Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Reagan vs. Obama: A Tale of Two Economic Recoveries
Western Free Press ^ | 27 April, 2014 | John Walker

Posted on 04/28/2014 1:03:14 PM PDT by LucianOfSamasota

Reagan Turned It Around in Two Years;

Obama Has Made It Worse in Five Years

It’s a tired and shopworn refrain, but the Obama administration still claims that the so-called economic recovery that started in 2009 is struggling because of the mess the president inherited when he took office. So how does he explain a jobless recovery with no economic growth?

We’ll probably never see it in the mainstream media, but thanks to political observer Michael Hausam, we can make a comparison of policy and politics that pits 2009 against 1981. That would directly compare the economy Ronald Reagan inherited against the one inherited by Barack Obama.

Reagan was handed a bigger mess than Obama. When Reagan took office, unemployment was 10.8 percent; inflation was 13.5 percent; the prime interest rate was 21.5 percent. The economy was on the ropes.

When Obama took office, unemployment was 7.7 percent; inflation was 2.7 percent; the prime interest rate was 3.25 percent.

The economy was sputtering.

(Excerpt) Read more at westernfreepress.com ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Government
KEYWORDS: recession
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-62 next last
Interesting short take supporting Reagan's economic policies over Obamoa's.

Oh, for a muse of fire that would ascend The brightest heaven of invention! A kingdom for a stage, princes to act, And monarchs to behold the swelling scene! Then should the warlike Ronnie, like himself, Assume the port of voodoo, trickle down, Reaganomics...

1 posted on 04/28/2014 1:03:14 PM PDT by LucianOfSamasota
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: LucianOfSamasota
WHAT ECONOMIC RECOVERY?!
2 posted on 04/28/2014 1:07:43 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet (I will raise $2M for Cruz and/or Palin's next run, what will you do?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LucianOfSamasota
That's easy.

Reagan's was BECAUSE OF Reagan. His wealth-creating tax-cut polices lead to an historic 25-year economic expansion.

Obama's is IN SPITE OF Obama and his poverty-producing big government policies.

3 posted on 04/28/2014 1:08:51 PM PDT by PapaNew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LucianOfSamasota

When Reagan was elected there were enough Americans still interested in reason and common sense. Now the balance has been tilted to those who are only interested in what a candidate promises to take from others to give to them. In 1980 Reagan would have easily defeated Obama. In 2012 Obama would have crushed the greedy old white guy.


4 posted on 04/28/2014 1:09:19 PM PDT by all the best (sat`~!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LucianOfSamasota

Both were doing what they were trying to do!


5 posted on 04/28/2014 1:09:45 PM PDT by Don Corleone ("Oil the gun..eat the cannoli. Take it to the Mattress.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #6 Removed by Moderator

To: 2ndDivisionVet

“..WHAT ECONOMIC RECOVERY?!..”

::::::::

Exactly...There was/is only one ECONOMY in this discussion. That was Reagan of course. Zero is about as anti-capitalism, pro-confiscatory taxation, as any Marxist is.


7 posted on 04/28/2014 1:19:19 PM PDT by EagleUSA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: PapaNew

Cutting taxes was only one leg of Reagan’s economic program and maybe not one that would do much at this time.

A more important Reagan policy for today was his program of regulatory relief. Reagan didn’t ‘create jobs’, he unshackled private business so that they could create jobs.

Obama is doing exactly the opposite. He is as hostile to the free economy as any President we have ever had and he’s burdening us with more and more regulation every day. The non-recovery is the result.


8 posted on 04/28/2014 1:22:16 PM PDT by Pelham (If you do not deport it is amnesty by default.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Pelham

Reagan inherited a mess, but instead of whining, he got to work and fixed it. It took a couple of years for his policies to take affect, but when they did, the economy did very well.

barry inherited a smaller mess and has made it much worse.
IF we ever get an American president back in the white house, it will take drastic measures to get the economy back on a growth track.

Reagan’s intention was to make America great again after the cluster fork created by Carter.
barry’s intention is to destroy this country.

