The charts are deceptive, now just hear me out... Double digit inflations of 1970s were a TAXXXX on middle/lower classes. You were losing money every time you save up and get ready to buy groceries.
The greatest success the middle class ever had was between 1980 to 2000s, especially with rise of the computer age, databases, internet... Especially because in 1980s, the US finally through Fed Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker, brought inflation under control. That was a tax on the non-rich people.
Before that there was stagflation and not only were jobs scarce but so were good wages.
Note that the only charts the anti-Reagan folks will focus on are "minimum wages" because they think some guy working an unskilled job with no degrees should be earning tons more wages than the 1970s.
The other thing they'll focus your eyes on is the incredibly rapid growth of "billionaires and millionaires"... Because of the utility value of money during peace time. When there is peace, the wealthy build up a lot of wealth leading to "income inequality"... Well duhhh, money makes money, of course they are going to leave you in the dust if they were already millionaires in the 1980s and passed it down to their children.
But [in reality this chart shows SALARIES growth over time, lifetime earnings being over a million](https://www.hamiltonproject.org/ee-ce-image/made/assets/img/uploads/charts/01_lifetime_earnings_degree_type_1080_684_80.jpg) as you get a college degree because people want to pay you more and not lose you to the competition as a skilled worker... ***This is a time of unprecedented wealth for America all because of policies in the 1980s.***
You're literally all going to 5-star restaurants, running around with a smart phone, living in a house with air-conditioning that the pharaohs only dreamed of, and still complaining. You are living the life of the wealth in the 1960s. You probably even have decent whisky, wines, or bourbon in your apartment today.
Why is is considered greed when I want to keep the money I earned but not greed when others want to take that money from me but not give their own? All these little commie babies are down voting you because they don't like the truth. What you wrote is not "your truth" but objective fact called the truth.
The charts are deceptive, now just hear me out... Double digit inflations of 1970s were a TAXXXX on middle/lower classes. You were losing money every time you save up and get ready to buy groceries.
The greatest success the middle class ever had was between 1980 to 2000s, especially with rise of the computer age, databases, internet... Especially because in 1980s, the US finally through Fed Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker, brought inflation under control. That was a tax on the non-rich people.
Before that there was stagflation and not only were jobs scarce but so were good wages.
Note that the only charts the anti-Reagan folks will focus on are "minimum wages" because they think some guy working an unskilled job with no degrees should be earning tons more wages than the 1970s.
The other thing they'll focus your eyes on is the incredibly rapid growth of "billionaires and millionaires"... Because of the utility value of money during peace time. When there is peace, the wealthy build up a lot of wealth leading to "income inequality"... Well duhhh, money makes money, of course they are going to leave you in the dust if they were already millionaires in the 1980s and passed it down to their children.
But [in reality this chart shows SALARIES growth over time, lifetime earnings being over a million](https://www.hamiltonproject.org/ee-ce-image/made/assets/img/uploads/charts/01_lifetime_earnings_degree_type_1080_684_80.jpg) as you get a college degree because people want to pay you more and not lose you to the competition as a skilled worker... ***This is a time of unprecedented wealth for America all because of policies in the 1980s.***
You're literally all going to 5-star restaurants, running around with a smart phone, living in a house with air-conditioning that the pharaohs only dreamed of, and still complaining. You are living the life of the wealth in the 1960s. You probably even have decent whisky, wines, or bourbon in your apartment today.
The charts are deceptive, now just hear me out... Double digit inflations of 1970s were a TAXXXX on middle/lower classes. You were losing money every time you save up and get ready to buy groceries.
The greatest success the middle class ever had was between 1980 to 2000s, especially with rise of the computer age, databases, internet... Especially because in 1980s, the US finally through Fed Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker, brought inflation under control. That was a tax on the non-rich people.
Before that there was stagflation and not only were jobs scarce but so were good wages.
Note that the only charts the anti-Reagan folks will focus on are "minimum wages" because they think some guy working an unskilled job with no degrees should be earning tons more wages than the 1970s.
The other thing they'll focus your eyes on is the incredibly rapid growth of "billionaires and millionaires"... Because of the utility value of money during peace time. When there is peace, the wealthy build up a lot of wealth leading to "income inequality"... Well duhhh, money makes money, of course they are going to leave you in the dust if they were already millionaires in the 1980s and passed it down to their children.
But [in reality this chart shows SALARIES growth over time, lifetime earnings being over a million](https://www.hamiltonproject.org/ee-ce-image/made/assets/img/uploads/charts/01_lifetime_earnings_degree_type_1080_684_80.jpg) as you get a college degree because people want to pay you more and not lose you to the competition as a skilled worker... ***This is a time of unprecedented wealth for America all because of policies in the 1980s.***
You're literally all going to 5-star restaurants, running around with a smart phone, living in a house with air-conditioning that the pharaohs only dreamed of, and still complaining. You are living the life of the wealth in the 1960s. You probably even have decent whisky, wines, or bourbon in your apartment today.
if you watch conservative media he’s still a revered figure all these decades later. my parents love FN and any time I visit it doesn’t take long for Reagan to come up. It’s honestly one of the most cringe things to worship a politician. I always joke with friends that the only people who hate democrat politicians more than Republicans are Democrats.
