Reagan and the Debt
- Home
- Board: /pol/ - Politically Incorrect
- Reading: Reagan and the Debt
Why do Conservatives like Reagan when he increased government spending a lot and tripled the Debt?
Because they're fucking cucks.
Reagan is a meme with these people. I guess to them he was the best repub president in recent history.
>>68020732
SOMEONE PLZ RESPOND I NEED TO KNOW
>>68020732
GDP also rose. inflation was tamed. He defeated the soviet union.
That should had continued, but then Bush-clinton-bush-obama happened
Because he doubled gdp.
>>68021008
Ok finally a response. I just don't understand how everyone can be such cucks because even Trump said he was the greatest President.
>>68021008
Only people that only read /pol/ think this.
>>68021098
But the Debt:GDP ratio went up. Overall his presidency was terrible for the economy
>>68021058
But overall the huge debt he added was terrible for the economy.
>>68021218
Bankrupted the soviet union. Ended the cold war.
/thread
>>68021419
He bankrupted the Soviet Union by bankrupting America by spending so much money on the military.
>>68021107
He did start a trend that got us where we are now with debt spending, but he also came in on the end of Carters terrible presidency which followed a lot of other shitty times for america.
deficits don't matter and never will
Reagan saved the economy by increasing defense spending
the real problem is private debt not public debt.
>>68021530
So he just followed Carters shitty presidentcy.
>>68021218
Deficit spending to outpace soviets. Guess what; it worked.
>>68021591
Yes. The arabs had fucked up the oil stream, inflation was insane, iran had american hostages.
All the turmoil from 70s was still fresh.
Then Reagan came in and pretty much told all leftists to fuck off, and add to that things the other people have said.
>>68021218
http://www.redstate.com/diary/nikitas3/2011/05/25/about-that-reagan-debt/
>>68021564
How the hell is Public Debt not mattering? We're going to have to pay it back soon, and even if we postpone it we will have to pay massive interest every year.
>>68020732
The last 35 years of GOP had 2 dubyas out of 3.
Of course they will worship the last guy, no matter what he did.
>>68021653
And screwed the future of the American/Canadian economy (Canada's economy is connected to yours).
>>68021889
But he did exactly what progressives/liberals did. Just rapidly spend without a care for the debt. I thought conservatives care about the debt.
>>68022031
public debt will never matter. Deficits will never matter. You can monetize any debt you have unless you are in the EU.
America especially will never be affected in any real way by debt.
What are you going to do if we don't pay debts? Invade? Good luck faggot.
>>68022245
Well if U.S doesn't pay their debts people will stop loaning to them. And if EU states can't monetize debts like U.S why on earth would they ever join the EU?
>>68022382
>debts people will stop loaning to them
Do you realize how irrelevant that is? The US in no way needs that money. Most spending is done specifically to get dollars out of the country in the first place.
If anything we have too much money as it is.
>>68022673
How on earth does spending get dollars out the country? Government spending pumps money into the country. And why would you want dollars leaving your country? This makes no sense to me.
>>68022673
If you can't get money from loans anymore, you have to either start printing more of it, which will cause massive inflation and hurt everyone, or you have to lower spendings, in which case the GDP will drop massively and cause a massive chain effect that will destroy western economies for years.
>>68022884
That's not true. Printing money and spending it and borrowing money and spending it has the exact same effect on the level of inflation. It's just since 1913 the government legally couldn't print money and had to borrow it.
>>68022787
>How on earth does spending get dollars out the country?
Through government spending. Do you really think all that money goes solely to US corporations?
>>68022884
>which will cause massive inflation
No goldbug that's not how reality works
QE printed trillions upon trillions of dollars and the sky didn't fall like you chicken littles said it would
>>68023145
>Through government spending. Do you really think all that money goes solely to US corporations?
But government spending pumps money into America. Where else would the money be spent?
>QE printed trillions upon trillions of dollars and the sky didn't fall like you chicken littles said it would
Printing money now a days is great because our GDP is so high money needs to be printed to prevent deflation. But printing too much money causes a bust.
>>68020732
People liked Reagan because all of the shitheads hated him.
Sound familiar?
>>68023855
DONALD TRUMP!
But I don't like Reagan because he did exactly what conservatism is against.
>>68023368
>prevent deflation.
Propping up overpriced assets by making the currency worthless.
What could go wrong?
>>68024190
Suuuureeee. Printing a few bucks is the same as proping up overpriced assets. Sure.
>>68020732
>You now realize that this thread is full of people claiming the Titanic will never sink
Reagan was a bretty cool guy who was used by corporate interests to do things he could never have understood, having spent his life acting in movies.
This doesn't change his inherent wisdom. You don't need to understand the totality of economic practice in order to be a good guy.
-----------------------------------------------------------
On his desk in the Oval Office, President Reagan kept a small plaque with the words: “There is no limit to what a man can do or where he can go if he does not mind who gets the credit.”
http://www.reaganfoundation.org/reagan-the-man.aspx
>>68023368
>But government spending pumps money into America.
No, the government can spend money anywhere, not just the US.
>so high money needs to be printed to prevent deflation
talk about deluded. We are as close to deflation as possible despite spending trillions.
But the goldbugs are still spooked because "muh hyperinflation" Go buy some gold from Peter Schiff like gullible idiot you are.
>>68024732
>No, the government can spend money anywhere, not just the US
They don't do it though. Unless you mean foreign aid or buying things from other countries. Either way it's horrible for the economy. The government goes into debt without even creating jobs or refreshing the money in the economy to be taxed again.
>talk about deluded. We are as close to deflation as possible despite spending trillions.
But the goldbugs are still spooked because "muh hyperinflation" Go buy some gold from Peter Schiff like gullible idiot you are.