Different priorities.


9 posted on 04/28/2014 1:28:47 PM PDT by Texas resident (The democrat party is now the CPUSA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: LucianOfSamasota
Series title: (Seas) Labor Force Participation Rate
Labor force status: Civilian labor force participation rate
Type of data: Percent or rate
Age: 16 years and over

Reagan:

Obama:


10 posted on 04/28/2014 1:28:49 PM PDT by Justa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #11 Removed by Moderator

To: Justa

It took Obamao to undo what Reagan did?


12 posted on 04/28/2014 1:39:37 PM PDT by LucianOfSamasota (Tanstaafl - its not just for breakfast anymore...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: machinehead61
Deficit spending is Keynesian economics - not very conservative.

Tax cuts are hardly Keynesian. Keynes is used by the socialists to justify INCREASED SPENDING, never tax cuts.

TRICKEL-DOWN ECONOMICS

More stupid government-speak. The government views everything in terms of government. If you keep you own hard-earned money, the government thinks that's money that somehow the government allows to "trickle down" from government to you. What lunacy. Letting people keep their own hard-earned money is not "trickle -down", it's freedom. Less government is more freedom and unleashes the wealth-creating free market economy.

I see Galbraith is an elite Fabian Progressive socialist - a sort of economist version of George Bernard Shaw. Theoretically and historically, socialism creates poverty and failure.

13 posted on 04/28/2014 1:46:21 PM PDT by PapaNew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: machinehead61

I would like to have seen the Reagan GDP vs today’s globalized world. They had it pretty easy back then in terms of competition.


14 posted on 04/28/2014 1:46:49 PM PDT by Theoria (End Socialism : No more GOP and Dem candidates)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: LucianOfSamasota

If you spend some time over at DU, you will find that a lot of them blame the economic woes of TODAY on Ronald Reagan. No, I’m not kidding.


15 posted on 04/28/2014 1:48:43 PM PDT by Hardastarboard (Please excuse the potholes in this tagline. Social programs have to take priority in our funding.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hardastarboard

What is DU?

I’m not kidding either...


16 posted on 04/28/2014 1:52:40 PM PDT by LucianOfSamasota (Tanstaafl - its not just for breakfast anymore...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: machinehead61

Reagan’s tax reform didn’t actually lower the revenue collected by government. It merely changed the math.

For example, there was a graduated tax system. Different rates for different levels on the same return...
http://www.taxhistory.org/thp/1040forms.nsf/WebByYear/1913/$file/1040_1913.pdf


17 posted on 04/28/2014 1:53:13 PM PDT by griswold3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: LucianOfSamasota

Democratic Underground... a moonbat forum. Wear HAZMAT gear if you visit.


18 posted on 04/28/2014 1:54:44 PM PDT by Tijeras_Slim
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Pelham
I can't understand anyone on the Right not understanding the GREAT VALUE of tax cuts. It is the single most dynamic thing you can do to unleash the wealth-creating free market economy. It is well understood that the Reagan tax cuts were historical and resulted in historical long-term economic benefit. We MUST cut taxes.

But just as important and critical is cutting the $4 trillion government by at least 80% (still too big, but it's a start). The federal government must be put back in its constitutional cage. That means MUCH LESS regulation, to which you alluded. Hopefully, the Convention of States by Citizens for Self-Governance will succeed in forcing this.

19 posted on 04/28/2014 1:55:47 PM PDT by PapaNew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

Comment #20 Removed by Moderator

To: LucianOfSamasota

Reagan was pre-NAFTA.


21 posted on 04/28/2014 2:00:46 PM PDT by Wolfie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: machinehead61

“The fact was, due to the efforts of myself and my supply-side compatriots, Ronald Reagan had been made to stumble into the wrong camp on the eve of his final, successful quest for the presidency. He was a consensus politician, not an ideologue. He had no business trying to make a revolution because it wasn’t in his bones.”

David Stockman is a self serving liar. If you want an accurate account of Ronald Reagan’s belief in his economic program read Martin Anderson’s memoir ‘Revolution’. Anderson was with Reagan from his time as Governor and was one of President Reagan’s principle economic advisers.