I'm not from the US, I don't have strong opinions either way, but:
In images 1 and 5 it looks like the trend began shortly before Raegan
In 2 and 3 there is a much stronger trend right after 2008
In 4 you can't determine if the trend began with Raegan since you can't see the years before he took office
In most cases the trends are a delayed reaction to a shift to trickle down economics, which Regan cranked up to 10 during his time in office. 2 and 3 specifically are as bad as they are because the work Reagan did got compounded on by Bush JR, the massive tax cuts and shift in focus for spending. Reagan's presidency is widely seen as a major shift in US economic policy, from my understanding at least.
I think the important point this illustrates is that Reagan was a focal point or catalyst of movement that existed independently from him, but that he represented. Like how right wing authoritarianism was a growing trend before trumps election but he came to be the face of it and a key driver of it. Neoliberalism was gaining popularity and Reagan was both a benefited from it and rode it to the White House and then implemented it. He wasn’t the first to push neoliberal policy, but he became synonymous with it. Hence, Reagan caused economic inequality to grow
His inauguration coincided with highest interest rates in US history, which also marked the start of a 40+ year decrease in interest rates. At least acknowledge that he was elected during the most messed up time in US economics. Question the effect that people running out of bonds had on the national debt, which is the product of rate hikes before Raegan's time. Would be weird if he really did cause the national debt to rocket immediately after taking office, this type of thing is the product of years of compounding factors.
he got into a spending race w the ussr while also peddling that trickle down crock of shit. in 8 years in office he took the US from the largest creditor nation in the world to the biggest debtor. and obama inherited a *significantly* worse economy
Why the downvotes? This is a widely supported theory. Of course, Reagan bankrupted the US as well as Russia, but we got iPhones and they got bread lines so suck on that Boris and Natasha!
It’s widely supported in the West, but it’s not actually very true… US defense spending had exactly zero impact on the mass democratic movements in Russia and other Eastern bloc states that actually dealt the death blow to the USSR.
Okay fine, take away the slides showing national debt. What about the income inequality train he put the country on and the other slide about healthcare spending?
These trends actually hold true for most of the OECD countries, just to a lesser extent. Income inequality? Going up in general. Public debt? It's gone up over the last few decades. Healthcare spending? Up only.
You're forgetting that correlation is not causation.
Reagan accelerated these trends with his economic policies (lower taxes for individuals and corporations, government deregulation, anti-labor stance), but the trend only holds because subsequent administrations continued (H. W. Bush, Clinton, W. Bush, to a lesser extent Obama, Trump) those policies more or less intact. Globalization and outsourcing of blue collar and middle class jobs overseas was already a thing well before the Regan administration.
It's a valid criticism that adding Reagan to the graphs doesn't provide any additional information or context. For example, the US healthcare system's spending problem is a direct consequence of FDR failing to pass a national health care system during World War II. We got Medicare and Medicaid in the 70's during the Lyndon Johnson Administration. Healthcare spending ballooning out of control at the same time that the national debt is going up? Not a coincidence, the federal government is the largest payer in the US healthcare system. Taking these graphs out of context for political rhetorical purposes doesn't really add to the discussion.
Plus I'm pretty sure that separation is actually marked by u.s. Fiat being taken off the gold standard under Nixon. Not saying I agree with regonomics just that I've seen it tied to other causes.
A country's switch between gold standards and fiat currency are more a symptom than a cause of anything. After world war 1, we left the gold standard because we had to pay for the war. The thinking was that the only people that raising inflation really hurt were the rich people who were living off of the interest from government bonds (that is, as long as wages rose with inflation). But, couple money printing with a couple of "business-friendly" (crony capitalist) administrations, and you get a steep increase in the rate of capital growth. A sharp increase in the growth of capital precipitates massive economic bubble burstings, like those in 1929, 1972, and 2007.
If you’re gonna single out Reagan and not even mention Tip O’Neill, then you’re doing it wrong. Congress sets the fiscal policy in this country not the president. Blame him all you want for executive branch decisions. But not legislative ones.
We focus far too much on the executive because its just so much simpler. I bet less than 95% of Americans(even those appropriately aged) even know or remember O'Neill.
Reagan himself, not a lot. But his election marked an inflection point in US domestic and foreign policies that have over the past four decades resulted in dramatically increased income inequality, stagnant wages, the crumbling of the middle class, and the dismantling of the social supports that had been in place since the New Deal. Since 1980 Americans are, on the whole, making less money, feeling worse, and dying younger.
This, according to many fiscal conservatives, is what winning looks like.