Ok you're the most gullible idiot I've ever talked to on /pol/. You're probably a keynesian.
>>68020732
Reagan was a shit president tbqh, no idea how he because a demigod among cuckservatives, especially when based Nixon was infinitely better.
it's the boomers that love Reagan. Most young republicans don't care for him.
>>68024944
Nixon was really cool but he did some really stupid things like donate a shit ton to Israel and take the dollar off the gold standard.
>>68025074
Why do they like him? Booming the debt, increasing spending, sound like anyone? *cough cough Obama*
>>68024940
>Unless you mean foreign aid or buying things from other countries.
No it's not. It's a net neutral on the economy.
>You're probably a keynesian
Fuck yeah I'm a Keynesian. You realize Hitler was successful because he used the same tactics as Keynes right?
>>68024944
>Nixon better than Reagan
On the scale of working out for wealthy interests, sure
>Who could be behind this post?
>>68025275
>Hitler
>Successful
oh wait, that whole world war 2 thing
>>68025275
>>68025275
>No it's not. It's a net neutral on the economy.
I don't mean it is bad for the economy itself, but in order to get the money you must borrow it which puts the government into debt without increasing the GDP of the country.
>Fuck yeah I'm a Keynesian. You realize Hitler was successful because he used the same tactics as Keynes right?
Except Hitler wasn't really a Keynesian. He did stimulus but he didn't borrow the money, he had the Central Bank give the German government money for free. He basically printed debtless money.
>>68025307
>Reagan
Made the rich richer, poor poorer.
>Nixon
Took rich peoples money and used it to develop cancer treatments.
>Wonder who could be behind this post.
>>68025555
This 'do
Get shit on wannabe keynesanon
>>68025446
Hitler lost the war because he got cocky from all the easy success
I compare it to this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DqED-b_F6mQ
>but in order to get the money you must borrow
No banks including central banks create money whenever they want to.
>Except Hitler wasn't really a Keynesian
He was in all but name
>>68025748
meant for
>>68025555
>>68025687
yeah you wish.
>>68025655
>Cancer treatments
elmao
Cancer is a product of being unhealthy. You treat it by eating well, exercising, and not ingesting unnatural chemical additives
>>68025655
>Made the rich richer, poor poorer.
Reagan's defense spending was great. Reagan's deregulating wallstreet jews so they can loot the economy was not so great.
learn2nuance
>>68025446
>British/Americans bombing Germany
>somehow that makes Germany not successful
Oh wait.
>>68025748
>No banks including central banks create money whenever they want to.
Yeah Central Banks create money, and then the government has to borrow it from the Central Banks putting themselves in deep debt. That's why the National Debt isn't 0.
>He was in all but name
Except he had the government owned central bank print money for Germany instead of how real Keynesianism is where the central bank loans the money to the government.
>>68025833
I smell mad
>>68025979
>Germany gets bombed
>is a smoking rubble
>Anon compares this to his life, considers it successful
You should try having some self respect maybe
>>68020732
Reagan TRIPLED the debt. Conservatives worship him.
Bush DOUBLED the debt. Conservatives love him. He kept America safe on 9/11.
Barack Hussein Obama didn't do neither. Conservatives HATE him.
Conservatives obviously love fiscally reckless, big spending leaders like Reagan and Bush.
>>68025979
>putting themselves in deep debt.
which can be eliminated at whim
>l Keynesianism is where the central bank loans the money to the government
Oh wow that irrelevant middle man really changes things.
>>68026005
Feeling pretty smug tb-h
>>68025923
>Cancer is a product of being unhealthy
Then why do so many old people today have prostate cancer? They lived natural lives without chemicals that we have today.
>>68025963
>Defense spending is great
Maybe for weapon manufactures
> Reagan's deregulating wallstreet jews so they can loot the economy was not so great.
The rich want regulation to stomp out out opposition. The rich can easily bypass regulation with top notch lawyers but the smaller banks can't.
Learn economics pls.
>>68021008
They don't have much choice. Most Republican presidents are shit so they had to deify Reagan even though he tripled the debt, gave amnesty to millions of illegals, increased taxes 7 times, cut and ran from Lebanon, gave weapons to Iran and funded narco-terrorists in Nicaragua.
>>68026269
um...
k
let's just ignore foodstuffs and pollution, and trust the government
good goy
>>68026291
He was a shit tier president but he's all conservatives have got.
>>68026128
>Country does well
>Gets bombed
>isn't well anymore
>somehow proves that countries economic system was bad
Try having self respect.
>>68026147
And Bill Clinton who was a democrat caused a surplus.
>>68026205
>which can be eliminated at whim
If it could be eliminated it would be
>Oh wow that irrelevant middle man really changes things.
Sure having the government go bankrupt is massive debt trying to pay back the Central Bank doesn't change things at all.
>>68026128
Operation Barbarossa was incredibly successful until Hitler got cocky and stopped Blitzkrieging
lrn2hisotry
>>68026269
>Maybe for weapon manufactures
for everyone in the economy. Hence the point of government creating demand.
>The rich want regulation to stomp out out opposition.
No you stupid fucking libertarian Reagan basically legalized financial fraud, that's only good for the Mega Banks that are effectively above the law.
That's what caused the S&L Crisis, the dot com bubble, and the Sup Prime Crisis. I don't expect you to care though since libertarians literally think murder should be legal too because "hurr free market will fix it"
>>68026583
>If it could be eliminated it would be
it's just a few taps on a keyboard
>government go bankrupt is massive debt
governments can't go bankrupt, dumbass
>>68020732
Surprise surprise increasing the public debt is good for the economy. Why? Because, based on the way the moentary system works, public debt == money supply.