In one lengthy portion of ‘Revolution’ Anderson says that the Reagan team never made the Laffer curve claim that “tax cuts would increase tax revenue”, they didn’t believe it, and it didn’t happen. What did happen is that economic growth recouped around two thirds of the tax revenue loss predicted by static analysis. And that was what the Reagan team had predicted.

The Reagan program did include spending cuts but Democratic Speaker Tip O’Neil reneged on the cuts after agreeing to them. O’Neil’s bad faith , a very rapid collapse of inflation, and the decision to break the back of the Soviet Union by means of defense spending generated the Reagan deficits.


22 posted on 04/28/2014 2:20:28 PM PDT by Pelham (If you do not deport it is amnesty by default.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: machinehead61
Enjoy your sure to be short stay on Free Republic, newbie dweeb. How many more countries does your lefty economic stupidity have to ruin before you and your ilk finally make it onto the trash heap of history.

Go away, commie pig.

23 posted on 04/28/2014 2:25:55 PM PDT by safeasthebanks ("The most rewarding part, was when he gave me my money!" - Dr. Nick)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: machinehead61

“Professor (Arthur) Laffer’s contribution was to hold that with such a reduction in taxes, aggregate government revenues would not diminish but increase. This was an especially valuable example of the role of justifying doctrine, however removed from fact.”

That’s nice. But Art Laffer had a private practice during the 1980s and did not work for President Reagan. He had a small role as part of a group of outside economic advisers.

The actual Reagan economists didn’t believe that the Reagan tax cuts would increase tax revenue and didn’t base their program on that idea.


24 posted on 04/28/2014 2:26:11 PM PDT by Pelham (If you do not deport it is amnesty by default.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: machinehead61
If you're a Marxist/Socialist, then by definition you don't understand even the basics of how economic works. Collectivism produces poverty and is an economic failure theoretically and historically.

Government never has been and never will be a wealth-creating agent. Government is an agent for poverty. It siphons (steals) resources from the people, pays bureaucrats to do a bunch of non-productive, useless stuff who then turn around and regulate anything that moves and WHEN (not if) their programs fail (they ALWAYS FAIL), they ask for more money.

Bureaucracies and bureaucrats quickly forget the "altruistic" "intentions" for which they were created. Government agencies, departments are as self-interested as private enterprise if not more so. Why not? There's really no "government." There's only people in government, just like you and I who want to keep their jobs and want to see their departments grow so they can get bigger paychecks. Self-interest and greed is most prevalent in government because it contains another element: coercive power - the kind that corrupts "absolutely".

Central command and control has never and can never come close to replacing the dynamic, wealth-creating trillions of moving parts and people in the voluntary free market run by the opportunities of the supply and demand of the free economy. Coercive and oppressive big government violates the very essence of human makeup - his self interest. The difference between collectivism and the free market is collectivism runs counter to human incentive by using force whereas the free market is RUN by voluntary self-interest. That's one main reason why freedom works and tyranny fails.

25 posted on 04/28/2014 2:28:58 PM PDT by PapaNew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Texas resident

“Reagan inherited a mess, but instead of whining, he got to work and fixed it. It took a couple of years for his policies to take affect, but when they did, the economy did very well. barry inherited a smaller mess and has made it much worse.”

I don’t know that Obama inherited a smaller mess but it is certainly much different than the stagflation that Reagan had to deal with.

Reagan’s team correctly deduced that the economy was suffering from a supply constraint. As long as this was the case any increase in the money supply would go to pure inflation. The solution was to shift the supply curve to the right and a program of regulatory relief and tax cuts allowed this to occur.

Obama’s economic program is driven by politics, not by a desire to improve the life of the American middle class. He’s a leftist, a socialist, a small ‘c’ communist, whatever you want to call a politician for whom controlling everybody is the highest goal. He is making the economy worse, but I suspect that he is just fine with that outcome.