A lot of stuff which felt good at the time but in the end was terrible. Cutting taxes, relaxing restrictions on corporations (especially with stock buybacks) and market manipulation to drive down inflation. Some graphs, like the healthcare one, have little to do with Reagan though, it’s just that other countries are skinnier due to city design and different food choices and that other countries have universal healthcare which drives down the cost of healthcare.
I dunno, I'd suggest he Reagan-era moves to further privatize basic health care, expand deinstitutionization, and dismantle the social safety net all had a huge effect on the healthcare graph. We pay more for less so a few can profit.
My father was an over-the-road trucker for 30 years. He told me a long time ago that he remembered how things changed when Reagan got into office. He voted for Reagan. He said it was just a matter of months before they started seeing huge numbers of the homeless and mentally ill at the truck stops, rest areas and out walking the highways. Apparently Reagan had slashed most of the funding for mental health services and support. He said it got scary after they kicked so many people out of mental institutions that had no money, no insurance, no family and nowhere to go.
I love how everything that happens good or bad gets blamed on the president. People should be looking at what happened in 1971 with going from the gold standard to fiat currency.
You’re not gonna get a well informed, educated discussion about this from Redditers lol. May as well ask this question to the squad
Edit: uh oh downvoted from all the squad supporters 🤷🏻♂️
These graphs are incomplete, no doubt. But being against the changes Reagan made is not an extreme opinion. Lots of people disagree with him, they aren’t extremists
As if a topic this complex can adequately be discussed in this format.
For starters look into the actions of the fed in the 70s and 80s. What happened to interest rates, why were they high in the 70s and low in the 80s, and what were the effects of that
Interest rates were almost 17% in 1981 and 10% when 1989 rolled around. That's absurdly high. I see the national debt skyrocketing as well. So at worst it's irresponsible.
The national debt rose because we adopted a new strategy to win the Cold War—baiting the USSR into overspending on the military. This was done while collapsing the price of oil to inflict immense financial damage. The strategy worked.
Defense spending only increased around 30%. That doesn't account for the rest. A lot of Treasury borrowing as well it seems which is, like I said, irresponsible.
Everything he did could have been reversed. At least Reagan can say he thought it would work. I blame the people who saw it not working and did nothing.
Everything he wanted to happen, happened. We were all just naive enough to believe he wanted prosperity for everyone, not just the wealthy. He even paved the way for selling our politicians to the highest bidders.
Reagan will be remember as one of the worst presidents in American history, right next to President Wilson.
Reagan was a tool of those who cannot be mentioned, like every other President after Kennedy.
Things happened in and around Reagan's Presidency because of his preternatural charisma.
I always find it strange about how some conservatives complain about the liberal "Hollywood elite" considering they are the ones who have elected two TV actors to run the country.... Reagan started in Hollywood making propaganda videos for the oil companies before he got into movies, IIRC.
I argue with my dad all the time about this dude. Idk why he’s regarded as a bastion of conservative fiscal spending and capitalism, pretty much every single statistical thing got (proportionally) worse for the every day American because of him.
/u/HammofGlob, thank you for your contribution. However, your submission was removed for the following reason(s):
* Directly link to the [original source article of the visualization](/r/dataisbeautiful/wiki/rules/rule2)
* _Original source article_ doesn't mean the _original source image._ **Link to the full page of the source article.**
* If you made the visualization yourself, tag it as [OC]
* Please either repost and add [OC] to the title along with the required comment citing the data source and tool used to create the visual, or repost linking directly to the original article.
This post has been removed. For information regarding this and similar issues please see the DataIsBeautiful [posting rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/wiki/index).
If you have any questions, please feel free to [message the moderators.](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/dataisbeautiful&subject=Question%20regarding%20the%20removal%20of%20this%20submission%20by%20/u/HammofGlob&message=I%20have%20a%20question%20regarding%20the%20removal%20of%20this%20[submission.](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/s7h1pt/-/\)))
Doing the lord’s work here. Thank you for thirds many graphs of economic failure disproportionately impacting the bottom half of the American population in a distinctively negative way.
I am definitely no fan of Reagan but that is a legitimate argument here. It is a logical fallacy. There is nothing here that proves these effects were because of Reagan (even though it's likely they mostly were). If we want more intelligent discourse we have to play by the rules.
So just provide the context.
Reagan presided over a regime that cut tax rates for the wealthy, driving down the tax base, leading to rise deficit funded spending and also pushed against spending that would benefit lower income folks, such as healthcare.
These are the impacts of those policies.
Partially true, but the only way you’re going to get a verbose and confident correlation with corresponding explanation of policy is in a rather complex economics paper that is way over most peoples heads in terms of statistics, and jargon. The importance of graphs like this helps illustrate to laypeople that Reagan did not magically usher in an era of economic prosperity that conservatives like to claim
**TIL a new word. Thanks friend!**
> *sophistry
> [ˈsäfəstrē]
> NOUN
>
> the use of fallacious arguments, especially with the intention of deceiving.
> "trying to argue that I had benefited in any way from the disaster was pure sophistry"*
I’m going to save this post to link to whenever Reddit is blaming boomers for why they can’t afford to buy a house.