>>68026411
My Grandfather got prostate cancer and grew up in the 40s. That was before major pollution and stuff because we were less industrialized. It was also before GMO and fluoride, anything you want to blame.
>for everyone in the economy. Hence the point of government creating demand.
Shouldn't the government spending be focused on something that benefits more people like building infrastructure.
>No you stupid fucking libertarian Reagan basically legalized financial fraud, that's only good for the Mega Banks that are effectively above the law.
Oh my god you're so stupid. If Mega-Banks are above the law then why would Reagan need to legislate anything? Banks would just do it anyways.
> I don't expect you to care though since libertarians literally think murder should be legal too because "hurr free market will fix it"
Keynesians think murder should be legal because "muh executioner won't be unemployed anymore"
>>68025979
>the government borrows it from the central bank
You are a fucking imbecile.
>>68026719
>it's just a few taps on a keyboard
Then why doesn't Obama do it and become the greatest president ever, removing the national Debt?
>governments can't go bankrupt, dumbass
What is Germany in 1920?
>>68026911
But in the long run you got to pay it back which means less money supply.
>>68026971
>thinks the government doesn't borrow from Central Bank
You really are moronic.
Regan was never a true conservative, he spended liberally.
That's when the right wing stop caring about being fiscally conservative.
>>68026917
>benefits more people like building infrastructure.
It doesn't matter what they spend it on but yes states should stop being scared of running a deficit so they can rebuild infrastructure.
>If Mega-Banks are above the law then why would Reagan need to legislate anything
There were no mega banks back them you dumb fuck
>Keynesians think murder should be legal because
>Executions
>murder
you are dumb as hell
>>68020732
basically he fucked the hippies and made america great. Reagan is power, he would have killed all these pussy protesters today. He is the 80ies
>>68027204
>Then why doesn't Obama do it and become the greatest president ever,
Because he's a whore for Goldman Sachs. The point of printing all these trillions is a handout to the megabanks not helping ht economy through deficit spending.
>What is Germany in 1920?
Germany was under threat of invasion. Assuming you have control over your money supply you can stop inflation whenever you want.
That's why Hitler fixed things so easily.
>>68027301
>It doesn't matter what they spend it on but yes states should stop being scared of running a deficit so they can rebuild infrastructure.
And what about when they have to pay the money back idiot?
>There were no mega banks back them you dumb fuck
Then why did you say "megabanks above the law" when talking about Reagan stupid.
Oh yeah and about your previous comment
>murder
>legalized
If it was legalized it wouldn't be murder stupid.
>>68020732
also
not implying that the money thing was to fuck up and destroy the soviet union, which it actually did
Basically killed communism
>>68027204
>But in the long run you got to pay it back which means less money supply.
Right, meaning in the short term we should cut the money supply down to 0 so we don't have any debt right? Good plan.
Canada, realize that the world is run by imperfect systems and you can only choose between bad and worse. Yes debt is bad. But shrinking the money supply thus causing either expanding private debt rather than cash, deflation, or a strange combination of both is infinitely worse than saving out on public debt.
Also, if you understood how the American monetary system worked you would understand that the Fed pays back all its proceeds on public debt back to the treasury after debt maturity. The US doesn't "owe" the Fed anything because the Fed makes no profits, it only takes enough money for operating costs. It's literally only private ownership of bonds by banks and hedge funds that constitutes a real cost to the public.
You're just a fucking dumbass I'm sorry but you need to listen and learn.
>>68027551
>Because he's a whore for Goldman Sachs. The point of printing all these trillions is a handout to the megabanks not helping ht economy through deficit spending.
Then why doesn't he cancel the Debt anyway? Print a ton of money for goldman sacs and then cancel the Debt?
>That's why Hitler fixed things so easily.
No he fixed things by printing money instead of borrowing it like our government does. The German Central Bank under Nazi Germany was owned by Germany. Our Central Bank isn't owned by our government, it's owned by private shareholders.
>>68020732
>you now realize you share a board with people who share the views of the proto neocon shabbos goy
OP don't ever make this thread again, I don't want to see these people climb out of the woodworks again
>>68027560
>to pay the money back idiot
bailout
>>68027560
Reagan's deregulations created the megabanks, moron.
>>68027560
then it would be a contract assassin
either way Keynesian aren't like libertarians only libertarians think all forms of fraud and illegal activity should be legal because "muh free market"
>>68027808
>Then why doesn't he cancel the Debt anyway?
How many times do I have to say "he's a Goldman Sachs whore" before you listen?
>No he fixed things by printing money instead of borrowing it like our government does.
Semantics
>>68028085
Don't worry I probably won't.
>>68027775
Sure bud sure. Or we could print the money instead of borrowing it but sure sure.
>>68027808
>No he fixed things by printing money instead of borrowing it like our government does.
Let me make this very simple for you.
The US sells bonds to the Fed, which buys them using made-up purchasing power. This is essentially "printing money". The Fed owns these bonds and when they mature, the Fed takes all the money and the interest they gained on the bonds and then gives it back to the treasury. That is how the monetary system works. Ok?
Yes the Fed is owned by private shareholders and that is bad but not for the reasons that you think.
>>68027775
You're also a dumbass and need to learn about the Rothchilds.
>>68028138
>bailout
What? I am against bailouts too.
>Reagan's deregulations created the megabanks, moron
No moron. Regulations that stomp out competition created megabanks.
>either way Keynesian aren't like libertarians only libertarians think all forms of fraud and illegal activity should be legal because "muh free market"
Making money and doing business isn't fraud.
>How many times do I have to say "he's a Goldman Sachs whore" before you listen?
Then why didn't President in U.S history cancel the debt?
>Semantics
There's a massive difference between borrowing and printing.
>>68028188
Yes I agree let's print our own money. Get rid of the fed and just let the Treasury issue pure cash.
