Talk:Reaganomics

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Reaganomics article.
	This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject. Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith Avoid personal attacks Be welcoming Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability
Archives: 1

This article was nominated for deletion on May 12, 2006. The result of the discussion was speedy keep.

WikiProject Economics	(Rated B-Class)	EconomicsWikipedia:WikiProject EconomicsTemplate:WikiProject EconomicsEconomics articles
Business and economics portal v • d • e This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.  B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.  Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-priority on the project's priority scale.

Contents 1 Merger proposal - withdrawn 2 Bias 3 Tax Cuts or Tax Hikes. What it really was? 4 This page is severely biased 5 Criticism section 6 Krugman on Reaganomics 7 There's a considerable amount of people today that attribute Reagan to why we are in this financial mess 8 The current state of the article

[edit] Merger proposal - withdrawn

[edit] Bias

Every single section is 1/3 unbiased reporting, yet the next 2/3rd of all of them is full of bias. The quotes are not portraited in a NPOV way, it seems alot like a personal arguement against Reaganomics. Lets either even up the amount of credibility on either side to represent how the issue is argued in "the real world", or lets make the bias less apparent —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.28.228.112 (talk) 22:19, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Edit: The criticism section needs work as well, it is ineffective since the criticisms are all over the page. Lets move them down there. Also the use of a change from Surplus to Deficit is NOT ALWAYS A BAD THING. I dont understand why deficit is always, without exception, a "bad" thing economically despite the fact that very rudimentary macroeconomics explains that lower taxes and higher deficit spending stimulate economic growth MORE THAN just tax cuts alone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.28.228.112 (talk) 22:30, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

2nd Edit: While I do agree that there seems to be an anti-Reagan taint on the article, it then behooves those who feel that it is overly negative to prove that it is not telling the truth on a situation. If you can come up with some referenced information, as the article does, to defend your argument, the by all means, post that information. Otherwise, please dont be upset that someone has posted President Reagan's, or anyone else's less positive aspects. 69.142.219.168 (talk) 20:30, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

This whole article is so biased that a dissection of every instance it occurs would be longer than the original article itself. But before even getting to the policy issues, how can a neutral discussion of facts contain anything like, "Under Ford the problems continued, but policy was more prudent." More prudent? That is unadulterated opinion. I'd say it's disguised as a factual statement but the fact is, it isn't disguised at all. Also, the historical context section contains this gem, "By the time Reagan took office, stagflation was near its end and for the remainder of his presidency the economy performed well." This is a perfect example of the subtle (or not so subtle) bias in the entry. It implies (or rather states) that stagflation was near an end (regardless of Reagan policies or any policies for that matter) and that Reagan fiscal policy had no effect on the end of stagflation. I'd argue that's a debatable conclusion. The only neutral way of addressing the issue is to introduce actual numbers with respect to inflation and unemployment rate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LunchpailDefense (talk • contribs) 00:49, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I would also agree that there is a significant anti-Reagan bias in the article, for the reasons pointed out by the users above and my own views. So I guess now the question is: how do we proceed in dealing with the problem? Happyme22 (talk) 01:25, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

It is a fair discussion of the events of the time. If people like Reagan, that is good for them. But wikipedia is not the place to impose personal bias on factual information. More 'prudent' in any discussion of fiscal policy implies lower deficit or closer to a balanced budget. Stagflation was indeed coming to an end when Reagan took office. In fact, deficit spending with stable tax levels stimulates economic growth the most, much more than tax cuts funded by borrowing. There is no problem and it is only in the mind of those who want to change the balanced nature of wikipedia articles.(Wikiviedit (talk) 21:14, 28 May 2008 (UTC))

I'm not going to get involved in an economic debate here, but I will say that many of the things you brought up, Wikiviedit, are still being debated. It is not POV to question the NPOV of an article, and relevant claims should not be discouraged. This is not a matter of liking President Reagan or not caring for him; it is a matter of how well the article presents one sides' argument vs. the other sides' argument. Wikiviedit, I do not support your removal of the POV tag, but I will not be the one to challenge it as I did not add it. I'll leave you with that. Happyme22 (talk) 05:31, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe the article must reflect evidence and objective truth rather than political talking points of 'either side'. (Wikiviedit (talk) 19:53, 6 June 2008 (UTC))

It continues to be a matter of debate to what extent this was caused by Reagan's fiscal policies and to what extent it was due to other factors, such as the inflation-fighting monetary policies of the Federal Reserve under Paul Volcker and a large decline in oil prices caused by the resolution of supply shocks in the Middle East. (Though it can be said that his policies of lowered regulations in the Oil business was one of the factors that reduced Oil Prices).

this lacks citation and smells of bias. also its very run-on and should probably be split up into multiple points. H64 (talk) 18:18, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tax Cuts or Tax Hikes. What it really was?