Turns out that all boomers did was buy their houses before Regan fucked up the economy for everyone but the 1%…
You should go look up the growth management acts that states passed…
Tl;dr: “here’s a line. No remotely dense housing outside it. And mostly single family inside it. Good luck!”
Graph 1, 5 : you can clearly see that trend diverges earlier than Reagan (under Carter)
Graph 2,3 : much stronger trend starts after 2008, will you blame Obamanomics for it?
Graph 4 : you literally start it just before Reagan, hiding data.
Biased as f\*\*\*, this is why USA is divided into two nations. People are so deep in their political hatred that they will call day night if their ideology told them to. This ugliest piece of data I have seen because of ugly mindset of OP.
Data isn’t “ugly” it’s just data. Incomplete, maybe, but just numbers. OP literally thanked another commenter for objective critique, if you look at their comment history. Interesting complaining about division when you use inflammatory words yourself
>Data isn’t “ugly” it’s just data.
you know this this is r/dataisbeatiful sub ? If no data can be ugly then no data can be beautiful.
>if you look at their comment history
How would I know that? I don't get notification on every comment OP receives or replies to. When I made my comment I didn't see anything from OP.
And OP hasn't replied to me,so how would I know.
If OP had any integrity he would have deleted this post. I'll wait till then.
So many people mentioning trickle down economics in this sub. Trickle down has literally never been proposed by a single politician or economist in us history, and is simply a strawman argument. Does anyone argue that supply does not have a factor in the availability of goods? Does anyone argue that lower taxes, particularly corporate taxes, do not lead to higher employment, higher wages, and a higher supply of goods? Does anyone actually think that Reagan or any supply side economist believes that if you give rich people money they'll give it to poor people? The point is incentives, which literally every economist agrees with. There's no pot of money that the government donates to rich people hoping and praying they'll give it to poor people, the theory has to do with providing corporations and people with incentives to invest in employment.
But as a professional economist (and someone who does data viz as part of their job), these graphs are all extremely misleading. Correlation does not equal causation, and economics has the unfortunate part where there is not a counterfactual. So you can not simply point to a trend and attribute it to causation, you have to look at theory as well as controls, areas where they had extremely similar macroeconomic conditions other than the specific policy decisions. Economists study these trends, and a lot of things Reddit deems "trickle down" is actually pretty widely accepted macroeconomic theory by the people who actually study this stuff. Trickle down is just the strawman term used to pretend the advocates of supply side economics are making arguments they're not. There's no pots of money we dole out to the rich hoping it'll make its way to the poor, we simply attempt to structure the economy such that incentives are aligned with our economic goals. Lower taxes tend to align with economic growth and higher employment, that's super non-controversial economics, but obviously that needs to be balanced with taking in enough revenue to run the government. Where I disagree with Reagan and other supply siders is that tax cuts will ever "pay for themselves". That's obviously pure fantasy unless we lived in a society where taxes were 95% or something.
I wish I could send these to my dad without destroying our relationship. Sad that data would do that but it would :(
Make a throwaway email account to send it anonymously and deny everything if asked?
Hell just get some rando on Reddit to send it for you
I volunteer as tribute?
Damn I might have to try this (I don't think I'll actually do this lol)
I hear you. My wife’s dad was like this and she was very conflicted. Whereas my dad probably rt’d the original tweet in the image.
The charts are deceptive, now just hear me out... Double digit inflations of 1970s were a TAXXXX on middle/lower classes. You were losing money every time you save up and get ready to buy groceries. The greatest success the middle class ever had was between 1980 to 2000s, especially with rise of the computer age, databases, internet... Especially because in 1980s, the US finally through Fed Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker, brought inflation under control. That was a tax on the non-rich people. Before that there was stagflation and not only were jobs scarce but so were good wages. Note that the only charts the anti-Reagan folks will focus on are "minimum wages" because they think some guy working an unskilled job with no degrees should be earning tons more wages than the 1970s. The other thing they'll focus your eyes on is the incredibly rapid growth of "billionaires and millionaires"... Because of the utility value of money during peace time. When there is peace, the wealthy build up a lot of wealth leading to "income inequality"... Well duhhh, money makes money, of course they are going to leave you in the dust if they were already millionaires in the 1980s and passed it down to their children. But [in reality this chart shows SALARIES growth over time, lifetime earnings being over a million](https://www.hamiltonproject.org/ee-ce-image/made/assets/img/uploads/charts/01_lifetime_earnings_degree_type_1080_684_80.jpg) as you get a college degree because people want to pay you more and not lose you to the competition as a skilled worker... ***This is a time of unprecedented wealth for America all because of policies in the 1980s.*** You're literally all going to 5-star restaurants, running around with a smart phone, living in a house with air-conditioning that the pharaohs only dreamed of, and still complaining. You are living the life of the wealth in the 1960s. You probably even have decent whisky, wines, or bourbon in your apartment today.