But in the meantime, just in case we are incapable of reforming the monetary system, should we just refuse to expand the money supply because it's an imperfect system based on debt? Should we let the economy crash into the gutter just because there's a 3% interest rate on the currency being issued? Which is worse? Flash-poverty for the masses or having to either borrow / print more or pay a little more tax? Use your head lad. Hate the game not the player.
>>68028234
Then why does the Fed exist? Why doesn't the money just go directly to the treasury? Why does the Fed have to be paid back, and then give the money back to the government again?
>Yes the Fed is owned by private shareholders and that is bad but not for the reasons that you think.
Because the truth is those shareholders gets to keep all the profits made.
>>68028557
Well I watched some Ron Paul speeches and he said that we shouldn't borrow because any money borrowed from the FED is unpayable.
>>68028551
>I am against bailouts too.
States should be bailed out. Jew banks shouldn't.
>Regulations that stomp out competition created megabanks.
You have it ass backwards. But then so do all libertarians. Deregulation caused the mega banks.
>Making money and doing business isn't fraud.
But fraud is. At least until Reagan/Clinton legalized it.
>Then why didn't President in U.S history cancel the debt?
It wasn't a problem so why bother?
>There's a massive difference between borrowing and printing.
nope.
>>68028800
>Well I watched some Ron Paul speeches
kek
>Hehe debt doesn't matter, actually if it's spend on military corporations it makes us stronger and we need even more of it
I understand that people on imageboards tend to be retarded but levels of delusion in this thread are literally beyond commie tier. How am I supposed to treat neoconservatism as anything else than thread to humanity if it damages people's brains so bad?
>>68028551
What is one thing that I said that makes you think I don't know who they are? Has it occurred to you for one second that maybe it's (You) who doesn't know what you're talking about?
>No moron. Regulations that stomp out competition created megabanks.
Provide some substantiation for this bullshit claim. It's the catch-all shit that every libertarian uses to negate opposing arguments in the most superficial and vapid way possible. Seriously, show me some proof that A) banks lobby for more regulations B) that it stifles competition in a meaningful way that natural barriers didn't do already and C) that the social cost of repealing regulations doesn't exceed whatever amount of marginally increased competitiveness between firms.
> [On fraud] Making money and doing business isn't fraud.
Nevermind there's no way to educate this kind of ignorance.
>>68028849
>States should be bailed out. Jew banks shouldn't.
By bailout do you mean give them free money or loan them money? Because from what I understand in Europe Germany loans Greece money at high interest and calls it a bailout.
>You have it ass backwards. But then so do all libertarians. Deregulation caused the mega banks.
Statists don't understand a thing about economics
>But fraud is. At least until Reagan/Clinton legalized it.
Clinton decreased the national debt and the economy was doing great under him.
>It wasn't a problem so why bother?
My dad was an accountant for the government and said every year we pay interest to whoever we owe money to. If we cancel the debt we won't have to pay that interest.
>nope.
Actually there's a big difference.
Debt does destroy nations, you will see America go bankrupt in your lifetime.
Expect hyperinflation someday too.
>>68028966
Whats so "kek"? 4chan loved him in 2012.
>>68029167
>What is one thing that I said that makes you think I don't know who they are?
Because you'd know they own the central banks and are the reason the government can't print it's money
>Provide some substantiation for this bullshit claim. It's the catch-all shit that every libertarian uses to negate opposing arguments in the most superficial and vapid way possible. Seriously, show me some proof that A) banks lobby for more regulations B) that it stifles competition in a meaningful way that natural barriers didn't do already and C) that the social cost of repealing regulations doesn't exceed whatever amount of marginally increased competitiveness between firms.
Watch this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wXnnAWkTb8w
>Nevermind there's no way to educate this kind of ignorance.
>Thinks banking is fraud
You're uneducatable you moron.
>>68028696
>>68028800
The Fed exists so that private parties can exercise control over the money supply rather than the treasury and democratically elected representatives of the people. It also pumps money in to the banks because the treasury sells its bonds to banks, which then are sold to the Fed in a tripartite system. Effectively this allows the big banks a cut on every single bond sale. This is ostensibly for the purpose of "transparency".
Yes it's a fucked up system, but you're misdirecting your energies here.
>Because the truth is those shareholders gets to keep all the profits made.
And no, this isn't true at all. Give me one piece of evidence it is true. It is not true.
They make profits based on the informational edge that controlling the money supply gives you. You don't need the money from Bonds if you know what the stock market is going to do every single day of the year.
>Well I watched some Ron Paul speeches and he said that we shouldn't borrow because any money borrowed from the FED is unpayable.
Nonsense. New can always be printed to pay off old.
>>68029399
That's really bad. Canada economy is tied to U.S economy.
>>68028800
why not listen to a real economist instead of fucking Ron Paul?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cCsxKy6Lbvg
>>68029028
You're the delusional one my friend.
You only need demand if you want to spur an economy. Hitler and Stalin knew that when they were raping you.
Unfortunately Communism is batshit retarded because the government owns the means of production so it stagnated. The better system lost the war because Hitler got too cocky.
>>68029228
>free money
yes
>Statists don't understand a thing about economics
muh statists
>Clinton decreased the national debt
Because he was an idiot
>My dad was an accountant for the government
well my dad works at nintendo
Because conservatives are giant retards who are easily swayed by emotional arguments based on patriotism and religion. They are also cucks who enjoy having their money stolen by the rich.
>>68020732
Reagan was all image and rhetoric. He was basically nonfunctional do to Alzheimers and manipulations of his subordinates, the establishment really ran the show behind the scenes.
So conservatives glorify Reagan, even though he failed in every conceivable aspect
>>68029701
Don't worry, Justine will destroy ours first.
