18,000 & 5% GDP

[JohnStOnge]

You speak as though de-regulating is always a good thing.

It may not be a good thing if you're at the point in a society where the level of regulation is reasonable. But that's not where we are. We are at a point where the society is absolutely suffocated by regulation.

The big picture is that we should be moving towards less government right now rather than more. And Obama's orientation is such that he wants to move towards more.

[kalm]

You speak as though de-regulating is always a good thing.

It may not be a good thing if you're at the point in a society where the level of regulation is reasonable. But that's not where we are. We are at a point where the society is absolutely suffocated by regulation.

The big picture is that we should be moving towards less government right now rather than more. And Obama's orientation is such that he wants to move towards more.

Not from a financial services standpoint. See: FDR saving capitalism.

If you're truly a free market fan, you would agree.

But it was you who brought up "Reagan de-regulated" in a blanket statement. You know who else did? Carter and Clinton.

I hate over-regulation, and sound regulation can be a pain in the ass to business, but often times it's necessary.

FWIW, I don't trust Obama to create sound regulation nor would I of any politician going forward unless campaign finance laws are changed.

[JohnStOnge]

See: FDR saving capitalism.

How do you know FDR saved capitalism? You had no opportunity to see what would've happened without him.

[kalm]

See: FDR saving capitalism.

How do you know FDR saved capitalism? You had no opportunity to see what would've happened without him.

Because the end result of unrestrained capitalism results with one one winner (or a few) and no free market in the end.

[AZGrizFan]

How do you know FDR saved capitalism? You had no opportunity to see what would've happened without him.

Because the end result of unrestrained capitalism results with one one winner (or a few) and no free market in the end.

Sure....in an Econ 101 textbook.

[Baldy]

How do you know FDR saved capitalism? You had no opportunity to see what would've happened without him.

Because the end result of unrestrained capitalism results with one one winner (or a few) and no free market in the end.

Define "unrestrained capitalism", and what it had to do with the economy of the early 1930's.

[Ivytalk]

Glass, meet Steagall.

Don't be obtuse, klam. You know you'd love to have financial re-regulation back, if not in as ham-handed a way as Dodd-Frank.

[kalm]

Because the end result of unrestrained capitalism results with one one winner (or a few) and no free market in the end.

Define "unrestrained capitalism", and what it had to do with the economy of the early 1930's.

It has more to do with the boom and bust cycle of the early part of the century, the economy of the 1920's, and then the 50 years of stable economic conditions that followed the 30's. But I'm pretty sure we've been down this road before.

[kalm]

Don't be obtuse, klam. You know you'd love to have financial re-regulation back, if not in as ham-handed a way as Dodd-Frank.

What do you think about de-regulation, Ivy?

[Baldy]

Define "unrestrained capitalism", and what it had to do with the economy of the early 1930's.

It has more to do with the boom and bust cycle of the early part of the century, the economy of the 1920's, and then the 50 years of stable economic conditions that followed the 30's. But I'm pretty sure we've been down this road before.

There have been 13 recessions since the Great Depression, and not all that different than the 30+ years before the depression. Stable, yes, but the early part of the 20th century was no less stable than what has occurred since the 1930's, especially when you consider the amount of debt the country has accumulated since the end of the Great Depression.

[kalm]

It has more to do with the boom and bust cycle of the early part of the century, the economy of the 1920's, and then the 50 years of stable economic conditions that followed the 30's. But I'm pretty sure we've been down this road before.

There have been 13 recessions since the Great Depression, and not all that different than the 30+ years before the depression. Stable, yes, but the early part of the 20th century was no less stable than what has occurred since the 1930's, especially when you consider the amount of debt the country has accumulated since the end of the Great Depression.

I'm not sure that's accurate at least regarding the severity of downturns.

In any event, here's some more opinion for your reading pleasure:

Indeed, it was by making markets more flexible that Reagan really helped to revive economic activity. The same month that Reagan signed his first tax cut -- August, 1981 -- he also fired members of the striking Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization. The more flexible labor markets that followed fueled the wave of takeovers, mergers, and leveraged buyouts in the 1980s. There actually was less government deregulation under Reagan than under Presidents Carter and Clinton. The one exception, deregulating the Saving & Loan industry, led to a disastrous scandal and a $100 billion bailout.

