Ronald Reagan would have been 100 years old on February 6, so let’s celebrate his life by comparing the success of his pro-market policies with the failure of Barack Obama’s policies (which are basically a continuation of George W. Bush’s policies, so this is not a partisan jab).
The Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis has a fascinating (at least for economic geeks) interactive webpage that allows readers to compare economic downturns and recoveries, both on the basis of output and employment.
The results are remarkable. Reagan focused on reducing the burden of government and the economy responded. Obama (and Bush) tried the opposite approach, but spending, bailouts, and intervention have not worked. This first chart shows economic output.
The employment chart below provides an equally stark comparison. If anything, this second chart is even more damning since employment has not bounced back from the trough. But that shouldn’t be too surprising. Why create jobs when government is subsidizing unemployment and penalizing production? And we already know the so-called stimulus has been a flop.
None of this should be interpreted to mean Reagan is ready for sainthood. He made plenty of compromises during his eight years in office, and some of them were detours in the wrong direction. But the general direction was positive, which is why he’s the best President of my lifetime.*
*Though he may not be the best President of the 20th Century.
[…] Reaganomics also easily triumphed in comparisons with […]
[…] Reaganomics also easily triumphed in comparisons with […]
[…] to data on jobs and growth, President Obama’s so-called stimulus was a […]
[…] to data on jobs and growth, President Obama’s so-called stimulus was a […]
[…] will claim he brought the nation back from the brink of a second Great Depression. The fact that his policies actually retarded the recovery will be […]
[…] done a couple of posts comparing Reaganomics and Obamanomics, mostly based on data from the Minneapolis Federal Reserve on employment and economic […]
[…] On this day last year, I posted two charts that I developed using the Minneapolis Federal Reserve Bank’s interactive website. […]
[…] On this day last year, I posted two charts that I developed using the Minneapolis Federal Reserve Bank’s interactive website. […]
[…] done a couple of posts comparing Reaganomics and Obamanomics, mostly based on data from the Minneapolis Federal Reserve on employment and economic […]
[…] done a couple of posts comparing Reaganomics and Obamanomics, mostly based on data from the Minneapolis Federal Reserve on employment and economic […]
[…] done a couple of posts comparing Reaganomics and Obamanomics, mostly based on data from the Minneapolis Federal Reserve on employment and economic […]
[…] Liberty)—I’ve done a couple of posts comparing Reaganomics and Obamanomics, mostly based on data from the Minneapolis Federal Reserve on employment and economic output. […]
[…] Liberty)—I’ve done a couple of posts comparing Reaganomics and Obamanomics, mostly based on data from the Minneapolis Federal Reserve on employment and economic […]
[…] done a couple of posts comparing Reaganomics and Obamanomics, mostly based on data from the Minneapolis Federal Reserve on employment and economic […]
[…] On this day last year, I posted two charts that I developed using the Minneapolis Federal Reserve Bank’s interactive website. […]
[…] previous posts, I’ve used data from the Minneapolis Federal Reserve Bank to show how Obamanomics is leading to very weak results, particularly compared to the economic boom […]
[…] This time last year, I posted two charts that I developed using the Minneapolis Federal Reserve Bank’s interactive website. […]
[…] On this day last year, I posted two charts that I developed using the Minneapolis Federal Reserve Bank’s interactive website. […]
[…] On this day last year, I posted two charts that I developed using the Minneapolis Federal Reserve Bank’s interactive website. […]
[…] On this day last year, I posted two charts that I developed using the Minneapolis Federal Reserve Bank’s interactive website. […]
[…] On this day last year, I posted two charts that I developed using the Minneapolis Federal Reserve Bank’s interactive website. […]
[…] On this day last year, I posted two charts that I developed using the Minneapolis Federal Reserve Bank’s interactive website. […]
[…] On this day last year, I posted two charts that I developed using the Minneapolis Federal Reserve Bank’s interactive website. […]
[…] On this day last year, I posted two charts that I developed using the Minneapolis Federal Reserve Bank’s interactive website. […]
[…] if you want something more substantive, this data from the Minneapolis Federal Reserve shows how Obamanomics is grossly inferior to Reaganomics. Rate this: Share […]
So impressive was the Reagan Recovery that at the G7 Economic Summit in 1983, when it was obvious the President’s plan was working, the West German Chancellor asked him to “tell us about the American miracle.” That was quite a turnaround from two years earlier, when President Reagan outlined his economic recovery plan to an unconvinced group of world leaders. Now, however, they all wanted to know how he did it, so he told them: reducing tax rates restored the incentive to produce and create jobs, and getting government out of the way allowed people to be entrepreneurs. From there, the free marketplace operated as it was supposed to.
