Reagan was president 1981-1989. During years 1981-2023, there were only 5 years (1982, 1991, 2008, 2009, 2020) where US growth was less than 1%. I don’t know enough to say whether that’s thanks to or despite Reagan, but he sure didn’t destroy the economy.
The word “economy” can mean different things to different people.
Before Reagan became President, ‘middle class’ was defined as one Union job supporting a family of four. In those days $1 million was considered a vast fortune. By the time Bush Sr. left office ‘middle class’ meant both parents working to keep the house going and $1 million was what a rich guy paid for a party.
i dont feel like rebutting but i do feel like saying that Reagan completely ignored the AIDS epidemic and let thousands and thousands of his constituents die
During years 1981-2023, there were only 5 years (1982, 1991, 2008, 2009, 2020) where US growth was less than 1%.
2001 came vanishingly close, at 1.2%, and mostly because of timing and enormous state intervention.
And those were all famously inconsequential. Certainly, none of them broke critical industrial centers, forcing large scale consolidation and outsourcing.
The banking, automotive, airline, tech, and manufacturing sectors are - I think we can all agree - far more robust and prolific today than they were 40 years ago. So many consumer choices. All of them excellent products that never catastrophically fail on a routine basis. Certainly nothing that requires constant state bailouts and protectionists actions to preserve.
I don’t know enough to say whether that’s thanks to or despite Reagan
Giving one man all the credit for what has been a sizeable intergenerational ideological crusade seems naive.
I think there are a long line of people you could say “Thank you” to, from Jack Welch to Bill Gross to Alan Greenspan to Jeffrey Epstein.
Reagan was president 1981-1989. During years 1981-2023, there were only 5 years (1982, 1991, 2008, 2009, 2020) where US growth was less than 1%. I don’t know enough to say whether that’s thanks to or despite Reagan, but he sure didn’t destroy the economy.
The word “economy” can mean different things to different people.
Before Reagan became President, ‘middle class’ was defined as one Union job supporting a family of four. In those days $1 million was considered a vast fortune. By the time Bush Sr. left office ‘middle class’ meant both parents working to keep the house going and $1 million was what a rich guy paid for a party.
i dont feel like rebutting but i do feel like saying that Reagan completely ignored the AIDS epidemic and let thousands and thousands of his constituents die
I’m not saying Reagan wasn’t a bad president, just focusing on his effects on the economy. That doesn’t excuse his other failures.
2001 came vanishingly close, at 1.2%, and mostly because of timing and enormous state intervention.
And those were all famously inconsequential. Certainly, none of them broke critical industrial centers, forcing large scale consolidation and outsourcing.
The banking, automotive, airline, tech, and manufacturing sectors are - I think we can all agree - far more robust and prolific today than they were 40 years ago. So many consumer choices. All of them excellent products that never catastrophically fail on a routine basis. Certainly nothing that requires constant state bailouts and protectionists actions to preserve.
Giving one man all the credit for what has been a sizeable intergenerational ideological crusade seems naive.
I think there are a long line of people you could say “Thank you” to, from Jack Welch to Bill Gross to Alan Greenspan to Jeffrey Epstein.
You dropped this:
/s
Have you seen a debt to gdp ratio?