Inevitably, the measure of Reagan's legacy of the '80s must be taken against what followed: the Clinton years of the '90s. Reagan became President when America was economically sclerotic. His tax changes, combined with a tight monetary policy, helped to make the country competitive again. The price paid, however, was a soaring budget deficit. Reagan and his supply-side advisers believed that big tax cuts would pay for themselves by generating higher tax revenues through greater economic growth. It never happened.

http://www.businessweek.com/stories/200 ... ald-reagan" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[AZGrizFan]

There have been 13 recessions since the Great Depression, and not all that different than the 30+ years before the depression. Stable, yes, but the early part of the 20th century was no less stable than what has occurred since the 1930's, especially when you consider the amount of debt the country has accumulated since the end of the Great Depression.

I'm not sure that's accurate at least regarding the severity of downturns.

In any event, here's some more opinion for your reading pleasure:

Indeed, it was by making markets more flexible that Reagan really helped to revive economic activity. The same month that Reagan signed his first tax cut -- August, 1981 -- he also fired members of the striking Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization. The more flexible labor markets that followed fueled the wave of takeovers, mergers, and leveraged buyouts in the 1980s. There actually was less government deregulation under Reagan than under Presidents Carter and Clinton. The one exception, deregulating the Saving & Loan industry, led to a disastrous scandal and a $100 billion bailout.

Inevitably, the measure of Reagan's legacy of the '80s must be taken against what followed: the Clinton years of the '90s. Reagan became President when America was economically sclerotic. His tax changes, combined with a tight monetary policy, helped to make the country competitive again. The price paid, however, was a soaring budget deficit. Reagan and his supply-side advisers believed that big tax cuts would pay for themselves by generating higher tax revenues through greater economic growth. It never happened.

http://www.businessweek.com/stories/200 ... ald-reagan" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

How cute....a bailout of $100 million. Seems so innocent and pure...

[kalm]

I'm not sure that's accurate at least regarding the severity of downturns.

In any event, here's some more opinion for your reading pleasure:



http://www.businessweek.com/stories/200 ... ald-reagan" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

How cute....a bailout of $100 million. Seems so innocent and pure...

Yeah, and a shitload of of prosecutions.

[Baldy]

There have been 13 recessions since the Great Depression, and not all that different than the 30+ years before the depression. Stable, yes, but the early part of the 20th century was no less stable than what has occurred since the 1930's, especially when you consider the amount of debt the country has accumulated since the end of the Great Depression.

I'm not sure that's accurate at least regarding the severity of downturns.

In any event, here's some more opinion for your reading pleasure:

Indeed, it was by making markets more flexible that Reagan really helped to revive economic activity. The same month that Reagan signed his first tax cut -- August, 1981 -- he also fired members of the striking Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization. The more flexible labor markets that followed fueled the wave of takeovers, mergers, and leveraged buyouts in the 1980s. There actually was less government deregulation under Reagan than under Presidents Carter and Clinton. The one exception, deregulating the Saving & Loan industry, led to a disastrous scandal and a $100 billion bailout.

Inevitably, the measure of Reagan's legacy of the '80s must be taken against what followed: the Clinton years of the '90s. Reagan became President when America was economically sclerotic. His tax changes, combined with a tight monetary policy, helped to make the country competitive again. The price paid, however, was a soaring budget deficit. Reagan and his supply-side advisers believed that big tax cuts would pay for themselves by generating higher tax revenues through greater economic growth. It never happened.

http://www.businessweek.com/stories/200 ... ald-reagan" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I know you have a raging anti-Reagan hard on, but If you think this started with him, you just don't get it.

[GannonFan]

How cute....a bailout of $100 million. Seems so innocent and pure...

Yeah, and a shitload of of prosecutions.

Well, there were actual crimes committed and laws broken in the S&L scandal. It wasn't just people making bad decisions and risky bets. Being dumb isn't criminal. At least not yet.

[kalm]

I'm not sure that's accurate at least regarding the severity of downturns.

In any event, here's some more opinion for your reading pleasure:



http://www.businessweek.com/stories/200 ... ald-reagan" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I know you have a raging anti-Reagan hard on, but If you think this started with him, you just don't get it.

Of course everything didn't started with Reagan, and politics and the economy tend to be cyclical. But Reagan truly was revolutionary in his ability to sell supply side and de-regulation. So much so that some of his policies are still being championed and/or defended by both parties.

[Baldy]

I know you have a raging anti-Reagan hard on, but If you think this started with him, you just don't get it.

Of course everything didn't started with Reagan, and politics and the economy tend to be cyclical. But Reagan truly was revolutionary in his ability to sell supply side and de-regulation. So much so that some of his policies are still being championed and/or defended by both parties.

Of course they are. We've seen what living under a Keynesian model did for us...stagflation, the misery index, and 20%+ interest rates. Although defense spending increased dramatically, Reagan compromising with drunk Uncle Teddy, Henry Waxman, Dan Rostenkowski, Tip O'Neil, etc. was another main driver of the deficits. To make the statement that lowering tax rates as the reason the deficits ballooned is just ridiculous. Net revenues to the fed almost doubled in his 8 years. Unfortunately, so did spending.