As President Reagan observed with a wry smile, “I could tell our economic program was working when they stopped calling it Reaganomics.”
[…] policies of a former resident of the White House, who also had to deal with a deep downturn, but managed to produce dramatically better results. Daniel J. Mitchell • September 8, 2011 @ 8:42 am Filed under: General; […]
[…] show Obama this report from the Minneapolis Federal Reserve Bank comparing the effectiveness of Reaganomics vs. Obamanomics. […]
[…] policies of a former resident of the White House, who also had to deal with a deep downturn, but managed to produce dramatically better results. jQuery('#lazyload_post_0 img').lazyload({placeholder: […]
[…] should copy the policies of a former President, who also had to deal with a deep downturn, but managed to produce dramatically better results. Rate this: Share this:PrintEmailFacebookTwitterMoredeliciousDiggFarkLinkedInRedditStumbleUponLike […]
[…] Using Minneapolis Federal Reserve data, I’ve compared the current recovery with the expansion of the early 1980s. Once again, not good news for the Obama Administration. […]
Ed Darrel:
Sycophantic barfing back of crap your teachers shoved up your poopchute only destroys your credibility. Schizophrenia only makes you look, appropriately, like a conspiracy nut.
Operative word: nut
[…] explained before that one of the most damning pieces of evidence against Obamanomics is that the economy is suffering from sub-par growth, something that is particularly damning since […]
[…] explained before that one of the most damning pieces of evidence against Obamanomics is that the economy is suffering from sub-par growth, something that is particularly damning since […]
[…] explained before that one of the most damning pieces of evidence against Obamanomics is that the economy is suffering from sub-par growth, something that is particularly damning since […]
[…] The policy of Obamanomics, by contrast, is associated with sluggish economic performance. (Indeed, see this post, based on Minneapolis Fed data, for an even starker […]
[…] Reaganomics vs Obamanomics and getting us out of a recession. […]
A correction: I have said several times in these comments that there was “tight” money before EVERY recession since the Great Depression -which is too a recession, an HUMONGOUS one-. Well, I have very little data about the 1945 and 1948 recessions so I cannot affirm that there was “tight” money before the 1945 and 1948 recessions, I simply forgot to check those 2 recessions. Must check them!
I don’t want your donkey, thank you.
Without looking at the vote totals, I know that Rep. Matheson of Utah voted against the health care reform bill. I don’t think he was the only Democrat to do so, but ever were he, that refutes your claim.
Traditionally, most of the radical conservatives in the Senate and House were Democrats. They haven’t changed positions, really, which is a measure of how far out of the galaxy Republicans have moved to the right.
Very conservative Democrats in the Senate right now include Jon Tester of Montana, Jim Webb of Virginia, and Mark Pryor of Arkansas like his father before him. Harry Reid is a very conservative Mormon guy, made to look liberal only by spin in the bizarre politics of the past couple of years.
Obama didn’t extend the taxcuts on his volition — he did it as part of a package, to free the hostages. Make no mistake about it, the transfer of wealth in the tax cuts were not Obama’s ideas, and they continue to set our nation up for an enormous economic crash, if not other trouble.
But, as Ronald Reagan showed, negotiating with terrorists sometimes can delay the carnage, if not put it off. I don’t blame Obama for negotiating with the Republicans. I wish the Republicans would worry about America for a while, instead of the next election, and whether they can shoot ducks with Phil Gramm in his private blind.
Mr. Ed Darrel said:
The “huge stimulus” was about half what was needed, but all that could get past the Republicans.