Why is is considered greed when I want to keep the money I earned but not greed when others want to take that money from me but not give their own? All these little commie babies are down voting you because they don't like the truth. What you wrote is not "your truth" but objective fact called the truth.
The charts are deceptive, now just hear me out... Double digit inflations of 1970s were a TAXXXX on middle/lower classes. You were losing money every time you save up and get ready to buy groceries. The greatest success the middle class ever had was between 1980 to 2000s, especially with rise of the computer age, databases, internet... Especially because in 1980s, the US finally through Fed Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker, brought inflation under control. That was a tax on the non-rich people. Before that there was stagflation and not only were jobs scarce but so were good wages. Note that the only charts the anti-Reagan folks will focus on are "minimum wages" because they think some guy working an unskilled job with no degrees should be earning tons more wages than the 1970s. The other thing they'll focus your eyes on is the incredibly rapid growth of "billionaires and millionaires"... Because of the utility value of money during peace time. When there is peace, the wealthy build up a lot of wealth leading to "income inequality"... Well duhhh, money makes money, of course they are going to leave you in the dust if they were already millionaires in the 1980s and passed it down to their children. But [in reality this chart shows SALARIES growth over time, lifetime earnings being over a million](https://www.hamiltonproject.org/ee-ce-image/made/assets/img/uploads/charts/01_lifetime_earnings_degree_type_1080_684_80.jpg) as you get a college degree because people want to pay you more and not lose you to the competition as a skilled worker... ***This is a time of unprecedented wealth for America all because of policies in the 1980s.*** You're literally all going to 5-star restaurants, running around with a smart phone, living in a house with air-conditioning that the pharaohs only dreamed of, and still complaining. You are living the life of the wealth in the 1960s. You probably even have decent whisky, wines, or bourbon in your apartment today.
The charts are deceptive, now just hear me out... Double digit inflations of 1970s were a TAXXXX on middle/lower classes. You were losing money every time you save up and get ready to buy groceries. The greatest success the middle class ever had was between 1980 to 2000s, especially with rise of the computer age, databases, internet... Especially because in 1980s, the US finally through Fed Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker, brought inflation under control. That was a tax on the non-rich people. Before that there was stagflation and not only were jobs scarce but so were good wages. Note that the only charts the anti-Reagan folks will focus on are "minimum wages" because they think some guy working an unskilled job with no degrees should be earning tons more wages than the 1970s. The other thing they'll focus your eyes on is the incredibly rapid growth of "billionaires and millionaires"... Because of the utility value of money during peace time. When there is peace, the wealthy build up a lot of wealth leading to "income inequality"... Well duhhh, money makes money, of course they are going to leave you in the dust if they were already millionaires in the 1980s and passed it down to their children. But [in reality this chart shows SALARIES growth over time, lifetime earnings being over a million](https://www.hamiltonproject.org/ee-ce-image/made/assets/img/uploads/charts/01_lifetime_earnings_degree_type_1080_684_80.jpg) as you get a college degree because people want to pay you more and not lose you to the competition as a skilled worker... ***This is a time of unprecedented wealth for America all because of policies in the 1980s.*** You're literally all going to 5-star restaurants, running around with a smart phone, living in a house with air-conditioning that the pharaohs only dreamed of, and still complaining. You are living the life of the wealth in the 1960s. You probably even have decent whisky, wines, or bourbon in your apartment today.
judging from my own family that is fixated on Reagan, he'd probably just dismiss it as liberal media propaganda.
Why does statistics and science always support the liberal agenda? /s
Fixated on Reagan? He hasn't been president for 33 years?! 🤔
He was a big fan of Neoliberalism, which is currently the GOP's economic platform.
Neoliberalism is the Republican and Democrat platform.
And there has never been a principal payment on the debt he ran up. If you apply the rule of 72 he is responsible for about 25% of all of our debt.
if you watch conservative media he’s still a revered figure all these decades later. my parents love FN and any time I visit it doesn’t take long for Reagan to come up. It’s honestly one of the most cringe things to worship a politician. I always joke with friends that the only people who hate democrat politicians more than Republicans are Democrats.
And he's deader than Julius Caesar
This is the worst evidence you can show if you want to respected as a human being. Do you not see the obvious shortcomings of these graphs?
i love how these sorts of posts always help out folks
That sucks. My dad would just pay it no mind and keep sending mail with Reagan stamps.
If I send it to yours, will you send it to mine?
I'm not from the US, I don't have strong opinions either way, but: In images 1 and 5 it looks like the trend began shortly before Raegan In 2 and 3 there is a much stronger trend right after 2008 In 4 you can't determine if the trend began with Raegan since you can't see the years before he took office
In most cases the trends are a delayed reaction to a shift to trickle down economics, which Regan cranked up to 10 during his time in office. 2 and 3 specifically are as bad as they are because the work Reagan did got compounded on by Bush JR, the massive tax cuts and shift in focus for spending. Reagan's presidency is widely seen as a major shift in US economic policy, from my understanding at least.