[Chizzang]

Of course everything didn't started with Reagan, and politics and the economy tend to be cyclical. But Reagan truly was revolutionary in his ability to sell supply side and de-regulation. So much so that some of his policies are still being championed and/or defended by both parties.

Of course they are. We've seen what living under a Keynesian model did for us...stagflation, the misery index, and 20%+ interest rates. Although defense spending increased dramatically, Reagan compromising with drunk Uncle Teddy, Henry Waxman, Dan Rostenkowski, Tip O'Neil, etc. was another main driver of the deficits. To make the statement that lowering tax rates as the reason the deficits ballooned is just ridiculous. Net revenues to the fed almost doubled in his 8 years. Unfortunately, so did spending.

So if I understand what you're saying - and I'd like to think I do...
what you're saying is that Milton Friedman had to die before we could go back to the "Keynesian Model"

[kalm]

Of course everything didn't started with Reagan, and politics and the economy tend to be cyclical. But Reagan truly was revolutionary in his ability to sell supply side and de-regulation. So much so that some of his policies are still being championed and/or defended by both parties.

Of course they are. We've seen what living under a Keynesian model did for us...stagflation, the misery index, and 20%+ interest rates. Although defense spending increased dramatically, Reagan compromising with drunk Uncle Teddy, Henry Waxman, Dan Rostenkowski, Tip O'Neil, etc. was another main driver of the deficits. To make the statement that lowering tax rates as the reason the deficits ballooned is just ridiculous. Net revenues to the fed almost doubled in his 8 years. Unfortunately, so did spending.

And he raised taxes 11 times as well.

[AZGrizFan]

Yeah, and a shitload of of prosecutions.

Well, there were actual crimes committed and laws broken in the S&L scandal. It wasn't just people making bad decisions and risky bets. Being dumb isn't criminal. At least not yet.

If it was Douch1Bag, Douche1Dawg, analjelly and their ilk would all be posting from prison.

[kalm]

Yeah, and a shitload of of prosecutions.

Well, there were actual crimes committed and laws broken in the S&L scandal. It wasn't just people making bad decisions and risky bets. Being dumb isn't criminal. At least not yet.

No, but securities and mortgage fraud are.

[Baldy]

Of course they are. We've seen what living under a Keynesian model did for us...stagflation, the misery index, and 20%+ interest rates. Although defense spending increased dramatically, Reagan compromising with drunk Uncle Teddy, Henry Waxman, Dan Rostenkowski, Tip O'Neil, etc. was another main driver of the deficits. To make the statement that lowering tax rates as the reason the deficits ballooned is just ridiculous. Net revenues to the fed almost doubled in his 8 years. Unfortunately, so did spending.

And he raised taxes 11 times as well.

He raised more than he cut, but not all tax increases or decreases are created equal.

[kalm]

And he raised taxes 11 times as well.

He raised more than he cut, but not all tax increases or decreases are created equal.

Agreed. But we now have 30 years of reaganomics perpetrated by both parties to realize that trickle down is not working, and the deregulation (or wrong regulation see-Dodd Frank) of financial markets put the tax payers and the larger economy at risk and do very little to increase the strength of the middle class.

[Baldy]

He raised more than he cut, but not all tax increases or decreases are created equal.

Agreed. But we now have 30 years of reaganomics perpetrated by both parties to realize that trickle down is not working, and the deregulation (or wrong regulation see-Dodd Frank) of financial markets put the tax payers and the larger economy at risk and do very little to increase the strength of the middle class.

It works just fine, people and politicians need to realize that the public coffers aren't a candy store.

Free market economics has done more to pull people out of poverty and expand the middle class than anything else in the history of man. Fundamental regulation is a necessary evil, but over regulation has done more to choke growth and opportunity than any amount of deregulation could ever attempt.

[kalm]

Agreed. But we now have 30 years of reaganomics perpetrated by both parties to realize that trickle down is not working, and the deregulation (or wrong regulation see-Dodd Frank) of financial markets put the tax payers and the larger economy at risk and do very little to increase the strength of the middle class.

It works just fine, people and politicians need to realize that the public coffers aren't a candy store.

Free market economics has done more to pull people out of poverty and expand the middle class than anything else in the history of man. Fundamental regulation is a necessary evil, but over regulation has done more to choke growth and opportunity than any amount of deregulation could ever attempt.

* well regulated capitalism.

** which is impossible under current campaign finance and regulatory capture.

Other than that, I agree.