If the “stimulus” was the double than it actually was -and things were much worse- then probably Mr. Darrel would be saying that we needed 2 TIMES the stimulus that we had (i.e. 4 times the “stimulus” that we actually had). Paul Krugman did a similar thing during the massive failure of the japanese “stimulus” in the 1990s: The stimulus never failed; more “stimulus” was needed and Mr. Krugman even said that we are now into a THIRD Great Depression because there was not enough “stimulus”. Well, history with show us if he is right, so far he seems wrong since stocks market, the economy and employment are recovering
People like Mr Krugman or Mr Darrel cannot be wrong: If the “cure” fails -because the “cure” actually is poison and not a cure- then the problem is that we needed to double the “cure” like in Japan in the 1990s when things got worse when they increased the most governments spending.
Leftist false theories that promote EVEN MORE OPPRESSIVE POWER, CONTROL & TRILLIONS for the political class often cannot be proven wrong. They said that global warming was going to reduce snow, several of their computer models showed that -some of them even talked about snow disappearing very soon in England-. Well, we got the opposite, we got MASSIVE snow. Now some of them are saying that global warming causes both NO SNOW and MASSIVE SNOW. Drought or Flood, Cold or Warm, Snow or lack of it, extreme hurricanes or extreme calm wind, ANYTHING NOW is “proof” that “satanic co2” is causing catastrophic global warming.
But people are not falling anymore for such nonsense because blogs are showing the facts and reasons, blogs are showing the INCONVENIENT TRUTHS that mainstream “politically correct” Academia & Media CONVENIENTLY ignores
In this blog it has been shown how their “stimulus” predictions failed, unemployment should have been around 7% according to their figures. Well, it never happened, they failed according to their own figures. Moreover the graph in this post shows the failure of their “stimulus”
And the current drop in unemployment -that happens with the extension of Bush tax cuts- is ANOTHER proof -and the MOST important proof, I think- that their “stimulus” failed and that their theory is wrong: Obama extended “satanic” Bush TAX cuts. Well, since it became obvious that democrats would lose control of the House and then that the Bush tax cuts would be extended (that happened through october, november & december 2010) the unemployment rate has been going FINALLY (and steadily) down. This shows that the expectation of Bush tax cuts and the actual extension of Bush tax cuts is finally reducing unemployment and not their failed “stimulus”
Exactly the weekend AFTER the 2003 Bush tax cuts were enacted UNEMPLOYMENT went down for several years and several percentage points. The 2010-2011 extension of Bush Tax cuts is equivalent to a TAX CUT because people were expecting a HUGE TAX increase until it was clear that the Tea Party would defeat Obama and then that the Bush tax cuts would be extended so this extension is somehow a tax cut and will bring some tax cutting benefits.
Now we are FINALLY seeing a decrease in unemployment thanks to the extension of Bush Tax Cuts, Bush Tax cuts are helping employment in the same way that they helped in 2003 (in the same way, not in the same amount).
The fact that unemployment went down ONLY UNTIL tax cuts were extended shows, beyond reasonable doubt, that the keynesian “stimulus” theory is false. Of course they will say that the “stimulus” finally worked but not very much people will be buying that , because -I think, this is a forecast by me- it will be clear how unemployment had begun a downward slide since the EXTENSION OF BUSH TAX CUTS and the cause of the drop in unemployment -the extension of tax cuts- will be clear to the common man. And it will be clear because now we have the internet with humongous amounts of information and phenomenal blogs like this one and people can see themselves the truth and the INCONVENIENT TRUTHS that “politically correct” mainstream media and academia never showed.
Great Depression was a MASSIVE “stimulus”, go check the data were you please, Mr Darrell. Herbert Hoover administration actually doubled federal government spending. And unemployment was very high for more than a decade during great depression, remaining in double digits.
Moreover Hoover did MASSIVE tax increases, turning the depression into the GREAT DEPRESSION. Reagan had EXORBITANT INTEREST RATES -that Obama does not have but Hoover had- that caused a depression, but Reagan tax cuts saved the country from a deep Depression, a similar thing to what happened in the tax cutting early 1920s (in the tax increasing and government increasing 1930s we got THE GREAT DEPRESSION)
Mr Darrel says:
[He talks about tax cuts]. Hope not. That helped set the stage for the Crash of 2008.