>>68020732
Here is the real redpill
Nixon not Reagan was the best President we ever had which is why they destroyed him.
>>68029688
>The Fed exists so that private parties can exercise control over the money supply rather than the treasury and democratically elected representatives of the people. It also pumps money in to the banks because the treasury sells its bonds to banks, which then are sold to the Fed in a tripartite system. Effectively this allows the big banks a cut on every single bond sale. This is ostensibly for the purpose of "transparency".
I still don't understand. So the corporations/banks use the money printing power of the FED to give themselves bailouts? Is that correct?
>And no, this isn't true at all. Give me one piece of evidence it is true. It is not true.
They make profits based on the informational edge that controlling the money supply gives you. You don't need the money from Bonds if you know what the stock market is going to do every single day of the year.
Because it's property rights that shareholders earn a % of the money that the thing they invested in makes.
>Nonsense. New can always be printed to pay off old.
But that's not true. You see printing money without borrowing has been illegal since the Federal Reserve act of 1913.
>>68029497
>Because you'd know they own the central banks and are the reason the government can't print it's money
I do know that. I also know that they love nothing better to crash national economies by using retarded libertarian rhetoric about national debt in order to crash the money supply and then buy up all the properties and assets of the country for pennies on the dollar before the currency is reflated and they return to full value.
>Watch this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wXnnAWkTb8w
Not going to watch a vid from "econstories".
>says that fraud isn't fraud
>jumps to conclusions about things that I've said
>projecting beliefs about typical opponents on to a stranger he doesn't fully understand
>says I'm dumb
Ok my non-delusional friend. Now go and take some loan for buying a tank or APC since it's perfectly sustainable and will make you stronker.
>>68029755
>His first name is Michael
>His land name is Hudson
Right away I think this guy is an idiot. But I will watch him anyway when I have time..
>Unfortunately Communism is batshit retarded because the government owns the means of production so it stagnated. The better system lost the war because Hitler got too cocky.
In Nazi Germany the government owned means of production in a way. They controlled the means of production and placed heavy taxes on it so in a way they were the owners of it. They just weren't owners in name.
>yes
So states will have to be given free money every once in a while? How often? Whenever they go under? That will encourage them to spend recklessly.
>muh statists
Muh libertarians
>Because he was an idiot
He lead the time of massive growth period in America. And he made it into Harverd coming from a dirtpoor background. That is not something an idiot could do.
>well my dad works at Nintendo
The point is my dad had access to all the governments finance systems. He said the debt absorbed a lot of money that could be spent on infrastructure.
>>68029755
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cCsxKy6Lbvg
Hudson is 100% based
>I still don't understand. So the corporations/banks use the money printing power of the FED to give themselves bailouts? Is that correct?
Well corporations can't really do that. But the member banks of the US treasury essentially get money funneled into their pockets anytime the Fed buys bonds.
>Because it's property rights that shareholders earn a % of the money that the thing they invested in makes.
Once again: the Fed pays all profits after operational costs back to the treasury.
>But that's not true. You see printing money without borrowing has been illegal since the Federal Reserve act of 1913.
Whatever. You know what I mean: printing/borrowing from Fed. Not a huge difference effectively in terms debt monetization.
>>68029835
>Reagan
>conservative
You're an idiot true conservatives are against what Reagan did.
>the establishment really ran the show behind the scenes.
Why does Trump like him so much then?
>>68029986
I like Nixon. I have a few problems with him but he's a lot better than Reagan
>>68030342
>I do know that. I also know that they love nothing better to crash national economies by using retarded libertarian rhetoric
No they use retarded keynesianism to put the government into massive debt so they have more control over the economy.
>>68030773
That was a response to me I assume.
>>68030642
>His first name is Michael
I assume you're offended that it's not Muhammad
>government owned means of production in a way.
Nope
>So states will have to be given free money every once in a while?
when shit is fucked
>Muh libertarians
everyone is a statist unless you're a literal ancap (I hope you aren't)
>He lead the time of massive growth period in America.
Massive growth in private debt maybe. Decline in real wages. Increasing trade deficit. Try putting things in more context than just GDP.
>all the governments finance systems
Do you have any idea how irrelevant your point is to anything? Infrastructure spending is a rounding error in the overall federal budget.
>>68031062
Yep sry misclick.
>>68031004
Once again: expanding the money supply is what is Keynesian. Expanding the debt is not explicitly Keynesian. It's the fact that Keynes was working within an imperfect monetary system that he advocated expanding public debt. Get it?
The answer is monetary reform, not crashing the money supply.
>Canadian OP
>biggest shitposters
>nr 1 Redditard country in the world
>all socialists
>leader a white converted Muslim
>(At least Obama was born shit.)
>makes thread shitposting greatest American President Ronald Reagan since the founding fathers were the leaders.
>again, Canada
>now opening their borders to import more refugees than we have in a decade
>fucking leaflet
Die cunt, you make Sweden look good for fuck sakes.
MAGA 2016!
The 80's are coming back and faggots don't belong in the 80's just like now when Trump will win!
OP go back to plebbit already.
>>68020732
true conservatives don't support Reagan's liberalism/profligacy
A small price to pay to crush The Evil Empire you commie faggot.
>>68031321
>Once again: expanding the money supply is what is Keynesian. Expanding the debt is not explicitly Keynesian. It's the fact that Keynes was working within an imperfect monetary system that he advocated expanding public debt. Get it?
But I watched a rap about Keynes and he said "Deficits are the cure you've been looking for" implying debts are good.
>The answer is monetary reform, not crashing the money supply.
I know. If the government could print money instead of borrowing I'd fully support expanding the money supply.
>>68031308
>I assume you're offended that it's not Muhammad
Michael is originally a Jewish name.
