At first, I thought maybe this just showed the GNP marched upward without regard to president. But then I looked more carefully and determined that Reagan had more growth than Bush I and Carter, but less than Bush II, and obviously very significantly less the Bill Clinton.So, anyway, I think we should all be clear now that the GNP did not explode under Reagan.
8 comments:
Question: Does it help that I know I'm a prick, but can't help it?
I don't understand your prick comment.
Whatever effects a presidency has on an economy, which may be small, would lag the start and end of the presidency by some amount--maybe 2 years?
I'm not sure it changes your results much in this case, however. And any rise in GNP in Clinton's presidency is a non sequitor in discussing how the US GNP affected Soviet response to the US economy in the 1980s. I don't think it helps your case.
It also doesn't change my belief that spending and rhetorical pressure from the 1980s was a big factor in damaging the Soviet Union's sustainability.
This indeed has nothing to do with the rhetoric prong. Nor does it have anything to do with the militarization prong. It has to do with the claim you made that the economy under Reagan was strong. You supported it by claiming there was an explosion of GNP under Reagan. That is not true unless there was also an explosion under Bush II and a supernova under Clinton. If you want to say Reagan's economic approach was so successful it harmed the USSR, you have to show dramatic success that outweighs negatives like growing national debt, wage stagnation and poor job growth.
The prick comment relates to the snarking tone of my post that I decided not to change.
So... your argument is that I said the US had explosive growth when you would have used a different adjective? Is that what this is about? I didn't even use "explosive". In my first post I said "the plain economic rise of the US..." and when discussing GNP in the follow-up I used the term "unprecedented". Neither of these is "explosive" and neither is anything but true. You then countered with an argument about Bush Jr. and Clinton--both were irrelevant.
If you want to say Reagan's economic approach was so successful it harmed the USSR, you have to show dramatic success that outweighs negatives like growing national debt, wage stagnation and poor job growth.
No I don't. My thesis has nothing to do with the United States' later economic health.
Your only two arguments have been non sequitors. I am aware that economic growth under Reagan has been eclipsed by later US economies. I had been wrong about that and I've been disabused of that mistake for some time. It does not inform the debate.
The later economic growth was for reference because there is always growth. I don't thin the growth under was strong enough to be considered a factor in the fall of the Soviet Union.
BTW, I just misread a post to get the word explosion from expansion. Sorry.
Nonetheless, do you still think the expansion of the GNP under Reagan was noteworthy? I mean, doesn't it seem to really just fall in line with that for every other eight year period?
Post a Comment