That sounds like the 2003 Bush tax cuts set the stage for the crash of 2008. Well, Obama, the most powerful leftist in the USA, just extended “satanic” Bush Tax Cuts. Maybe Obama wants to set the stage for another crash like the 2008 crash? Is Mr. Obama such an irresponsible person or simply Mr. Obama does not believe anymore the tax cut demonizing nonsense?
Leftists have been demonizing Bush Tax Cuts and Reagan Tax Cuts. Reagan Tax cuts solved the stagflation crisis that keynesians tried, without success, to solve for a decade. Now Obama extends Bush Tax cuts. How many people are going to believe the TAX CUT demonizing nonsense if leftist high priest Obama EXTENDS the ‘satanic’ Bush tax cuts?
Clearly those theories are FINALLY falling into well deserved discredit. And this happens thanks to new things like the internet and to blogs like this one.
“Tight Money” triggered the 2008 crisis, there was tight money before EVERY recession since Great Depression, read Robert Mundell. But there is too a HUGE real estate bubble bursting and that may cause an economic harm that was not there in the early 1980s when Reagan tax cuts were enacted.
The impact of bursting bubbles on economies should be analysed before giving a definite opinion. In Korea in the 1990s there was a HUGE drop in house prices. But Korean economy performance was astounding good until they increased government spending. If Korean decrease in house prices was actually a bubble -a very very big “if”- then Korea shows that bubbles bursting never cause depressions. But I cannot affirm that Korea 1990s was a bubble.
[…] “Comparing Reaganomics and Obamanomics with Minneapolis Fed Data,” by Daniel J. Mitchell […]
DNC has “radical conservatives”? Name one. And while you are doing this – explain why not a single of this radicals voted against the Obamacare – the law that was quite unpopular among 60% of Americans. “Radical conservatives” my ass…
“Do Republicans have any moderates left? Forget liberals. Teddy Roosevelt, Dwight Eisenhower and Abraham Lincoln would be shown the door.”
Yes, I am sure DNC would love Teddy Rosevelt-the imperialist, Abraham Lincoln (the guy who abolished presumption of innocent during civil war). And yes, JFK, the guy who campaigned on the slogan that USA had fewer nukes than USSR, who cut taxes (because according to him, lower taxes would bring higher revenues). Even Clinton and Lieberman are now too conservative for the DNC – amazing, isn’t it? Anyway, do you think Lieberman, a VP candidate for Al Gore, a man who votes for all left-wing programs is a “radical conservative”?
Simple patriot: Now you make Ronald Reagan out to be a plagiarist. Josh Billings first — Reagan was paraphrasing.
Dems are skewed a bit to more veterans than Republicans, but on the liberal/conservative line, yeah, Democrats represent Americans much better.
One difference: Our old KKK members, like Robert C. Byrd, apologize and repudiate the Klan. But we have radical conservatives and moderates, maybe more than some would like.
Do Republicans have any moderates left? Forget liberals. Teddy Roosevelt, Dwight Eisenhower and Abraham Lincoln would be shown the door.
“Obama care was a miracle, evidence that God favors Obama and hasn’t given up on America despite the Republicans.”
Oh crap, my monitor’s wet! I really shouldn’t drink water while reading this stuff!
“”That’s been the story for Democrats since Franklin Roosevelt — they represent the entire nation and the entire spectrum.””
I laughed so hard when I read this.
Let me break this down for you , Ed. Conservatives are 42% of the population. Moderates are 35%. Liberals are 20%.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/141032/2010-Conservatives-Outnumber-Moderates-Liberals.aspx
Do the Democrats closely resemble this demographic breakdown? Of course not. Neither do Republicans, but they are far closer than Democrats. The elected Democrats are most a perfect inverse to the general population (Makes you wonder why such a small minority in this country are given the power to force and ideological agenda on the remaining 80%.).
The Republicans are not perfect either as they have far more ‘Moderates’ than Conservatives. At least the liberals are in the place they belong….last.
Canoefun:
You are misreading the charts. The first chart is labeled in quarters. !2 quarters is 3 years. The second chart is labeled in months. 36 months is 3 years. The recession started in 2007 and 3 years later brings it to 2010. Now that you know how to read the chart, digest what it shows and tell us who did a better job getting us out of a recession. This is an intellectual honesty test so think hard.
To Quote Reagan, Ed:
“It’s not that you are ignorant. It is just that you know so much that isn’t so.”