>Nope
They controlled it, they taxed it, they basically owned it.
>when shit is fucked
That will encourage states to spend recklessly because they know they'll be bailed out.
>everyone is a statist unless you're a literal ancap (I hope you aren't)
I believe in really small state. Statists are people who want more state intervention.
>Massive growth in private debt maybe. Decline in real wages. Increasing trade deficit. Try putting things in more context than just GDP.
If the government can just print when they want then why care about trade deficits? Just print the money right? I mean a trade deficit means more material wealth is coming into the country and currency is leaving.
>Do you have any idea how irrelevant your point is to anything? Infrastructure spending is a rounding error in the overall federal budget.
What do you mean?
>>68031390
Swedes are all liberals so shut up.
>Reagan
>Greatest President
He spent like a drunk sailor on shore leave.
>MAGA 2016.
I support Trump, and by "make America great again" he's using the Reagan logo of "lets make america great again" which implies he wants it to be more like the 50s.
>>68031875
>Michael is originally a Jewish name.
Yeah no Christian was ever named Michael before
>they taxed it
Oh wow I guess the US is communist too then
>That will encourage states to spend recklessly
government spending is good for the economy.
>I believe in really small state
then you're a statist
>If the government can just print when they want then why care about trade deficits?
Trade deficits are about jobs not debt
>What do you mean?
Infrastructure spending isn't a large part of the budget.
Infrastructure spending only gets cut because idiot libertarians want to "balance the budget"
>>68032047
>He spent like a drunk sailor on shore leave.
Which is why he was great
>>68032047
Which implies Reagan won, 80' s were fucking great and Now Trump will do the same.
Now please clap
fucking Bernie fag.
I await your next bait Canada eagerly (filter, applied.)
>>68032438
>Which is why he was great
I think Bernie Sanders is the President for you then.
>>68032371
Sure totally. And the only Christians named Michael were Italians and they aren't even that white. It was originally in Israel.
>Oh wow I guess the US is communist too then
Stop with the sarcastic bullshit! The owner of the factories in Nazi Germany didn't do shit. The government controlled the factory and took the profits. The owner of the factory was just an overglorified welfare recipient.
>government spending is good for the economy.
A bit is good but not too much. It's only good if you print as much money as the left over GDP. Let me explain. If in one year USA produces 16 trillion dollars of wealth and consumes 10 trillion dollars of wealth a year then the government should print 6 trillion dollars. Anymore would cause inflation.
>then your a statist
Ok fine I am, but I believe in it for the right cause.
>Trade deficits are about jobs not debt
Jobs can just be created by digging ditches and refilling them.
>Infrastructure spending isn't a large part of the budget. Infrastructure spending only gets cut because idiot libertarians want to "balance the budget"
You're an idiot. Libertarians/right-wingers have almost no influence in politics. Only neoconservatives which are just overly corrupted democrats
>>68032542
Fuck out of here you left wing scum. You're worse than this idiot I've been arguing with.
>>68032542
You're also a troll so please don't reply.
>a Canadian not understanding how economics work but acting like he does
Why do we have these threads CONSTANTLY. wish I could filter leafs
>>68033160
You're an idiot. I understand economics more than leftists.
>>68020732
Neocons look through rose colored glasses at Reagan cause otherwise they would realize the last good conservative president was Eisenhower
>Inb4 Nixon
He was a paranoid RINO at best.
>>68033482
>Eisenhower
>good president
The dude supported social security, unions, gibmedats, and called anyone who right wing "dumb". The guy was a retard.
>>68032976
>I think Bernie Sanders is the President for you then.
Bernie Sanders is a retarded communist that wants to destroy trade
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G8hAJ2IdNDE
He's more like you since he wants to balance the budget.
>The government controlled the factory and took the profits
Kek no. The government let business continue as it had been doing. Only the jewish communists in the USSR wanted full government control over the means of production.
>It's only good if you print as much money as the left over GDP
kek no. You want to expand the money supply.
>Jobs can just be created by digging ditches
All that matters is that money gets into the economy to fund relevant business.
>Libertarians/right-wingers have almost no influence in politics
Reagan was very "right wing" when it came to cutting social spending and deregulating wallstreet, two very bad ideas.
deregulation has created some monster mega banks that need to be stopped (not by retarded jewish communists like Sanders though)
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-great-american-bubble-machine-20100405
>>68031875
>But I watched a rap about Keynes and he said "Deficits are the cure you've been looking for" implying debts are good.
Yeah man what did you expect it's a youtube rap video
>I know. If the government could print money instead of borrowing I'd fully support expanding the money supply.
Ok cool
>>68033565
>The dude supported social security, unions, gibmedats, and called anyone who right wing "dumb".
And the economy did great. Based Eisenhower.
>>68020732
> increased government spending a lot and tripled the Debt?
wow he raised gdp by bringing money into the country. how do you not understand that?
>>68021098
>>68026147
didn't do neither.
>>68033776
But it was even better under Coolidge.
>>68033665
Well this rap kinda debunks your theories https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0nERTFo-Sk
>>68033854
He raised the Debt more than he raised GDP. And if you think it's a good idea to go into Debt to increase GDP you should really like Bernie and Obama.
Was Reagan actually the worst pres in all of America's history?
>>68034175
After FDR I'd say so. He boomed the National Debt the most after FDR. The national Debt is the one thing I care about when it comes to voting.
>>68034175
In the sense of creating massive debt yeah.
>>68033966
oh cool a music video about econ? yeah i'll check it out thanks dude :)
>>68034298
and that's why you're a retard
>>68034627
You're a retard actually. You probably hate Putin.
>>68034298
Wilson was pretty bad desu senpai.
