Reagonomics Meme

IKR?!?! XDDD

OMG it's so perdy!!!! Did the same people that make the graphs for Prager U make it?

Considering that the Laffer curve has maintained its accuracy to date and proved a reliable measure of tax revenues at different rates, I would say it makes him a hell of a lot smarter than any of his accessors.

Anyone who understands why retail stores make more money when they have a sale, can understand the Laffer curve. Anyone who thinks the retailer will make more money raising his prices, makes memes like these.

It's a joke about Reagan's intelligence, not the policy. But Reaganomics didn't really benefit the poor as he hoped. Other than that, he was a great President. It's just a joke.

Supply-Side economics is the ONLY thing that benefits the poor instead of maintaining poverty. The fact that almost all of our top earners came from the middle class and many of the middle class were struggling poor one generation ago is proof. Further proof is that there is more continuous generational poverty where government assistance is ample than in places it isn't.

Just clicked on this topic again. With respect, as someone who's studied Reagan's presidency at university and completed an assignment on it, I have to disagree with your pro-supply-side economics view. Note my lecturer was not a Marxist. I know there are some lecturers like that, but he was really fair on Reagan and let everyone make up their own minds.

Yep, sounds very University-like. You claim you have studied it, state that you disagree, and provide no reason or evidence other than your teacher was fair and not a Marxist. Great job!

Notice that in every one of my posts, short as they might be, there are examples or references to evidence.

Reaganomics led to the working class and middle class in America coming under pressure. The idea of trickle-down economics is that the upper class doing well will benefit the middle, and the middle doing well will benefit the working (at least that's my understanding). That didn't happen.

My rationale that it didn't work is that if you cut taxes (though that can be good in some cases), the government gets less revenue, and that means less money to spend on social security services for the working and middle class. It benefits the rich but no-one else in my view. The benefits of Reaganomics to the poor and middle are illusions in my view.

Nope. Cutting taxes in many cases increases revenues. Simple math. Smaller percentage of higher amounts can be a higher than higher percentage of a smaller number. And in the all median incomes rose, while inflation fall (compared to the inflation of the Carter years). Every single economic indicator shows that middle class benefitted greatly, from the quantitative income, consumer spending, home buying, unemployment, etc - to the qualitative consumer confidence, happiness, etc.

I'm curious, are you old enough to have lived in the 70s and 80s?

I'm only 20 years old so no. But you don't need to have lived then to be able to do research on the subject. I know that's the theory of Reaganomics, and it has the potential to work in some cases. It didn't work fully however in the Reagan era. That does depend on your definition of "success", but there were some bad effects that led to the working and middle classes being squeezed. That's based on the information I've accessed. What I'm really happy about is that my meme got a debate going. Thanks for taking part.

It is easy to find information, but you need to know what you're looking for. You may find economic theory, you may find criticism of that theory, or support for that theory, and you can even make conclusions, and I'm not trying to offend you, but I don't think you're knowledgeable enough in Economics to make any conclusions.

But that doesn't have to matter, because looking at just Supply Side is not enough. Look at what was happening before Reagan took office. Look at the Carter administration. Hyperinflation, skyrocketing unemployment, spike in violent crime, oil crisis. All of this went away with Reagan. The 80s was a decade of utmost prosperity, growth, and opulence. That's why after a hard win in 1980, Regan was re-elected by the biggest margin, winning 49 out of 50 States. The middle class, which you erroneously claim was squeezed, actually got the biggest boost. I encourage you to show me a single indicator to support your claim that it was "squeezed". It isn't MY definitions of success you need to be concerned but actual indicators that exist in any type of economic system you ever study. I suggest you erase your preconceived notions, and start studying economics from the basics.