It is amazing how deluded some people are. Are you enjoying your Hope and Change, Ed?
oh and canoefun: the last deficit under bush with a republican congress was around 130 billion…we’ve added 5 TRILLION in debt since bela pelosi became speaker…and 3 TRILLION in debt since obama became president
oh and ed, how does the government ‘transfer wealth’ from the poor and middle class to the rich? this is just a left-wing lie.
in 2008, the top 1 percent of tax returns paid 38.0 percent of all federal individual income taxes and earned 20.0 percent of adjusted gross income, compared to 2007 when those figures were 40.4 percent and 22.8 percent, respectively. Both of those figures—share of income and share of taxes paid—were their lowest since 2004 when the top 1 percent earned 19 percent of adjusted gross income (AGI) and paid 36.9 percent of federal individual income taxes.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html
“Obama’s never had a supermajority in the Senate. He barely had 59 Democrats, at least 8 of whom are well to the right of John McCain.”
There were 60 democrats – if you count Bernie Sanders (a socialist) as a democrat. The 8 democrats who are to the right from McCain? Hm. By what standard?
“That’s been the story for Democrats since Franklin Roosevelt — they represent the entire nation and the entire spectrum. ”
From left to ultra-left. They surely don’t respesent the moderate and the right-wingers. This is why the dems lost the elections in 2010 – too left-wing for America. DNC maybe represent North Korea, but not US.
“That gives effective control to a coalition of conservatives.”
Aha.
“The “huge stimulus” was about half what was needed, but all that could get past the Republicans.”
For leftists, no spending is enough. Spending extra 900 billion is only half? Dude, 1 year of war in Iraq costs 100 billion dollars – and you wanted to spend 18 years of full-blown Iraq war spending in 1 years?! That’s nuts.
“You know Santayana’s line about those who don’t remember history repeating it?”
I know history pretty well, thank you.
“You would do well to study the recession of 1936 and 1937, the last time the Republicans stopped a Democratic President and a Democratic Congress from doing the second half of the needed stimulus. ”
Yes, I’ve heard this many times about many different countries. Just a little bit more socialism and another trillion dollars, and we will build communism. Yap. I am not buying it.
“Obama care was a miracle, evidence that God favors Obama and hasn’t given up on America despite the Republicans.”
Obamacare is unconstitutional. I know how little you guys care about the Constitution, but still… And as for miracles – well, God giveth, God taketh.
“It has essentially no effect on jobs for a while, until it kicks in for everyone and puts U.S. manufacturers on a par with Japanese, German, French and Korean manufacturing sectors.”
French? Yes, and Canadian, Spanish, Greek, British, Italian. I mean, we all know how goo the manufacturing is in these countries, right?
“Had you watched that debate and action, you’d understand that Obama does not have the benefit of a supermajority, and never has.”
Dems had 60 members in Senate. It’s called “supermajority”. Had you studied math in middle school, you would have realized that it is supermajority.
canoefun; Reagan inherited 13% inflation, with a 21% interest rate, if I remember correctly. stagflation..which is what obama is trying to bring back now..he’s trying to be jimmy carter 2.
ed: cry me a river. Reagan had a democrat house, no fox news, no rush, in other words no one to tell the truth. FDR prolonged and exacerbated with great depression with his socialistic policies. Obama’s stimulus FAILED. you really need to take an econ class. perhaps you should do some research. socialism doesn’t work, never has. as far as obama care, its unconstitutional, and government health care is a failure wherever its tried. if it goes through I hope you enjoy your new guvmint dentist dr. PLIARS.
the current crash was caused by CRA…the government forcing banks to give the unqualified loans to buy houses…and then fannie and freddie bundling those bad loans into CDS.
canoefun, please learn how to read charts before commenting
sorry, as one who lived through and was old enough to vote for ronnie, I thought some of you young cons would appreciate a little factual information with your crap that the right feeds you every single day. They have been trying to rewrite ronnie since the 90’s–his policies failed.
I had not notice the “recovery” bar–thank you for pointing that out. Still, the economy was so much worse off than when ronnie took over from President Carter-and sandbagged his efforts at real negotiations for the hostage release without violating US law by providing arms for hostages. The bush policies of the republican right wing failed–lower taxes led to huge deficits, and now the re-application of those tax rates, as voted for by the republicans in 2001, would have led to tax increases to 2001 levels. But in voting for the extension of those tax credits, republicans have given us another 400 billion in debt. And where is the budget cut they promised?