>>68034923
Litearlly the worst President. FDR wouldn't of caused that massive Debt if he didn't create the Federal Reserve act.
>>68034849
You just don't know what you're talking about and would rather sink the country into depression than pay a tiny amount of interest on debt. I don't agree with it, but use your head. Which is worse? Depression or getting ripped off a little.
>>68035314
>Rippled off a little
It's more than that. The debt is unpayable. It's mathematically impossible to pay it off because all money is created by borrowing with interest. And besides I thought you and the other guy believed that the debt can be canceled at anytime meaning interest is irrelevant.
>>68034627
I want to believe this Canadian's just trolling at this point, but if he is he's done a great job at portraying an edgy teenage libertarian.
>>68035501
I know you're a troll. That's why I've stopped responding to you.
>>68025446
>Political decisions mean the economic plans of Germany were a failure
Lmao which is why when the rest of the 1st world was waiting in breadlines Hitler built the autobahn
Don't listen to neo-Keynesian shills like Krugman, classical Keynesian is elder god tier
>>68035935
No because it creates Debt. Hitlers keynesianism was better because he printed money without borrowing.
He good boy.
>>68036181
I strongly disagree.
>>68036044
Right so you're not actually contesting any of the central tenets of keynesian theory, which is to reach full employment through monetary expansion in times of crisis.
Your only gripe is with the actual functioning of the monetary system as it currently exists.
So then why do you keep saying "Muh Keynesians!!" If anything you should be bitching about the Chicagoites as they're the ones that openly advocate throwing money at big banks as economic stimulus rather than giving mortgages haircuts or actually spending on infrastructure and military.
>>68036044
>No because it creates debt
I'm not gonna waste my time arguing with a Chicago school leaf that has been repeatedly told in this thread dozens of times how increasing debt is only a problem with a stagnant economy like Greece that is no longer able to pay those obligations
>>68036334
I'm indifferent on him.
Why don't you like him? A lot of Republicans love him.
>>68036512
Hey bud are you an econ major or something? I'm not actually russian I'm american but living here atm. Where u at in the US?
>>68036430
The Debt is my only problem with keynesianism
Because in the rap (I don't know if you watched it) Keynes said "Deficits are the cure you've been looking for". He implies Deficits are good.
>>68036512
I debunked that several times and I'm not a Chicago school I am an Austrian school supporter I don't know anything about Chicago school.
>>68036709
Finance and Econ double major, studying at Lehigh university but from NJ, how about you?
I used to be a libertarian but hen I grew up and saw both the economic and social advantages of national socialism (with minor modifications of course)
>>68036679
He increased the Debt by 3 times.
>>68036870
Grow up idiot. You're University is a liberal brainwashing site.
>>68036960
My school is one of the most conservative in the US and is also top 40 nationally
I ask fail to see how the study of economics has in any way been tainted by liberals
>>68036891
Do you know how national debt works? Debt in general?
Refrain from calling other people ''idiot'' just because you disagree with them.
>>68036870
From RI originally. Funny enough I was a libertarian too. It seems we're both like ex-alcoholics talking about alcohol. I didn't study economics formally during Uni but I read a shitload. I actually read all the Mises stuff, Human Action, henry hazlitt, Hayek's Prices and Production and more. Was heavy in. The thing that broke the spell was Henry George.
>>68036746
It's a fucking music video man. Who cares what the funny man with the moustache says?! Essentially it doesn't matter since, in the current monetary system, deficits necessarily imply monetary expansion. So what's your point? His point isn't that debt is good, but that increased money supply is.
>>68037128
I've been called an idiot by these left wingers this whole thread.
>>68037269
The dude with the mustache is Fredrick Hayek. Well I would rank the systems like Hitlers'keynesianism > Austrian Economics > Normal Kenyesianism
>>68037103
Well I beg to differ. Which school is it?
>>68037607
lol ok I didn't watch it.
Rank your systems however you want, but I'm just going to assume that you want keynesianism with a reformed monetary system which is what anyone with a brain and an education wants.
>>68035935
Autobahn was started in the wiemar republic
>>68037269
Yeah "dude the free market will fix it lmao" is a good idea in theory until you realize all the negative social implications that it has
An authoritarian state that seeks to achieve full employment and carries the interests of the nation now seems optimal to me
>>68037607
So you're going down to their level?
Do you, sir, know how national debt is structured?
>>68021008
Eisenhower seems much more based though, he is the reason white people have 50's nostalgia.
>>68037877
Agreed
What do you think about unions?
>>68037824
That's what I want.
BUT YOU DIDNT WATCH IT REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
>>68037899
National Debt is structured like normal debt. Like a student loan really except lower interest rates.
>>68020732
It's like a religion, they love to preach and preach, but then look the other way when one of their own goes against their teachings. Kinda like Catholic priests molesting little boys.
>>68038031
Except Eisenhower was in my opinion a toolbag. Bernie said he had a 70% income tax.
>>68038090
>structured like normal debt. Like a student loan really except lower interest rates.
Yeah, that is not correct, sir. I'd suggest that you read up on the topic before you develop such strong opinions on this matter.
>>68020732
HE WUZ BERLIN WALL
>>68020732
because le money is a meme?
>>68038566
I read a lot of Ayn rand and she explanied it.
>>68020732
Reagan didn't increase government spending, entitlement programs and bureaucracy funding with automatic spending increases built into them did. Reagan tried to get Congress to change and eliminate programs and Congress refused. These increases in spending were baked into the cake long before he took office from FDR and LBJ programs.
For clarity, when I say "Congress" I do not only mean Democrats. Moderate Republicans in Congress opposed his reforms as well.
>>68038041
Not he biggest fan, while the rights of workers should be protected unions have a dangerous potential to grow out of control and become mob bosses of their own
>>68038722
I read a lot of Ayn rand and she explanied it.
