So what exactly does reaganomics mean? I looked it up, and what I got from it was that Reagan lifted taxes (??) and the resulted in poor wealth distribution and really low employment rates... Is that right?
TO OVERSIMPLIFY A LOT, IT’S BASICALLY SUPPLY-SIDE OR TRICKLE-DOWN ECONOMICS. BASICALLY, YOU LOWER TAXES ON THE PEOPLE WHO ARE ALREADY MAKING AN OBSCENE AMOUNT OF MONEY UNDER THE LOGIC THAT THIS WILL GIVE THEM MORE MONEY TO HIRE EMPLOYEES, CREATING MORE JOBS.
THE ISSUE WITH THIS IS THAT IT ALL FALLS APART IF THE RICH PEOPLE, AS THEY SO OFTEN DO, THINK “I’M JUST GOING TO KEEP IT THOUGH.” IF THAT PREDICTABLY HAPPENS, WHICH IT DID, THERE BECOMES A HUGE WEALTH GAP WITH WAY TOO MUCH MONEY IN THE HANDS OF WAY TOO FEW PEOPLE. A TOP-HEAVY ECONOMY MEANS MONEY ISN’T CIRCULATING INTO THE HANDS OF THE MASSES, WHICH MEANS THE MASSES DON’T HAVE THE MONEY TO BUY THINGS.
THIS IS DEVASTATING TO A CORE PILLAR OF ECONOMICS KNOWN AS “DEMAND,” AND IF THERE’S NO DEMAND, THERE’S NO NEED TO HIRE PEOPLE TO CREATE “SUPPLY,” WHICH MEANS NOT AS MANY WORKERS ARE REQUIRED AND JOBS GET DESTROYED INSTEAD OF CREATED.
A TOP-HEAVY ECONOMY IS DOOMED TO COLLAPSE, AND RELYING ON THE RICH TO BE ALTRUISTIC AND SPEND AS MUCH AS THEY EARN IS NAIVE AT BEST AND OUTRIGHT STUPID AT WORST. REAGANOMICS CAUSED ONE OF OUR MOST DEVASTATING ECONOMIC CRISES, WHICH HAPPENS JUST ABOUT EVERY TIME SUPPLY-SIDE OR TRICKLE-DOWN ECONOMICS IS ATTEMPTED.
BUT, NOBODY EVER CLAIMED BEING A TWO-FACED COWBOY ACTOR WHO NEAR-EXCLUSIVELY CUT SOCIAL PROGRAMS THAT HELPED THE NEEDY SO HE COULD AFFORD TO CUT TAXES FOR THE SUPER-RICH WITHOUT TOUCHING THE BLOATED DEFENSE BUDGET WOULD MAKE A GOOD PRESIDENT!