Sorry, but name calling and saying we rewrite history without your even knowing the history is pointless.
Obama’s never had a supermajority in the Senate. He barely had 59 Democrats, at least 8 of whom are well to the right of John McCain. That’s been the story for Democrats since Franklin Roosevelt — they represent the entire nation and the entire spectrum. That gives effective control to a coalition of conservatives.
The “huge stimulus” was about half what was needed, but all that could get past the Republicans. You know Santayana’s line about those who don’t remember history repeating it? You would do well to study the recession of 1936 and 1937, the last time the Republicans stopped a Democratic President and a Democratic Congress from doing the second half of the needed stimulus.
Obama care was a miracle, evidence that God favors Obama and hasn’t given up on America despite the Republicans. It has essentially no effect on jobs for a while, until it kicks in for everyone and puts U.S. manufacturers on a par with Japanese, German, French and Korean manufacturing sectors.
Had you watched that debate and action, you’d understand that Obama does not have the benefit of a supermajority, and never has.
Hope not. That helped set the stage for the Crash of 2008. I prefer the profitable times of Eisenhower and Kennedy, and Clinton. We shouldn’t be in the business of transferring wealth, especially not from the poor and middle class to the filthy rich.
reagan didn’t arm the taliban, or al-qaeda. its a liberal myth.
Bin Laden himself has repeatedly denied that he received any American support. “Personally neither I nor my brothers saw any evidence of American help,” bin Laden told British journalist Robert Fisk (search) in 1993. In 1996, Mr. Fisk interviewed bin Laden again. The arch-terrorist was equally adamant: “We were never, at any time, friends of the Americans. We knew that the Americans supported the Jews in Palestine and that they are our enemies.”
wish the libs wouldn’t try to rewrite history ala 1984
What we’ve got here is 2 stupid liberals revising history. Reagan had to deal with Tip O’Neal. Dem speaker of the house, so the house was dems. Why not arm Afghanistan when they are fighting the Russians.
Amazing comments from the left….
“This is a good argument for giving Obama the same sort of jobs bills Reagan got. The big difference between Reagan and Obama is that Reagan didn’t have Republicans working to block recovery so hard in the Senate.”
1. Obama had super-majority in the Senate. How did he use his power? Huge stimulus and Obamacare.
2. Reagan dropped the top tax rates from 70% to 50%, then to 38.5% and then to 28%. I am all for doing same and cutting our tax rate to 28% – but will Obama sign it?
“Since the data only are current to 2007, how is this in any way a reflection of President Obama’s policies? ”
The graphs includes the last two years. Simple enough?
“Reagans policies were failures.”
US economy recovered and he also defeated USSR. If this is a failure, I am curious how you judge Obama’s policies.
Since the data only are current to 2007, how is this in any way a reflection of President Obama’s policies?
We know from the actual current data that employment began to increase when President Obama took office and that companies are raking in huge profits. But they are sitting on the money, thus no surge in jobs.
Reagans policies were failures. Look at his middle east experiences with the terrorists–he bargained with Iran to trade arms for hostages, even before he was president, he and North provided support to the brutal dictators in S. America, he stupidly rushed troops into Lebanon then pulled them out (cut and ran) after terrorists bombed and killed 200 plus soldiers, and then he and his advisors (rumsfeld, cheney, mitch daniels, and the rest) provided the taliban with arms and training and money in Afghanistan–leading to the development of al quida.
And he increased the size of government while doing all of this.
Keep drinking the Kool Aid Ed. Reality sucks doesn’t it?
This is a good argument for giving Obama the same sort of jobs bills Reagan got. The big difference between Reagan and Obama is that Reagan didn’t have Republicans working to block recovery so hard in the Senate. For example, conservatives worked for a jobs bill in the Reagan years — Sen. Dan Quayle chaired the subcommittee at the Senate Labor Committee, and he passed a training and employment bill which Reagan happily signed.
If we could get conservatives committed to working for America and American exceptionalism again, things would work out a lot better.