I used to think that Reagan was fiscally irresponsible as president, compared to his predecessor. But then I thought the same thing about Bush I, then Clinton, and now Bush II. But surely, after the record-setting budget deficits and the massive increases in government spending, debt, and inflation of the last seven years, whoever is elected next must stop this trend, which can’t continue forever. Right?
Maybe not. Bill Gross, the manager of the worlds biggest bond fund, said on Bloomberg Radio this week that “[t]hose who suggest that fiscal deficits of $300 or $400
billion are going to be standard are going to be disappointed. They’re going to be $600, $700, $800
billion.” (Read more from Gross’ interview here.)
This makes me wonder exactly what the presidential candidates mean when they promise change if elected. If they mean change in terms of larger budget deficits, then then they need to explain themselves in more detail. In many market sectors, the verdict on what they mean is not promising.
{ 15 comments }
Your post taps into the Misean view that we are traveling the rough and tumble road to serfdom. The trend minus one single blip in the period from the New Deal to today has reflected a steady course of expansive government intervention and expansion. This one blip was the Reagan presidency, and to bring Reagan’s name into this seems rather unfair. Reagan sought to cut spending in a variety of areas with the exception of Defense.
While his gains were modest, we must remember that he was President over a largely liberal Congress. Nevertheless, unlike the current administration (which had a majority in both Houses of Congress), he did not propose budgetary expansion domestically, and did at least make marginal cuts in entitlements and other areas at home. There was no such thing as “compassionate conservatism” thankfully in Reagan’s day.
Nevertheless, I believe that the ever-increasing deficit spending is a good reflection of Keynesian principles — accumulate debt because some day you are going to die anyway. Hopefully the nation doesn’t die, but if it is to survive, it’s lifeblood will depend upon taxpayers in the future paying for the socialist mistakes of our past and present which lead to these great deficits.
Reagan was a good sincere person. But his record didn’t match his speeches. I think he honestly had a sincere good intention – and people at the time that knew of the importance of the market economy, such as Milton Friedman, and Alan Greenspan were supporting him.
But then politics, and ah yes – pragmatism – comes into play and we often despair at the inability for all of our principles to be applied.
I have been reading the Reagan diaries about this, and I think that he was a good person but in the end had a bad record (but better than most, I may add).
If we really wanted to save the economy, and the deficit, we need to hack away at two major programs. Medicare, and social security. Medicaid also costs a lot and contributes to the current health care mess, but pragmatically its not the worst of our worries.
Private accounts for social security, and the separation of retirement and state, is I believe the way to go. It will deflate a huge portion of the budget, taxes can be cut, and we would all be merry.
But the sad thing is that the welfare state continues its rise. We need a candidate with Ron Paul’s beliefs but Ronald Reagan and Barack Obama’s orating ability!
“But the sad thing is that the welfare state continues its rise. We need a candidate with Ron Paul’s beliefs but Ronald Reagan and Barack Obama’s orating ability!”
It is a shame that our society’s obsession with celebrities puts more emphasis on flair than on substance. We no longer want our politicians to represent us, we want them to entertain us.
If people had paid more attention to Ron Paul during the debates, they would have noticed that when asked a question about a particular topic, he always gave the same answer. He didn’t give you 30 seconds of off-topic fluff as did the other candidates in order to buy some time while they considered the most “strategically correct” response. Instead his answers were immediate and his message was consistent.
Yeah I know it’s an old joke, but generally, when a politican talks about change, he is talking about the change in your pocket
I agree whole-heartedly with IMHO.
But really, this stuff is incredibly depressing. Every day I’m more and more inclined to believe that this will continue to be the state of affairs. There’s no hope.
It honestly depresses me when I see how dumb many of my peers are this day, probably because state education has numbed their minds completely.
In a wiser world, the danger of letting two such bitter and conflicted men anywhere near the levers of power would be widely discussed. The good news is that either will be so spectacularly bad in their respective ways that it just may lead to a radical reassessment of the Executive as a rogue branch of government.
My take on Reagan is that his rhetoric never matched what he did in office, and that is the basis on how he should be judged. The fact is that the federal government grew at an enormous rate in the 1980s, and the data show that Carter was more fiscally conservative.