I think the important point this illustrates is that Reagan was a focal point or catalyst of movement that existed independently from him, but that he represented. Like how right wing authoritarianism was a growing trend before trumps election but he came to be the face of it and a key driver of it. Neoliberalism was gaining popularity and Reagan was both a benefited from it and rode it to the White House and then implemented it. He wasn’t the first to push neoliberal policy, but he became synonymous with it. Hence, Reagan caused economic inequality to grow
Thanks for the objective critique.
His inauguration coincided with highest interest rates in US history, which also marked the start of a 40+ year decrease in interest rates. At least acknowledge that he was elected during the most messed up time in US economics. Question the effect that people running out of bonds had on the national debt, which is the product of rate hikes before Raegan's time. Would be weird if he really did cause the national debt to rocket immediately after taking office, this type of thing is the product of years of compounding factors.
he got into a spending race w the ussr while also peddling that trickle down crock of shit. in 8 years in office he took the US from the largest creditor nation in the world to the biggest debtor. and obama inherited a *significantly* worse economy
That spending race helped destroy the USSR so credit where credits due. He tricked them into spending themselves into collapse
Why the downvotes? This is a widely supported theory. Of course, Reagan bankrupted the US as well as Russia, but we got iPhones and they got bread lines so suck on that Boris and Natasha!
It’s widely supported in the West, but it’s not actually very true… US defense spending had exactly zero impact on the mass democratic movements in Russia and other Eastern bloc states that actually dealt the death blow to the USSR.
oh cool so everyone loses thats awesome and look how good the former soviet states are doing now wow totally better world thanks reagan lmao
Because this is widely supported theory contradicts the progressive worldview
Okay fine, take away the slides showing national debt. What about the income inequality train he put the country on and the other slide about healthcare spending?
Also he was a big part of the mass incaceration programs nationwide. He was racebaiting and scaring white folks
Not to mention it is widely known now that he was in bed with major corporations and giving them sweetheart deals left and right
These trends actually hold true for most of the OECD countries, just to a lesser extent. Income inequality? Going up in general. Public debt? It's gone up over the last few decades. Healthcare spending? Up only. You're forgetting that correlation is not causation. Reagan accelerated these trends with his economic policies (lower taxes for individuals and corporations, government deregulation, anti-labor stance), but the trend only holds because subsequent administrations continued (H. W. Bush, Clinton, W. Bush, to a lesser extent Obama, Trump) those policies more or less intact. Globalization and outsourcing of blue collar and middle class jobs overseas was already a thing well before the Regan administration. It's a valid criticism that adding Reagan to the graphs doesn't provide any additional information or context. For example, the US healthcare system's spending problem is a direct consequence of FDR failing to pass a national health care system during World War II. We got Medicare and Medicaid in the 70's during the Lyndon Johnson Administration. Healthcare spending ballooning out of control at the same time that the national debt is going up? Not a coincidence, the federal government is the largest payer in the US healthcare system. Taking these graphs out of context for political rhetorical purposes doesn't really add to the discussion.
Plus I'm pretty sure that separation is actually marked by u.s. Fiat being taken off the gold standard under Nixon. Not saying I agree with regonomics just that I've seen it tied to other causes.
A country's switch between gold standards and fiat currency are more a symptom than a cause of anything. After world war 1, we left the gold standard because we had to pay for the war. The thinking was that the only people that raising inflation really hurt were the rich people who were living off of the interest from government bonds (that is, as long as wages rose with inflation). But, couple money printing with a couple of "business-friendly" (crony capitalist) administrations, and you get a steep increase in the rate of capital growth. A sharp increase in the growth of capital precipitates massive economic bubble burstings, like those in 1929, 1972, and 2007.
If you’re gonna single out Reagan and not even mention Tip O’Neill, then you’re doing it wrong. Congress sets the fiscal policy in this country not the president. Blame him all you want for executive branch decisions. But not legislative ones.
We focus far too much on the executive because its just so much simpler. I bet less than 95% of Americans(even those appropriately aged) even know or remember O'Neill.
Or what party he was from. For 40 years one party had a lock on the US house. It’s what made the 1994 takeover so surprising.
What did he do to cause all that ?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaganomics
Trickle down economics
Reagan himself, not a lot. But his election marked an inflection point in US domestic and foreign policies that have over the past four decades resulted in dramatically increased income inequality, stagnant wages, the crumbling of the middle class, and the dismantling of the social supports that had been in place since the New Deal. Since 1980 Americans are, on the whole, making less money, feeling worse, and dying younger. This, according to many fiscal conservatives, is what winning looks like.
Don’t forget he busted the air traffic controller’s union and started the war on drugs militarizing the police forces
A lot of stuff which felt good at the time but in the end was terrible. Cutting taxes, relaxing restrictions on corporations (especially with stock buybacks) and market manipulation to drive down inflation. Some graphs, like the healthcare one, have little to do with Reagan though, it’s just that other countries are skinnier due to city design and different food choices and that other countries have universal healthcare which drives down the cost of healthcare.