26 posted on 04/28/2014 2:40:27 PM PDT by Pelham (If you do not deport it is amnesty by default.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: PapaNew

“Tax cuts are hardly Keynesian. Keynes is used by the socialists to justify INCREASED SPENDING, never tax cuts.”

Actually they are. The real Keynes was not a Keynesian. He advocated tax cuts and government spending only during times of deflationary crisis, like the Great Depression. He believed in balanced budgets otherwise. He was not a socialist. Many who have claimed his name are.


27 posted on 04/28/2014 2:45:57 PM PDT by Pelham (If you do not deport it is amnesty by default.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: LucianOfSamasota

Yet if you listen to the Media, this recovery is phenomenal!!

They will also tell you that the Reagan recovery was a myth and that Obama has reduced the deficit, lowered the debt and been the most financially responsible President since FDR.

Everyone would know that Obama’s economic policies were a failure if the Media would TELL THE TRUTH!

However, I doubt you will see this comparison on ANY of the alphabet networks, including Fox.

This country will continue to circle the drain economically as long as the Media is hell bent on destroying this nation!


28 posted on 04/28/2014 2:46:12 PM PDT by Carbonsteel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: griswold3

“Reagan’s tax reform didn’t actually lower the revenue collected by government. It merely changed the math”

I think it lowered collections by about one third, the data can be found in Lawrence Lindsey’s ‘The Growth Experiment’.

That one third loss was expected by Reagan’s team and is the reason they asked Tip O’Neil for spending cuts.

There is only one instance in which tax cuts paid for themselves and in fact increased revenue. That is when capital gains rates were cut, and ironically that was a bill signed by Jimmy Carter.


29 posted on 04/28/2014 2:51:15 PM PDT by Pelham (If you do not deport it is amnesty by default.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Pelham
Understood. I tried to emphasize the Socialist application of "Keynesian" (rather than Keynes himself). Socialists use "Keynes" but really it's their misapplied "Keynesian" theory to justify big government. However, Socialists NEVER look for ANY justification to cut taxes.
30 posted on 04/28/2014 3:09:00 PM PDT by PapaNew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Pelham
I don’t know that Obama inherited a smaller mess but it is certainly much different than the stagflation that Reagan had to deal with.

President Obama inherited a mess of his party's own making, including his own.

How the Democrats Created the Financial Crisis: Kevin Hassett
Bill Clinton blames Democrats for the mortgage mess
With landmark lawsuit, Barack Obama pushed banks to give subprime loans to Chicago’s African-Americans

So yes, President Obama did inherit a mess, from Senator Obama and attorney at law Obama.

31 posted on 04/28/2014 3:10:44 PM PDT by TwelveOfTwenty (See my home page for some of my answers to the left's talking points.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Pelham
You know, I hate government-focused justification for tax cuts. It's TAXES, not tax cuts that should be justified because taxes basically rob people of their own hard-earned money. Tax cuts never need to be justified as far as I'm concerned.

I also hate government-centered titles they give to tax-cuts like "supply side" (good theory but the name smacks of "government speak") or "trickle down" as though our hard-earned money belongs to the government who allows it to "trickle down" back to us. What an outrage. I suppose it's indicative of our slavish need to sort of beg and convince government not to steal so much of our money. I hope the CoC by CSG works to fix this nonsense.

And that's just the moral view. The economic advantages of low, flat taxes are staggering.

32 posted on 04/28/2014 3:27:31 PM PDT by PapaNew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: LucianOfSamasota

DemocraticUnderground.com. The home of leftist insanity on the internet. Go look, but be prepared for a freak show of the sort you would never have guessed existed in a civilized, capitalist society. The website is pretty well known on the web, and is often satirized by PJComix2 and Charles Hendrickson on this website (FR).


33 posted on 04/28/2014 3:29:58 PM PDT by Hardastarboard (Please excuse the potholes in this tagline. Social programs have to take priority in our funding.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: PapaNew

“I can’t understand anyone on the Right not understanding the GREAT VALUE of tax cuts. It is the single most dynamic thing you can do to unleash the wealth-creating free market economy.”