A couple of other quick points:
First, the Old Right branch of the conservative movement has always been strong, calling for either no government or at least limited government. The popularity of this movement has always threatened the growth of the central state, so the state offers up people like Reagan to pacify them. (William Buckley has also served in this role.) Reagan’s importance is that he has kept this group at bay, feeding it rhetoric that would stop it from actually implementing any policies that would actually hinder the growth of Leviathan.
Second, one way that Reagan should really be judged is by his legacy, and his legacy has been not a plethora of classical liberals reigning in the state in the public sector, but that of big government neocons who have expanded the welfare and warfare states. By this measure, Reagan has been a disaster, more in the spirit of an FDR than that of a Jefferson. (This is also why, as his legacy grows, the leftist historians often list him among the great presidents.)
I heard someone on the radio a couple of weeks ago reporting from CPAC. He said we was tired of Republicans campaigning like Ronald Reagan and presiding like Jimmy Carter. My immediate thought was “I’m tired of Republicans (or anyone) campaigning like Ronald Reagan and then presiding like Ronald Reagan.’ Or even more to the point, campaigning like GWB in y2k. Where did that man go between the election and the inauguration?
Fephisto,
Fephisto, if it’s getting you down, then that’s all the more reason for you to come to Mises. It’s one of the few remaining strongholds of common sense. : )
Inquisitor,
It’s not just your generation. The men of my generation may know what’s going on, but they don’t like to discuss current events with women, so, I’m left out in the cold.
As for the women in my generation, other than tabloid news, they are for the most part extremely uninformed. Attempts to engage them in conversations with substance are generally rebuffed…and not too tactfully. The abrupt responses I get are something like, “I have no idea what you’re talking about” or “That’s too upsetting. Let’s discuss something else.”
Let’s face it, if they believe that the role of government is to take care of everything for them, then it’s their opinion that there’s nothing to worry about, and therefore nothing to discuss.
IMHO you hit the problem right on the head there.
Until people actually care about the overstep of authorities the government has been passing off as public interest for the last few decades, nothing will change.
There is nothing more frustrating than trying to talk to someone and explain some simple facts about this world, and have them simply say eh, whatever, as they turn back to their American Idol’s, and more reality tv… ugh…
~~Fephisto,
Fephisto, if it’s getting you down, then that’s all the more reason for you to come to Mises. It’s one of the few remaining strongholds of common sense. : )
Inquisitor,
It’s not just your generation. The men of my generation may know what’s going on, but they don’t like to discuss current events with women, so, I’m left out in the cold.
As for the women in my generation, other than tabloid news, they are for the most part extremely uninformed. Attempts to engage them in conversations with substance are generally rebuffed…and not too tactfully. The abrupt responses I get are something like, “I have no idea what you’re talking about” or “That’s too upsetting. Let’s discuss something else.”
Let’s face it, if they believe that the role of government is to take care of everything for them, then it’s their opinion that there’s nothing to worry about, and therefore nothing to discuss.
~~~
Yep, as a twenty year old and avid reader of LewRockwell and Mises, I totally agree with you. It seems like so many of our peers just don’t care. The government will take care of them.
All though I don’t think you can expect too much. You have to admit talking economics may not be the best conversational topic at parties… Even though that’s generally what I like to do.
MichaelJep~
Try bringing up Austrian economics at one…
IMHO, I’m just wondering how much dumber people can possibly get. I wouldn’t go as far as to venture that most people my age are some of the most ignorant ever to live (in terms of practical knowledge), but it’s probably not too far off.
I think one thing that should be remembered about Reagan’s term is that Rumsfeld and Cheney (perhaps Wolfowitz as well?) were serving in his White House. I believe that Reagan was a great man whose presidency was influenced by some very ungreat men. These men have had an enormous amount of influence over our budget since the 1970s. They were behind creating the renewed threat of the USSR in the 80s (hence the defense buildup) and the war on terrorism more recently (hence the defense buildup). All just more fear to coax us into letting them spend our money on the military, and then they turn around and make us spend more of it on social programs meant to keep our failing economy under tabs.
And people worry about a Bush/Clinton dynasty…
what is market in economics? what are the factors on which the six of a market depends.
Comments on this entry are closed.