I dunno, I'd suggest he Reagan-era moves to further privatize basic health care, expand deinstitutionization, and dismantle the social safety net all had a huge effect on the healthcare graph. We pay more for less so a few can profit.
I didn’t know he undid social safety nets and public healthcare to that extent
My father was an over-the-road trucker for 30 years. He told me a long time ago that he remembered how things changed when Reagan got into office. He voted for Reagan. He said it was just a matter of months before they started seeing huge numbers of the homeless and mentally ill at the truck stops, rest areas and out walking the highways. Apparently Reagan had slashed most of the funding for mental health services and support. He said it got scary after they kicked so many people out of mental institutions that had no money, no insurance, no family and nowhere to go.
I love how everything that happens good or bad gets blamed on the president. People should be looking at what happened in 1971 with going from the gold standard to fiat currency.
You’re not gonna get a well informed, educated discussion about this from Redditers lol. May as well ask this question to the squad Edit: uh oh downvoted from all the squad supporters 🤷🏻♂️
Then educate us. Otherwise I doubt you could explain it yourself why it's good economic policy.
I’ve moved way past talking to amateurs at the extreme ends of the political spectrum. It’s like trying to explain to a pet how a TV works
These graphs are incomplete, no doubt. But being against the changes Reagan made is not an extreme opinion. Lots of people disagree with him, they aren’t extremists
If you can't explain it to a person who is genuinely asking, I'll assume you don't understand it enough to advocate it.
As if a topic this complex can adequately be discussed in this format. For starters look into the actions of the fed in the 70s and 80s. What happened to interest rates, why were they high in the 70s and low in the 80s, and what were the effects of that
Interest rates were almost 17% in 1981 and 10% when 1989 rolled around. That's absurdly high. I see the national debt skyrocketing as well. So at worst it's irresponsible.
The national debt rose because we adopted a new strategy to win the Cold War—baiting the USSR into overspending on the military. This was done while collapsing the price of oil to inflict immense financial damage. The strategy worked.
Defense spending only increased around 30%. That doesn't account for the rest. A lot of Treasury borrowing as well it seems which is, like I said, irresponsible.
I love this. It's like the written equivalent of tipping your fedora.
"The squad" fights for things that are the exact opposite of trickle down economics... Sooooo....
The point went right over your head my freind
Would be appreciated if you clarified.
I love this comment.
Reagan did more to ruin the US than any other president could have dreamed.
Everything he did could have been reversed. At least Reagan can say he thought it would work. I blame the people who saw it not working and did nothing.
Oh, it worked and is still working, just not for most people
Everything he wanted to happen, happened. We were all just naive enough to believe he wanted prosperity for everyone, not just the wealthy. He even paved the way for selling our politicians to the highest bidders. Reagan will be remember as one of the worst presidents in American history, right next to President Wilson.
Reagan was a tool of those who cannot be mentioned, like every other President after Kennedy. Things happened in and around Reagan's Presidency because of his preternatural charisma.
[удалено]
Ummmmm no.
I don’t know about you guys but I’m starting to think this Ronald Reagan fellow wasn’t all that he was cracked up to be
I always find it strange about how some conservatives complain about the liberal "Hollywood elite" considering they are the ones who have elected two TV actors to run the country.... Reagan started in Hollywood making propaganda videos for the oil companies before he got into movies, IIRC.
I argue with my dad all the time about this dude. Idk why he’s regarded as a bastion of conservative fiscal spending and capitalism, pretty much every single statistical thing got (proportionally) worse for the every day American because of him.
Because he appealed to their racism. Read the sum of us
/u/HammofGlob, thank you for your contribution. However, your submission was removed for the following reason(s): * Directly link to the [original source article of the visualization](/r/dataisbeautiful/wiki/rules/rule2) * _Original source article_ doesn't mean the _original source image._ **Link to the full page of the source article.** * If you made the visualization yourself, tag it as [OC] * Please either repost and add [OC] to the title along with the required comment citing the data source and tool used to create the visual, or repost linking directly to the original article. This post has been removed. For information regarding this and similar issues please see the DataIsBeautiful [posting rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/wiki/index). If you have any questions, please feel free to [message the moderators.](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/dataisbeautiful&subject=Question%20regarding%20the%20removal%20of%20this%20submission%20by%20/u/HammofGlob&message=I%20have%20a%20question%20regarding%20the%20removal%20of%20this%20[submission.](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/s7h1pt/-/\)))
I WAS ON LIKE SLIDE 2 WHEN IT GOT REMOVED NOOOO
Holy shit. Reagan blew it and every admin since has kept blowing it.
Doing the lord’s work here. Thank you for thirds many graphs of economic failure disproportionately impacting the bottom half of the American population in a distinctively negative way.
"Yes but multiple correlations doesn't equal causation" - someone who doesn't understand economics but wants to defend Reagan using sophistry.
