12-10-2016, 01:15 AM
(12-09-2016, 11:27 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:(12-09-2016, 06:49 PM)Mikebert Wrote:(12-06-2016, 12:01 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: If you wanted to reduce the deficit in 1980, you should have voted for Anderson.I did.
Quote:The economic issues for the Reagan administration were inflation (A+, few expected inflation to end) and unemployment (B).Reagan ran on tax cuts. It was his is signature issue. That's why I could never support him. I supported Anderson in the primary (I liked his 50 cent tax on gas) and voted for him in the general.
If you grade him on tax cuts, he gets an A too.
No he doesn't. He raised taxes many times after initially lowering them, and particularly on the middle class with his social security tax rate hikes. Since then, the money raised from this tax has been used less and less for its purpose.
Quote:Incidentally, I also voted for Anderson because I didn't at the time think tax cuts were a good idea. Once they worked so well, though, I had to vote for Reagan the next time around. He was right, I was wrong, and much later I came to understand why.
Tax cuts were not Reagan's signature issue during the campaign, though. "Are you better off today than you were four years ago?" was.
And if you were better off, and the tax cuts worked for you, you must have been a wealthy man. No-one but the rich benefited from Reaganomics. If you thought so, you were seriously hoodwinked. That is the American condition today: hoodwinked by Reagan. You are one of them. Such a shame. NO, the Reagan tax cuts did NOT work at all; it was an abject failure of the worst order.
Quote:Quote:Quote:I actually voted for Trump. His foreign policy is not about reducing American force posture - he's going to "restore our military" - but about fewer wars.
"Restoring our military" means increasing defense spending. Republicans always want to do that, its boilerplate. He made noises about withdrawing from NATO if they don't pay their share. THAT was different. He talked about letting Japan and S. Korea get nukes. THAT also was different. Both things I support. Yes I am sure he's not going to do either of them, but if I had voted for him these would be part of the reasons why.
No one thinks it's likely Trump would withdraw from NATO or let Japan or South Korea get nuclear weapons; they would be incompatible with his core promise of making America great again. I know lots of people who voted for Trump and they all think those things are stupid ideas.
You didn't vote for Trump so no one, not even you, can say what would have made you vote for him, but my judgement is that you would be more likely to have changed your mind realized those were stupid ideas and thus forgive the fact that he was probably not serious about them, and voted for him for other reasons, than that you would change your mind and think they were core promises that he would make good on.
Quote:Quote:Nor have tariffs been promised.
He's talked about a 45% tariff on China and similar tariffs on Mexican imports. Both of which I support. I am sure he's not going to do it, but if I had voted for him these would be part of the reasons why.
He's talked about lots of things that were not promises. Tariffs were one of them.
Many of the things he's talked about that seem off the wall are his initial bargaining position with respect to various negotiating partners. He talks about withdrawing from NATO as an initial bargaining position to get NATO members to meet their defense spending obligation. He talks about nukes in South Korea and Japan as a bargaining position against nukes in North Korea, perhaps because he thinks China has the leverage to get North Korea to give up their nuclear program. He talks about trade war level tariffs against China and Mexico as an initial bargaining position with respect to trade negotiations with those two countries.
There is nothing to negotiate about except to raise tariffs again; that's it.
Quote:Quote:Quote:Nor has he promised anything about a financial collapse.
No he hasn't. But if a financial crisis were the happen he's going to have to do something. How about nothing? The Tea Party Republicans would be opposed to any sort of government intervention. So should you be, you are an Austrian right? Trump shouldn't try to circumvent them. Had I voted for him this too would be one of the reasons.
I don't think there are any expectations from his voters about this; it's quite obvious he doesn't expect another financial collapse and would make up his responses if it happened.
Trump is not the first choice of us Austrian Tea Party folks; for most of us, Cruz was. We don't necessarily expect Trump to follow our policies in every respect. Certainly the "do nothing" response worked great in 1920 and that's what we would hope for, but I certainly don't view it as a promise.
Incidentally, while I believe the Austrian school regarding how free markets function, our market is very far from a free market, and the chances of the government letting it get all the way there are nil. If I were a strict Austrian, I would not be talking about how it's better for fiscal stimulus to be supply side because it leaves room for more monetary stimulus, since from an Austrian standpoint, monetary stimulus is bad because it distorts time domain pricing signals.
You view it as a promise and an expectation. You want a response like the one in 1920, which eventually gave us the great crash. Things will work out for you faster this time; you'll get a serious recession in 2018, and nothing will be done about it. Just what you want. But if you are speaking for Trump's voters, and not yourself, no doubt you have a point; some of them would expect him to improvise some stupid scheme.