By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - Reagan proved deficits don't matter...

Here is an article from 2004:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A26402-2004Jun8?language=printer

The line is not likely to make this week's eulogies to Ronald Reagan, but when Vice President Cheney allegedly declared, "Reagan proved deficits don't matter," he summed up an enduring argument from the former president's economic legacy.

In late 2002, Cheney had summoned the Bush administration's economic team to his office to discuss another round of tax cuts to stimulate the economy. Then-Treasury Secretary Paul H. O'Neill pleaded that the government -- already running a $158 billion deficit -- was careering toward a fiscal crisis. But by O'Neill's account of the meeting, Cheney silenced him by invoking his take on Reagan's legacy.

It wasn't that Reagan's policies proved that government borrowing had no impact on the economy. But his administration's record -- particularly with some years of hindsight -- did give reason to question traditional thinking and provided a new context for future arguments about deficit spending.

"The lesson we should have learned [from those years] is that deficits have little or no short-term economic impacts," said William A. Niskanen, a member of Reagan's Council of Economic Advisers.

As important, they appeared to have no impact politically, said Stephen Moore, a conservative economist at the Club for Growth who worked in Reagan's budget office.

"Voters and politicians became anesthetized to big deficits," Moore recalled. "Reagan was running these big deficits, and liberals argued it was going to be Armageddon. We were going to ruin the economy. Interest rates were going to go through the roof. And none of these things happened."



Around the Network

?

its a problem now an't it!



True, but the world has changed since the Reagan era as well as economic policies.

This is not 1984 and there is no Cold War against the Soviets (which helped as any price was not high enough for freedom in the west).

If it was all so simple to do what reagan did then in 2011 then everyone would do it.



If Cheney said it, it must be wrong



MARCUSDJACKSON said:
?

its a problem now an't it!


that's what they want you to believe, they maintain their power when you are in perpetual fear.



Around the Network

The problem here is context. And Niskanen apparently has none.

Look a the difference in deficit as a percentage of GDP.
Look at the difference in the percentage of the budget that must be borrowed per year.
Look at the value of the short term T-bonds due in principle in 2 years now vs then.
Look at the difference in debt to budget ratio then and now.

I wouldn't have voted for the increases back then but certainly not now. For a former economic adviser to say the context then is the same as it is now is to admit he's not a very good adviser.



The rEVOLution is not being televised

"[deficits] have little or no short-term economic impacts" - OP's quote

I think that's end thread. If you're a politician who only cares about another term of re-election, then fuck the future. By the time the economy tanks some other guy will be in power and will get the blame.

However, the thread title is presenting that deficits don't matter even in the long run, which is not backed up anywhere in the body of the post.



Saying "deficits don't matter" is sort of like saying "Drinking alcohol is okay" ...

It can be argued that (in moderation) a deficit that is roughly equal to (or less than) GDP growth doesn't really matter because the total public debt as a percentage of GDP doesn't change; and the risks associated with having government debt are unlikely to materialize.

Running a large deficit (say 10% GDP and 8% higher than GDP growth) is kind-of like living your life on a constant bender where you drink until you're pass-out drunk every night. While no one can say for certain when this will lead to a crisis, everyone knows this behaviour is unsustainable and it is only a matter of time where it will be forcibly "ended".



HappySqurriel said:
Saying "deficits don't matter" is sort of like saying "Drinking alcohol is okay" ...

It can be argued that (in moderation) a deficit that is roughly equal to (or less than) GDP growth doesn't really matter because the total public debt as a percentage of GDP doesn't change; and the risks associated with having government debt are unlikely to materialize.

Running a large deficit (say 10% GDP and 8% higher than GDP growth) is kind-of like living your life on a constant bender where you drink until you're pass-out drunk every night. While no one can say for certain when this will lead to a crisis, everyone knows this behaviour is unsustainable and it is only a matter of time where it will be forcibly "ended".

Excellent metaphore.  Context and the bigger picture is everything here.



It doesn't matter the Reagan days are long gone, there's new tech, new ways of gathering info, and simply the times have changed.