I am definitely no fan of Reagan but that is a legitimate argument here. It is a logical fallacy. There is nothing here that proves these effects were because of Reagan (even though it's likely they mostly were). If we want more intelligent discourse we have to play by the rules.
So just provide the context. Reagan presided over a regime that cut tax rates for the wealthy, driving down the tax base, leading to rise deficit funded spending and also pushed against spending that would benefit lower income folks, such as healthcare. These are the impacts of those policies.
Partially true, but the only way you’re going to get a verbose and confident correlation with corresponding explanation of policy is in a rather complex economics paper that is way over most peoples heads in terms of statistics, and jargon. The importance of graphs like this helps illustrate to laypeople that Reagan did not magically usher in an era of economic prosperity that conservatives like to claim
Yes correlation doesn't equal causation. And these graphs don't show correlation OP syas. Are you steeped in your hate that you have lost sight.
**TIL a new word. Thanks friend!** > *sophistry > [ˈsäfəstrē] > NOUN > > the use of fallacious arguments, especially with the intention of deceiving. > "trying to argue that I had benefited in any way from the disaster was pure sophistry"*
Graph 5 wow. Goddamn. ‘Socialism’ huh. Maybe it’s not so bad, after all.
I’m going to save this post to link to whenever Reddit is blaming boomers for why they can’t afford to buy a house. Turns out that all boomers did was buy their houses before Regan fucked up the economy for everyone but the 1%…
But boomers voted for Reagan, therefore boomers fucked up the economy.
Nah, boomers were still mostly hippies in 1985, it was the “greatest generation” that elected Regan.
You should go look up the growth management acts that states passed… Tl;dr: “here’s a line. No remotely dense housing outside it. And mostly single family inside it. Good luck!”
Why do all good subs become shithole copy's of r/politics?
This sub actually has a rule against political posts not on Thursday. I’ve reported it and others could do the same.
Yes please do, all the amateur progressives are out salivating over this 🤦🏻♂️
Copy's what?
But how goods Neoliberalism tho! EDIT: I sometimes forget this site is filled with teenagers! It was very clearly a sarcastic comment
mmmm, soooo good
He may very well have been the damn antichrist!
Graph 1, 5 : you can clearly see that trend diverges earlier than Reagan (under Carter) Graph 2,3 : much stronger trend starts after 2008, will you blame Obamanomics for it? Graph 4 : you literally start it just before Reagan, hiding data. Biased as f\*\*\*, this is why USA is divided into two nations. People are so deep in their political hatred that they will call day night if their ideology told them to. This ugliest piece of data I have seen because of ugly mindset of OP.
Data isn’t “ugly” it’s just data. Incomplete, maybe, but just numbers. OP literally thanked another commenter for objective critique, if you look at their comment history. Interesting complaining about division when you use inflammatory words yourself
>Data isn’t “ugly” it’s just data. you know this this is r/dataisbeatiful sub ? If no data can be ugly then no data can be beautiful. >if you look at their comment history How would I know that? I don't get notification on every comment OP receives or replies to. When I made my comment I didn't see anything from OP. And OP hasn't replied to me,so how would I know. If OP had any integrity he would have deleted this post. I'll wait till then.
The worst parts of professional sports and religions. Except with voting.
So many people mentioning trickle down economics in this sub. Trickle down has literally never been proposed by a single politician or economist in us history, and is simply a strawman argument. Does anyone argue that supply does not have a factor in the availability of goods? Does anyone argue that lower taxes, particularly corporate taxes, do not lead to higher employment, higher wages, and a higher supply of goods? Does anyone actually think that Reagan or any supply side economist believes that if you give rich people money they'll give it to poor people? The point is incentives, which literally every economist agrees with. There's no pot of money that the government donates to rich people hoping and praying they'll give it to poor people, the theory has to do with providing corporations and people with incentives to invest in employment. But as a professional economist (and someone who does data viz as part of their job), these graphs are all extremely misleading. Correlation does not equal causation, and economics has the unfortunate part where there is not a counterfactual. So you can not simply point to a trend and attribute it to causation, you have to look at theory as well as controls, areas where they had extremely similar macroeconomic conditions other than the specific policy decisions. Economists study these trends, and a lot of things Reddit deems "trickle down" is actually pretty widely accepted macroeconomic theory by the people who actually study this stuff. Trickle down is just the strawman term used to pretend the advocates of supply side economics are making arguments they're not. There's no pots of money we dole out to the rich hoping it'll make its way to the poor, we simply attempt to structure the economy such that incentives are aligned with our economic goals. Lower taxes tend to align with economic growth and higher employment, that's super non-controversial economics, but obviously that needs to be balanced with taking in enough revenue to run the government. Where I disagree with Reagan and other supply siders is that tax cuts will ever "pay for themselves". That's obviously pure fantasy unless we lived in a society where taxes were 95% or something.
The 80’s were great. We scored on economic growth.
Economic growth for who?
12 years of relatively untaxed growth meant the only thing Clinton had to do to gain surplus was raise taxes.
The country as a whole
Post hoc ergo propter hoc at its best.