Ok I know that Reagan was famous for his tax cuts in his early presidency, but as far as I know after his presidency taxes experienced net increase, not decrease. So basically if you ignore his early tax cuts, after his presidency Americans started to pay more taxes. Can somebody back up or debunk my knowledge with any reliable links? As for example I know he decreased capital gains tax firstly, but later he increased it to the levels before he reduced it. Thank you in advance.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Azprint (talk • contribs)

• It's all right in the article -- see Reaganomics#Tax_receipts. Of course, this analyzes the "Americans started to pay more taxes" question from the point of view of the government's income, so it does not measure how much taxes "hurt". With that caution...

Basically, the 1981 tax cut was his only significant tax cut, and later on he would pass 4 tax hikes and 4 bills with negligible overall tax effects. The 1981 tax cut was so huge, though, that the combined effect of all of Reagan's tax bills was to lower the federal government's income. --M@rēino 13:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Yay! We are arguing over an economic issue, not whether the dallas Cowboys are better than the Dever Broncos! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.177.233.171 (talk) 01:43, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

It seems that you have not taken an economics course, as it is evident Reagan's actions most likely accidentally caused an increase of the worth of the dollar.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.186.76.21 (talk • contribs)

• No need for insults, Mr. 65.186.76.21. If you can find trustworthy scholarly articles explaining how Reaganomics "accidentally" caused the dollar to appreciate, be my guest and include them in the article. But please note that the discussion topic in this subsection was tax policy, not currency exchange rates or deflation. --M@rēino 13:47, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

This is very simple. High interest rates caused the dollar to appreciate. There is no accident involved.(Wikiviedit (talk) 21:15, 28 May 2008 (UTC))

"It seems that you have not taken an economics course"

I'm not implying that you are one of theese people I'm about to mention.

But that is the sentiment of every economics major with an overblown sense of self-worth created by being harrased by jocks in high-school. Taking an economics course does not make one automatically win any arguments, especially in a evolving field like economics.

There are still to this day differing thoughts and ideas regarding economics. Even the mainstream schools differs to varying degrees. Neoclassical economics, monetarism, Keynesian economics, new classical economics, Austrian School and behavioral economics. Annoying username (talk) 20:15, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Maybe the most important proposition in the economics of the Reagan administration was that if you reduce tax rates, the economy would grow and tax receipts would go up. This is what happened. Tax rates were cut during Reagan's eight years and tax receipts increased. The fact that government tax receipts increased does not mean that taxes were not cut.--Paul (talk) 20:41, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

[edit] This page is severely biased

This page is severely biased. Only positive statements in most of the article. Unbalanced and biased studies presented. The criticisms section is badly arrange and unorganized, with a major part devoted to defending reaganomics. Reading the above comments it seems that this page used to more anti than pro. Well, it's definitely been edited too far in the other direction. I'm tagging it as POV till it's brought back into balance. LK (talk) 18:47, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree, in particular the article is not based on serious academic studies. It has few and poor sources.--Sum (talk) 10:10, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

- This entire article is poorly written and biased in favor of the topic. No academic economist could take this seriously.. The reference to the Laffer curve should be deleted, as the vast majority of applied economists dismiss the notion that a Laffer effect would ever be relevant at tax rates found in the United States. Ifarania (talk) 04:46, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

And the poorly referenced content here is the same in the main Ronald Reagan article. It's a shame that such article is "featured".--Sum (talk) 22:59, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Whether or not you agree with Laffer's theories, Reagan incorporated them into his arguments in favor of lower taxes. I don't think that point is controversial.Mattnad (talk) 09:55, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism section

This needs to be entirely rewritten. Whether you agree with it or not, this is horrendously biased and reads more like an attack ad than anything resembling an encyclopedia entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.208.28.27 (talk) 20:57, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Krugman on Reaganomics

Something new from this Nobel Prize winning economist [1]. Thought on implications for this article? Mattnad (talk) 17:06, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] There's a considerable amount of people today that attribute Reagan to why we are in this financial mess

There's a considerable amount of people today that attribute Reagon to why we are in this financial mess, largely due to his deregulation policies. Why isn't this discussed? Neverfades (talk) 00:14, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

As soon as you provide relevant, reliable sources for the article is can be. Soxwon (talk) 01:47, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