It depends on the disease the economy is suffering from. The bigger problem now could be business activity being strangled by government agencies. I knew a radical college professor who used to take sabbaticals and go to work for the BLM. Once inside the BLM he could cause all sorts of grief for private business. You can be certain he isn’t the only radical professor who does this.


34 posted on 04/28/2014 4:05:22 PM PDT by Pelham (If you do not deport it is amnesty by default.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: PapaNew

Reagan’s was BECAUSE OF Reagan. His wealth-creating tax-cut polices lead to an historic 25-year economic expansion.

...............
well Reagan also talked the Saudis into overproducing oil and therefor collapsing the price of oil. This bankrupted the old soviet union but it also turned out to be pure oxygen for the US economy which grew like gang busters because of cheap energy.


35 posted on 04/28/2014 4:08:17 PM PDT by ckilmer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: PapaNew

” Socialists use “Keynes” but really it’s their misapplied “Keynesian” theory to justify big government.”

Quite so. There’s a funny story about Keynes being invited to speak to a meeting of ‘Keynesians’. Returning home after the meeting Keynes told his Russian ballerina wife: “I was the only non-Keynesian there”.


36 posted on 04/28/2014 4:11:51 PM PDT by Pelham (If you do not deport it is amnesty by default.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: ckilmer

Those are happy things also, but the tax cuts were the locomotive engine fueled by people keeping more their own hard-earned money and plowing it into the free market.


37 posted on 04/28/2014 4:15:29 PM PDT by PapaNew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Pelham
story about Keynes being invited to speak to a meeting of ‘Keynesians’. Returning home after the meeting Keynes told his Russian ballerina wife: “I was the only non-Keynesian there”.

Good one. That is funny.

38 posted on 04/28/2014 4:16:55 PM PDT by PapaNew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Pelham

Reagan’s team correctly deduced that the economy was suffering from a supply constraint. As long as this was the case any increase in the money supply would go to pure inflation. The solution was to shift the supply curve to the right and a program of regulatory relief and tax cuts allowed this to occur.
...............
I don’t think that the role of cheap oil should be underestimated. Reagan talked the Saudis into jacking up supply of oil and collapsing the price. That bankrupted the old soviet union—which was dependent then as now on oil revenue to fund the government. But cheap oil in the 1980’s also was pure oxygen to the US economy.
........................
Obama’s economic program is driven by politics, not by a desire to improve the life of the American middle class. He’s a leftist, a socialist, a small ‘c’ communist, whatever you want to call a politician for whom controlling everybody is the highest goal. He is making the economy worse, but I suspect that he is just fine with that outcome.
..................
Awful thing is that the USA fracking revolution is going to make Obama look good whether he likes it or not and despite his best efforts to kill it. The fracking revolution will cover over Obama’s worst sins. The economy may not do much but it won’t go down. Not when the USA is producing a million barrels@day more each year for the last three years. The IEA is predicting million barrel annual increases for 2014 and 2015. A five year run like this bigger than the great russian run from 2003-2006 that reversed Reagan’s work in the 1980. A five year run is as big as the great Saudi oil expansion from 1968-1973. But I think the IEA is off by about three years. I think the run will go for 8 years. I think there will be million barrel@day expansions annually through 2018. Why? Because the drillers have only begun to horizontal drill in the Permian basin.

The upshot of this for Obama is that the economy will not be great but it will be good enough to get him to nearly a balanced budget by the time he leaves office.

He will take the credit for it even though he had nothing to do with it and what efforts he did make were to stymie it at every turn.

Curiously the same thing happened during the Clinton years.


39 posted on 04/28/2014 4:26:30 PM PDT by ckilmer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: PapaNew

The history of “supply-side” is quite interesting. It was being kicked around during the Carter years when stagflation demonstrated that the Fed’s old standby of goosing the economy with easy money was no longer working. Instead of stimulating growth we just got inflation.

Some economists working as Congressional staff began shopping their ideas around and in the House they found followers in Republicans Jack Kemp and Marjorie Holt. But the Senate is even more interesting. Three Senators signed on- Lloyd Benson, Russell Long, and Sam Nunn, Democrats all.