I'm done with this board.
>>68038740
I disagree. He is the one who had the idea of spending more on the military and his stupid star wars program.
>>68038826
>Norway
Good get off.
>>68038722
wew
/pol/
pill
>>68021107
You kind of have to suck his dick if you're on the GOP ticket.
>>68039288
True.
>>68020732
He also militarized the police, doubled down on the war on drugs, and banned private ownership of new manufactured machineguns. The man was a total statist.
>>68039526
Glad people agree.
>>68038090
>National Debt is structured like normal debt. Like a student loan really except lower interest rates.
>>68021058
The Soviet Union collapsed under the weight of how objectively shit communism is. Regan didn't do shit, the Russians finally ran out of other peoples money.
>>68022224
Conservatives only care about debt when its convenient for them to. Usually "muh debt" is the reason we need to cut programs and services that conservatives don't like anyway, but it "doesn't matter anyway" if they already liked what the money was being spent on.
>>68038876
Here's your huge military spending increases. As a reminder, Reagan was in office from 1981 to 1989. Now please explain where the deficit spending actually came from, because it clearly wasn't just this. It especially wasn't this in the long term, as military spending as a percent of GDP was already back down to pre-Reagan levels by the time he left office. But wait, look what went up and kept going up.
>>68038722
Are you making a retard out of yourself? Or is this false flaging? I know lolberatarians are really dumb or misguided teens, but you are now surpassing them
>>68039980
True. That's why im against all debt
>>68040050
So I guess that Bernie bro was right. high taxes are good
>>68040050
He didn't touch the tax rate though. It was 91% the day he came in and the day he left.
>>68020732
because they don't know shit about politics or the economy
>>68040147
t.Alberto Barboso
>>68040312
>i will meme out of it
>>68020732
Didn't reagan increased the amount of mexican immigration? Wasn't he the last republican elected official in California?
>>68040710
I know non-Libertarians are really stupid but not as stupid as Albertos.
>>68040191
High taxes can be good if there's a way out of it like building infrastructure in America or putting more money into your company. Since NAFTA, and now the TPP, those type of taxes will never be feasible again because they'll just pack up and move to China.
>>68038325
>>68040050
The top tax rate was 94% when FDR died and 92% when Truman died. Tax rates remained the same for Eisenhower's entire presidency, as he made no effort to change them. It is important to note that virtually no one paid these top rates due to myriad deductions, tax avoidance schemes, and the incredibly high income required to qualify. As a result, total government revenues as a percent of GDP was roughly the same in the 1950s and 1980s. However, we can also compare economic growth under Eisenhower and Reagan.
GDP in chained 2009 dollars in 1954 was $2,556.9b. In 1961 it was $3,188.1b. This means there was a 24.7% real increase in GDP under Eisenhower.
For comparison, GDP in chained 2009 dollars in 1982, when TEFRA went into effect, was $6,491.3b. In 1989, it was $8,786.4b. This means there was a 35.4% real increase in GDP under Reagan.
Anyone who references the 1950s as some economic boom time are looking at history through rose colored glasses. There was economic stability, but growth was average (slightly over 3% per annum under Eisenhower's policies). Economic growth under Reagan's policies was nearly 4.5% per annum. And again, government revenue as a percent of GDP was roughly the same.
He was the first president who said, "Deficits don't matter."
They didn't like him at the time. He was a below average president. Then, in the 1990s, Republicans like Newt "The Grinch" Gingrich decided to turn him into a saint as a weapon against Democrats.
Actually, much of what the GOP is criticised for comes from Gingrich and his Republican strategies.
>>68042044
Cheney said that in reference to Reagan. Reagan most certainly did not say that. Reagan himself advocated for a Balanced Budget Amendment and we very nearly got one in the 1980s.
>>68041854
But I need to keep my money to buy x-box games and stuff
>>68041933
When Truman left office*
>>68041933
except that the economic growth that occurred under reagan was much more of a financial character whereas the growth which occurred in the 50's was less in the FIRE sector and translated more into tangible output and wages, whereas the growth that manifested under reagan manifested mostly in returns on capital or property.
That's why people look at the 50's with "rose colored glasses"
>>68021529
End justifies the means after all
>>68043177
no no no. The soviet union kept islamic terrorism under control.
>>68042915
Whether output comes from manufacturing or services is irrelevant to the growth and prosperity of a nation. Wages have remained flat since the early 1970s, when China opened its doors to the West and migration of unskilled labor into the US became government policy.
We can more specifically tie stagnant wages to the Hart-Celler Act in 1965 and the Taiwan Relations Act of 1979.
>>68043816
This is why we need Bernie. Trump will offshore everything.
>>68043816
>Whether output comes from manufacturing or services is irrelevant to the growth and prosperity of a nation.
Highly doubt that bud. One is primary, the other is secondary or tertiary. One is high value added, the other is low value added. One serves as a foundation, the other relies on other things, and so on and so forth.
Maybe it doesn't matter for the growth, but for the prosperity? GDP as a number obfuscates just as much as it shows, considering that it reports an increasing volume of increasingly expensive real estate sold as economic growth despite the fact that that just means that everyone is getting deeper and deeper into debt with little corresponding effect in output as bank credit is just getting sunk in land values, for example.
>>68044798
Exactly.
>>68044697
I don't support Trump or Sanders, but if I were a protectionist I would sooner trust the issue to Trump.
>>68044798
We'll have to agree to disagree on the importance of services.
>>68045888
Why aren't you a protectionist?
>>68020732
I don't care for Regan, but from my perspective he was a good leader. Just not a good president.
>>68025923
>a
>fucking
>lack of understanding of cancer biology
