying the cold war would have ended as it did without Reagan is like saying WW2 would have ended the way it did without FDR.

Cons biggest one probably his failure to see AIDs for what it was...he is demonized for it now a days by some which isnt fair but its clear he didnt "get it".

[johnny5000]

• Top marginal tax rate cut to 28% (from 70%, raised to 31% before he left

Also *raised* the bottom rate from 11% to 15%.

[Big War Bird]

Fired all the air traffic controllers.

[Da Skinna]

Okay, good stuff.

How about his foreign policy?

[Daovonnaex]

Cons biggest one probably his failure to see AIDs for what it was...he is demonized for it now a days by some which isnt fair but its clear he didnt "get it".

I don't see how AIDS is a government concern or why Reagan was obligated to do anything about it.

Okay, good stuff.

How about his foreign policy?

Reagan promoted muscular American nationalism and the idea of a "global rollback" of communism. The upside of this was that the jig was up for the USSR, the downside was the terrorism sponsored in Nicaragua. Reagan also negotiated a free trade agreement with Canada.

[danzig]

Okay, good stuff.

How about his foreign policy?

Overall it was good but its balanced by smart, on the mark policy (Russia, Europe, China, Afganistan) but hit big time but the idiotic mettling in central and south america. You have to look at the big picture when it comes Reagan's foreign policy as you do with any ex president. So unfortunately it comes down to ones political point of view, those who will argue Reagan's high points and those who focus soley on the negative. Its why I say overall his foreign policy was good and has to be considered a positive.

I don't see how AIDS is a government concern or why Reagan was obligated to do anything about it.

If something starts killing your citizens even if its because of their actions it becomes an issue the leader of the country should address. Whether it was AIDS, smoking or now a days obesity.

[Watchman]

The USSR was actually already kind of on the ropes and on the way out; the "West" just didn't know it until one disgruntled minor official started passing details to the French intelligence, who duly wasted no time letting the Americans in on the goods - who duly proceeded to force a new round of ruinously expensive arms race on the already ramshackle and ailing Communist Block.

The Soviet economy was terminally sucky; Reagan and whoever really just sped up the inevitable (to the point that the actual sudden unraveling and collapse caught pretty much everyone by surprise; damn, but sci-fi writers got wrongfooted in just a few months...).

[Daovonnaex]

If something starts killing your citizens even if its because of their actions it becomes an issue the leader of the country should address. Whether it was AIDS, smoking or now a days obesity.

People need to live with the consequences of their actions.

[danzig]

People need to live with the consequences of their actions.

Of course they do Im not saying they dont but the fact is AIDs as history has shown was not simply an "action" related disease. Regardless when people are dying whatever the reason telling them well should have realized the consequentness of your actions is not exactly the thing a President should be saying.

[Daovonnaex]

why not

[Da Skinna]

When it becomes an issue by becoming a burden on the state, which AIDs did.

But wasn't it because Reagan had such short-sighted economic recovery that led to Clinton's election in '92?

Reagan's legacy I think has been seriously scarred by his policies in Central and South America, but do these really bad bads outweigh the good he has done?

[danzig]

When it becomes an issue by becoming a burden on the state, which AIDs did.

But wasn't it because Reagan had such short-sighted economic recovery that led to Clinton's election in '92?

Actually Ross Perot lead to Clinton's election in 92

Reagan's legacy I think has been seriously scarred by his policies in Central and South America, but do these really bad bads outweigh the good he has done?

Its always a trade off and as insensitive as it sounds seeing thru the end of the coldwar, nuclear arms reduction after outweigh what was done in central/south american. Granted if you live in those areas of the world you would (rightfully) disagree but if you look at the big picture its favorable in my view. Presidency no matter who it is rarely are all good or bad I mean hell even our current President has done *some* good the question is as you say does the good outweigh the bad. In the case of Nixon yes in the end his was a personal failure, in the case of Carter no, in the case of Reagan absolutely, in the case of Clinton yes (but it doesnt mean I want to see Hillary) and in the case of Bush clearly no.

[Chaigidel]

gross deregulation. the idiotic idea of trickle down economics

[JP226]

But wasn't it because Reagan had such short-sighted economic recovery that led to Clinton's election in '92?

recessions are rooted in shocks meaning the unexpected change in some major input, like oil, can slow or speed up an economy. As we did have the first gulf war the recession was enevitable. It wasn't reagans supply side economics. And let it be noted most economists agree real economic growth is found within supply versus deamnd side Keyensian economics.

[Daovonnaex]

recessions are rooted in shocks meaning the unexpected change in some major input, like oil, can slow or speed up an economy. As we did have the first gulf war the recession was enevitable. It wasn't reagans supply side economics. And let it be noted most economists agree real economic growth is found within supply versus deamnd side Keyensian economics.

Recessions are not necessarily rooted in unexpected input price changes.

[Axeman]

He suceeded in scaring millions of Russians to death with the "Star Wars" project.

[JP226]

Recessions are not necessarily rooted in unexpected input price changes.

For the most part they are. It depends on the school of thought you take your economics from. The austrians think it's all changes in the money supply. Change the MS and people misinvest. Friedman, oddly enough, actually promoted the lucas friedman money surprise theory back in the 50's (?) when he was still just finding his legs in the field of economics. It was based in that you change the supply of cash and people act like their is one level of dollars in the economy and then, SURPRISE, there is really another. The economy goes through a boom or bus as a result.

Lately as far as the US markets are concerned, there ha been a bit of absorption with the financial markets that negat any surprise in money supply changes. Infact most economic schools throw the whole Austrian model out at the graduate levels. That's not to say that a massive change in the money supply on't hurt the US, it will, but realistially given our changes and fiancial institutions, the effect is negligible.

Third world countries on the othe hand face the largest effects of any surprise situation.

my keyboard i screwing up, sorry for the typos

[Daovonnaex]

For the most part they are. It depends on the school of thought you take your economics from. The austrians think it's all changes in the money supply. Change the MS and people misinvest. Friedman, oddly enough, actually promoted the lucas friedman money surprise theory back in the 50's (?) when he was still just finding his legs in the field of economics. It was based in that you change the supply of cash and people act like their is one level of dollars in the economy and then, SURPRISE, there is really another. The economy goes through a boom or bus as a result.

The last three recessions had an r squared below 0.1 for factor inputs in most economic models. I think economic models are pretty crappy, but they're illustrative in this case.

A drastic change in factor inputs, can, of course, cause a recession. That doesn't mean all recessions are caused by it. The Austrians Business Cycle Theory is correct, but of course non-monetary factors contribute to recessions.

Lately as far as the US markets are concerned, there ha been a bit of absorption with the financial markets that negat any surprise in money supply changes. Infact most economic schools throw the whole Austrian model out at the graduate levels. That's not to say that a massive change in the money supply on't hurt the US, it will, but realistially given our changes and fiancial institutions, the effect is negligible.

Third world countries on the othe hand face the largest effects of any surprise situation.

my keyboard i screwing up, sorry for the typos

"Absorption" by financial markets just means the money is channeled into opaque assets. The chickens still come home to roost.