When candidate Reagan latched onto supply side the Democrat Senators considered passing it before the election in order to steal the issue from him. But they figured that might look like an endorsement of Reagan so they decided to wait until after the election to pass it. Reagan won the election, Democrats lost the Senate, and Reagan encountered more opposition to supply side from Republicans than he did from Democrats.

Today all sorts of claims get made about Reagan’s supply side tax cuts, exaggerated ones by boosters on the right and utterly false ones by critics on the left. But it did exactly what it was designed to do, which was just one thing: end stagflation.


40 posted on 04/28/2014 4:52:57 PM PDT by Pelham (If you do not deport it is amnesty by default.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Pelham

Well, tax cuts are always a boon to the economy. They don’t just end something bad. They allow something good: money plowed into the free market wealth-producing engine. Not sure you’re on broad with the free market economy, but it is THE alternative to big government with its myriad of regulations.


41 posted on 04/28/2014 4:56:49 PM PDT by PapaNew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: ckilmer

IIRC a large fall in the oil price happened immediately after Reagan took office but that was in response to Reagan removing the controls on oil that Carter had imposed and letting the market work.

The arrangement with the Saudis certainly took time to arrange and wasn’t responsible for the initial break in oil prices. And while the cheap Saudi oil added to the boom it was not the lone factor by any means.

“Awful thing is that the USA fracking revolution is going to make Obama look good whether he likes it or not and despite his best efforts to kill it. “

I doubt that fracking will save him. He has too many policies in place that hobble business and inhibit hiring. He’s either a fool or consciously seeking to cripple the economy.


42 posted on 04/28/2014 5:03:06 PM PDT by Pelham (If you do not deport it is amnesty by default.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Pelham

I doubt that fracking will save him. He has too many policies in place that hobble business and inhibit hiring. He’s either a fool or consciously seeking to cripple the economy
.............
The economy is not Obama’s number one issue. Its “fundamentally transforming America”. That means Obamacare which will make the country dependent on the government and amnesty which will give the democrats a lock on the white house and all the federal agencies to which power is migrating.
.............
fracking will bring the feds the kinds of revenues that will nearly balance the budget by the time Obama leaves office. Same thing as happened under clinton.


43 posted on 04/28/2014 5:23:59 PM PDT by ckilmer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: LucianOfSamasota

Dummie Underground - It’s a bulletin board where posters try to outdo each other in the use of profanity.


44 posted on 04/28/2014 5:28:16 PM PDT by Hoodat (Democrats - Opposing Equal Protection since 1828)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Pelham

IIRC a large fall in the oil price happened immediately after Reagan took office but that was in response to Reagan removing the controls on oil that Carter had imposed and letting the market work.

Here is a graph of inflation adjusted oil per barrel prices going back to WWII

http://inflationdata.com/inflation/inflation_rate/historical_oil_prices_table.asp

These are the years in question:
Year Nominal Price Inflation Adjusted Price
1980 $37.42 $106.36
1981 $35.75 $92.10
1982 $31.83 $77.21
1983 $29.08 $68.32
1984 $28.75 $64.75
1985 $26.92 $58.54
1986 $14.44 $30.80
1987 $17.75 $36.54
1988 $14.87 $29.45
1989 $18.33 $34.58

Notice the year 1982. That price of about 77.21 in today’s adjusted price is about what Russians need to run their government since most of their government revenues come from oil. Drop below that and you put a squeeze on their government. Notice how prices kept falling. At the same time as the Russians government was being squeezed — the US economy was really taking off.

These are today’s prices. Notice how they are quite similar to 1981; In fact its kind of amazing just how well balanced oil prices are. (Hard to say what mean adjusted prices for 2014 will be. So far they look to be higher than last year. But in any case its important to notice that we are well above the mean for the last 70 years.
Year Nominal Price Inflation Adjusted Price

2011 $87.04 $90.52
2012 $86.46 $88.11
2013 $91.17 $91.54


45 posted on 04/28/2014 6:08:54 PM PDT by ckilmer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: All


Help FR Continue the Conservative Fight!
Your Monthly and Quarterly Donations
Help Keep FR In the Battle!

