I don't know where to begin on this article

[Deja Q]

"Economic Lessons Learned From President Ford's Short Time in Office"
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,239923,00.html

Production was down in the Ford era because tax rates began to creep up with inflation. Tax rates had become so high that producers were producing less. We ended up with the worst of both worlds: Too much money and too few goods. We called this double whammy “stagflation;” high inflation with stagnating production. And it was killing us.

I thought that was due to more and more good being made in another country then imported in...

It really wasn’t until Ronald Reagan became president that both the money and the production side of stagflation were addressed. Reagan combined squeezing the money supply (through his full support of the new inflation-fighting Fed Chairman Paul Volker) with a dramatic reduction in tax rates at all levels. This allowed folks to keep more of what they earned. And sure enough, in 1983 — after the Reagan tax cuts kicked in — U.S. production started to boom. The Reagan tax cuts also helped to lower inflation by creating more goods.

How about the national debt? Seems Republicans love to forget about that little nitpick... :crazy:

In the 25 years since the Reagan tax cuts, it’s become clear that you can have strong economic growth with low inflation and low unemployment. But to the book balancers in the Ford administration, this was an impossible notion.

And have trillions of dollars in debt too, hot damn!!! But I don't believe the unemployment numbers, virtually all the people I know who lost their jobs years ago are still unemployed AND are viable, intelligent people.

Gerry Ford and his political ally George H.W. Bush called all this “voodoo economics.” But Gerry Ford and George H.W. Bush were proven wrong and Ronald Reagan was right. “Voodoo economics” turned out to work.

Well, that just means the author is a Reagan shill and I have one reason to respect Ford and Bush Sr.

After the Reagan tax rate cuts, we got much higher production with low inflation and low unemployment (the same thing happened after the 2003 George W. Bush tax rate cuts). Americans were working harder when they were given the freedom to keep more of what they earned. And tax revenues doubled in the seven years between 1983 and 1990, even as tax rates were cut in half.

Good God, man! Is this article about Ford or Reagan?! The headline read "Ford".

Gerald Ford did his level best to keep the economy from crashing and burning. He pulled out his veto pen 66 times in two-and-a-half years, mostly to cut back on a heavily Democratic Congress’ spending habits.

Hmmm, is the author suggesting George W will do the same? How were the Dems of 30 years ago spending? Those now? How about all the spending the repubs inbetween had? And surely Reagan has to be accountable for the national debt as well? After all, he was the Decider of the 80s...

[Why Syzygy]

1. I agree with OP

wtf .. As I recall, as a small grasshopper, Ford's economics were a nightmare.
Nothing like the oil imbargo that his adopter, Nixon, shoved on us. But hardship all the same.
Reagan did cut loose some things. Caution, I don't do the market. This opinion is as a work-a-day-girl. But his plans were short lived. I was doing tax work at the time and they changed everything. And suddenly all the high rise office buildings went vacant. And all the strip stores. It was devastation. You can still see it.

Whatever Bill Clinton, and his free spending, big cat democrats .. whatever, THEN, we had food, and clothes, affordable housing, health care and all the stuff the repuvolticans like to take away.
I like his economics. .02

[ktlyon]

2. borrow and spend is an economic stimulus

recent tax cuts are not a stimulus except in the stock market
Clinton style tax cuts (lower and middle class) will stimulate buying and the economy
and don't forget Reagan gave the biggest tax increase when he raised SS withholding (if that is a tax)

[specimenfred1984]

3. They're just lying whores, no point in listening to any of their points

They are paid to lie and do it everyday. They keep getting paid only as long as people are listening.

[Jim__]

4. A couple of thoughts ...

Production was down in the Ford era because tax rates began to creep up with inflation. ...

Because of the Arab oil embargo, the price of oil quadrupled in something like 4 months time under Nixon (just before Ford took office). The price of everything skyrocketed. For instance, the price of heating your house, which had, by and large, been less than 25% of a person's mortgage began to exceed their mortgage. People had no free spending money. Does the fact that consumers had no purchasing power factor at all into the production rate?

It really wasn’t until Ronald Reagan became president that both the money and the production side of stagflation were addressed. Reagan combined squeezing the money supply (through his full support of the new inflation-fighting Fed Chairman Paul Volker) ...

Volker's monetarist policies did indeed ring inflation out of the economy. However, Volker himself later admitted that his policies almost caused the US economy to collapse. The argument for monetarist policies had been that fiscal policies took effect over time, and usually were the wrong policies by the time theri effects were flet. Monetarists claimed that monetary policies were immediate and would have the desired effects immediately. However, what Volker learned was that you can't measure monetary aggregates in real time; and the M1 numbers were grossly exagerated. Volker was acting on bad data. The effect wound up being beneficial; but the risk was far too high.

Reagan condemned Volker's anti-inflationary policies because they had a recessionary effect upon the economy. Lots of people were losing their jobs. Reagan only took credit for these policies after they had succceeded.

In the 25 years since the Reagan tax cuts, it’s become clear that you can have strong economic growth with low inflation and low unemployment. But to the book balancers in the Ford administration, this was an impossible notion.

That's largely correct. Right wing economists condemned government job-creation policies because they claimed you couldn't have strong economic growth with low inflation and low unemployment.
The same people who now assure us of the advantages of low tax policies.

etc.