The Krugman piece mentioned above is topical. This is a NY Times, Nobel Prize winning economist pinning part of the blame on Reagan's economic policies. It's published in what most consider a reliable source. What do you think? Mattnad (talk) 12:21, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I think this was discussed at Talk:Ronald Reagan#Kurgman_Comments_on_Reagan, where it was suggested that, if anything, you edit the Garn-St. Germain Depository Institutions Act article and see where that takes you. Happyme22 (talk) 15:42, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes it was suggested to put it there too and that stub could use some expansion. In the meantime, I'm sure you'll agree that the Krugman article is very specific about Reagan's record and Reagonomics. I think this falls under WP:RS and it's topical. If you disagree, please share your rationale. Soxwon has offered his criteria for inclusion above, and I can't see why we'd keep this out (with proper citation of course).Mattnad (talk) 15:55, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Exactly because this argument is topical is why it does not belong in this article. This is an encyclopedia article about an administration that left office over 20 years ago. It should not be a venue for a debating society. A description of Reaganomics and contemporary reaction is the correct subject matter of this article. Conservatives and liberals are always arguing about the benefits/dangers of the size of the government. Krugman's Op Ed piece is just a continuation of that eternal argument. It would be entirely inappropriate to include material in this article every time someone publishes an Op Ed piece mentioning "Reganomics".--Paul (talk) 17:09, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm.... I don't agree with your premise. If it takes a couple of decades for a policy to have an impact, do we ignore the impact? The Reagan Administration is still very much alive in the national dialog (see this New York Times article for a small taste of Reagan's continuing impact) and Wikipedia is a living project. But I could be wrong. Please show me the Wikipedia guidelines or policy that suggests we don't add new information on articles that address past events or topics. Thanks. Mattnad (talk) 17:51, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if there is Wikipedia policy that specifically outlines that historical articles cannot contain information relevant to the present day, rather I think we would base what does and does not go in off of the preference of the editors. But I do know that such information must be written in accordance with WP:WEIGHT and WP:NPOV, if there is a consensus to add. Honestly, I would suggest starting with the Garn-St. Germain Depository Institutions Act and see where that takes you, because I guarentee that adding Reagan is responsible for the current crisis in an article of this prominence and magnitute will engage multiple editors in a very long and heated discussion, one which we may want to avoid. Happyme22 (talk) 18:53, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

iHappyme22, nobody has suggested he's solely responsible for the crisis, but we don't have to ignore reliable and authoritative sources that identify the contributions of deregulation that happened under his watch. And given there has been nothing yet added to this article, your concerns about NPOV and Weight seem a bit premature. I will add there are other editors who have commented on this page with concerns this article has been edited to the point that it's overly kind to Reaganomics. Mattnad (talk) 19:46, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Did you read what I wrote in the section below? I actually think you are trying to help this article, and I don't get the same feelings from you about me. My previous post was not a partisan defense of Reaganomics; I am trying to be open-minded. I am simply stating that contentious information mut be written with extra-special regard to WEIGHT and NPOV. There was something added, today in fact, at the bottom of the criticism section dealing with this very topic.[2] --Happyme22 (talk) 19:59, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Yep. I saw that addition to the criticism section. Not what I would call scholarship. Sorry if I came off sounding critical of you. I was being a bit defensive (I'll admit). 21:12, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] The current state of the article

As many have commented so far, the current state of the article is not one we should be proud of. I'll leave it up to others to decide if the page is biased in one way or another, but for me the biggest problem I have is the organization. The "Support" and "Criticism" sections should be very much pruned and weeded per WP:WEIGHT and combined into one section (titled "Results of the program" or something along those lines).

In addition, the lead should contain a brief mention of both sides of the economic record; as is stands, only deregulation and deficits are there. The lowering of taxes, decrease of unemployment, decrease of inflation, improvement of the economy overall, large military spending, and large deficits should all be there. In addition, we should mention that the Reagan model is what dominated economic policy in the United States for nearly 30 years.

There are some that know more about this topic than I do (namely User:Paul.h and User:Mattnad) and I should like to enlist their much-appreciated assistance in giving this article a complete overhaul. Let us try to start soon. Thanks, Happyme22 (talk) 18:47, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree that this article is in need of a major overhaul. It currently consists of a bushel of erroneous information delivered with mostly execrable writing. I don't think I'll have time for a few weeks to devote much effort to cleaning it up, but I'll put it on the 2-do list. --Paul (talk) 05:12, 17 June 2009 (UTC)