[Dan]

Originally Posted by maxiep

Yep, our numbers jibe regarding the debt.

I was just showing that for those who didn't know about it, or wanted to see it represented on a graph (im one of those people who learns by seeing it more so than being told it).

[crandc]

Let me explain this as simply as I can.

The item Talkhard cited was an editorial. Not a news story. A news story purports to described what happened. An editorial is one person's opinion. Nothing more.

This is not the first time Talkhard has cited an editorial as a news story. And he's been wrong just about every time.

[Stepping Razor]

Originally Posted by maxiep

Cool! You made me go back to my old macro notes (I'm a micro guy). These are notes from my old macro prof (who is a former Fed governor), so the footnotes aren't linked. Bad news regarding you and Reagan, however as all of these economic factors were better under Reagan both before his presidency and through Clinton afterward:

Economic Growth.

Economic Growth per Working-Age Adult.

Median Household Incomes.

Employment Growth (percentage and gross numbers).

Hours Worked.

Unemployment Rate (trend).

Inflation.

Interest Rates.

The two that didn't improve either pre- or post- Reagan were

Savings

Productivity

Overall, "Reaganomics" was better for the American people in terms of real wealth than any president of the late 20th Century, and this comes from a guy who never voted for him.

As for what the American people are going to spend their tax cuts on, I pray it's to curb their level of personal debt. It's not good for the short-term economy, but our savings rate is shameful and is a massive long term problem. We're asking the Chinese to subsidize our standard of living, and it's not sustainable.

Do you have a source for this stuff? (Not because I'm questioning you -- although I'm quite skeptical of that median household income number -- but just because it would be useful for me for something else I'm working on.)

Cheers,
SR