US tea party

[BubberMiley]

Or...we could just let markets sort out the winners and losers efficiently as they always have.

Somalia is a perfect, real-world example of pure libertarianism. They haven't had a government for years, and I think the winners and losers are being sorted out as we speak.

[BubberMiley]

When were Reaganomics proven to be terribly wrong?

Last fall. I think Greenspan referred to it as a "flaw in the model that I perceived is the critical functioning structure that defines how the world works, so to speak."

Edited May 13, 2009 by BubberMiley

[Shady]

Last fall.

And what about last fall had anything to do with Reaganomics?

[BubberMiley]

And what about last fall had anything to do with Reaganomics?

Deregulation.

[Shady]

Deregulation.

What deregulation?

[BubberMiley]

What deregulation?

<yawn> The deregulation of the capital markets. It was in all the newspapers. You should really keep up on current events better. If you knew what Greenspan was talking about in the quote provided, you would have known what I'm talking about.

Edited May 13, 2009 by BubberMiley

[Shady]

<yawn> The deregulation of the capital markets.

Specifically which deregulation, and when?

And your premise that Reaganomics is tantamount to deregulation is completely false. Blaming such deregulation (which you haven't yet cited) 20 years after his last year in office is pretty disingenious.

Nice try.

[BubberMiley]

Don’t blame me, blame Greenspan. He believed in Reaganomics (that is, reduced taxation and regulation) too until the dire events last year showed him how an unregulated market allows greed to overtake even long-term self-interest. If you need citation, look up "reaganomics" in wikipedia.

I guess some are quicker at seeing these flaws than others. Keep trying though. You’ll get it yet.

[Shady]

Don’t blame me, blame Greenspan.

Absolutely. Alan Greenspan has much to be blamed for during this current economic downturn. However, Ronald Reagan doesn't. I'm not sure if you know, but he left office in 1988.

He believed in Reaganomics (that is, reduced taxation and regulation) too until the dire events last year showed him how an unregulated market allows greed to overtake even long-term self-interest.

See, that's where you're completely wrong. The market was quite regulated. Quite regulated by the government, forcing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and private lending instituations into providing mortgages to people who wouldn't otherwise qualify, all under the guise of so-called affordable housing. Giving people loans they can't pay back isn't Reaganomics. It's liberal feel-goodism.

I think we have an excessive degree of concern right now about home ownership and its role in the economy. Obviously, speculation is never a good thing. But those who argue that housing prices are now at the point of a bubble seem to me to missing a very important point. Unlike previous examples we have had, where substantial excessive inflation of prices later caused some problems, we are talking here about an entity — home ownership, homes — where there is not the degree of leverage we have seen elsewhere. This is not the dot-com situation; we have problems with people having invested in business plans for which there was no reality. People building fiber-optic cable for which there was no need. Homes that are occupied may see an ebb and flow in the price at a certain percentage level, but you’re not going to see the collapse that you see when people talk about a bubble. And so, those of us on our committee in particular, will continue to push for home ownership.(2005)

[BubberMiley]

Absolutely. Alan Greenspan has much to be blamed for during this current economic downturn. However, Ronald Reagan doesn't. I'm not sure if you know, but he left office in 1988.

I'm not sure if you know, but reaganomics was an economic model that continued to be employed well after the old man died.