Sponsoring FReepers are contributing
$10 Each time a New Monthly Donor signs up!
Get more bang for your FR buck!
Click Here To Sign Up Now!


46 posted on 04/28/2014 6:15:19 PM PDT by musicman (Until I see the REAL Long Form Vault BC, he's just "PRES__ENT" Obama = Without "ID")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: PapaNew

I’m fine with low tax rates. I don’t like paying taxes. But I don’t believe that tax cuts are a cure all for every economic malady.

Income taxes were low and applied to only a small portion of the population in the 1920s and ‘30s. Government spending was something like 6% of GNP. And yet we still suffered the Great Depression.

The probable cause of the Great Depression was a massive collapse of the American money supply over a three year period due to a vagary of American banking law- our Canadian and European cousins didn’t experience this. One third of the American money supply simply vanished as thousands of banks failed. Tax cuts wouldn’t touch this.

In that era there was no deposit insurance so when a bank collapsed its customers’ savings were wiped out. Milton Friedman wrote that the greatest innovation to come out of the Great Depression was the creation of FDIC.

You had a classic collapse of ‘demand’. People had lost their money and couldn’t buy things so businesses closed, causing more unemployment and even less ‘demand’.

It was this sort of scenario that Keynes had in mind when he advocated government spending. He argued that the private sector would rationally cut back spending when confronted with this. But if everyone cut back spending at the same time then the slowdown would feed on itself in a vicious spiral. Counter-cyclic spending was needed and the only thing able to do that was government.

Of course what Keynes didn’t account for is that government spending gets entrenched and doesn’t end. And it ends up funding all sorts of agendas hostile to the public at large. And so we find ourselves in our current dilemma with a hostile alien occupying the White House with loads of money to use against us.


47 posted on 04/28/2014 6:19:07 PM PDT by Pelham (If you do not deport it is amnesty by default.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: ckilmer

“The economy is not Obama’s number one issue. Its “fundamentally transforming America”. That means Obamacare which will make the country dependent on the government and amnesty which will give the democrats a lock on the white house and all the federal agencies to which power is migrating.”

You’re preaching to the choir here. It’s possible that Obama actually likes having the economy get worse since it weakens America. AFAIK the fracking is only occurring on private land, it’s not like he is promoting it.


48 posted on 04/28/2014 6:22:36 PM PDT by Pelham (If you do not deport it is amnesty by default.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: ckilmer

I refreshed my memory and your argument that the Reagan boom was the result of cheap Saudi oil doesn’t hold up.

A collapse in oil prices related to Saudi Arabian production couldn’t have occurred prior to 1986, five years into the Reagan administration.

From 1980 to 1986 OPEC, which includes Saudi Arabia, decreased oil production in the attempt to hold up oil prices. By 1982 OPECs production was at its lowest level since 1969.

In September 1985 Saudi Arabia broke with OPEC and dramatically increased production. Oil prices collapsed in 1986.

One of Reagan’s first acts as President was signing an executive order on January 28, 1981 to immediately remove price controls on oil, price controls that Carter had dawdled over removing since 1979. The price controls under Carter had created an artificial scarcity and discouraged new production. Reagan also ended the Windfall Profits tax. These policies unleashed American oil companies and the futures market reacted by knocking down the price of oil.


49 posted on 04/28/2014 8:02:15 PM PDT by Pelham (If you do not deport it is amnesty by default.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Pelham
Yeah. You're right. The Saudis did squeeze off production until 1984. And then they opened up the spigots subsequently. And yet the price of oil still went down steadily from its 1980 high through 1984 even as the Saudis were throttling production.

File:Saudi Oil Production.png

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Original file(2,200 × 1,700 pixels, file size: 30 KB, MIME type: image/png)

Expand view


50 posted on 04/28/2014 8:50:52 PM PDT by ckilmer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-62 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson