This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Reaganomics article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2 |
This
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This has been
mentioned by a media organization: |
This article was nominated for deletion on May 12, 2006. The result of the discussion was speedy keep. |
There are some who insist that Reagan engineered a miracle economy, including by crushing persistent inflation, so saying the Fed's actions were "in part" to credit fuels that narrative. The source added by Bellowhead678 makes clear that during the Reagan presidency it was Volcker's policies that crushed inflation.
But the Volcker Fed continued to press the fight against high inflation with a combination of higher interest rates and even slower reserve growth. The economy entered recession again in July 1981, and this proved to be more severe and protracted, lasting until November 1982. Unemployment peaked at nearly 11 percent, but inflation continued to move lower and by recession’s end, year-over-year inflation was back under 5 percent. In time, as the Fed’s commitment to low inflation gained credibility, unemployment retreated and the economy entered a period of sustained growth and stability. The Great Inflation was over.
soibangla ( talk) 18:42, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
This is a complex topic but most sources give the FED credit here. Reagan's role (for the most part) is standing behind Volcker even as the situation became worse and worse from the FED's actions (in 1982). Volcker himself has noted this. That (if anything) is probably what should be noted. Rja13ww33 ( talk) 01:44, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
There is the section “Income distribution“ which lays out some bare stats. But there isn’t anything in the analysis section breaking down the practical impact.. And Ronnie Regs did get plenty of criticism for income inequality. Also, the analysis section seems to be lacking any criticism on the harsher side. And it seems pretty packed with analysis that paints Ronnie Reaganomics in a positive light. Some of which seems to say the same thing to a degree. I figured I’d ask here before editing as I’d imagine this discussion has happened before. DonkeyPunchResin ( talk) 11:14, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
...I think causes issues with some people, so I'm just going to help a little bit here - neoliberal --- Apeholder ( talk) 05:04, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
I'm a Lemon Demon fan too, but his song doesn't have an individual article, and I don't think a reasonable person would expect it to (it's on a Bandcamp album, admittedly a very popular one, and other, more popular tracks¹ from Spirit Phone don't have articles either). Does it need to stay?
¹Spirit Phone's article lists Touch-Tone Telephone from the same album as Lemon Demon's most played song on Spotify, and that song and Eighth Wonder as being mentioned in citable sources but not the others 96.19.2.200 ( talk) 20:50, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
I'm skeptical that this is the best target for this redirect, as there's very little on the term (or even any definition of it as a concept) here. If it does continue to point here, surely there should be a hatnote, a bold alt-title, or both. A more logical target seems to be trickle-down economics, but that article is... rather problematic itself at present (and in current process). Suggestions welcome. 109.255.211.6 ( talk) 04:50, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
Comparing this hat
to this hat
I made an edit to add trickle down to the distinguish hat (the second one), but it was reverted. I chose "not to be confused" specifically because for a long time I actually believed they were the same thing, and that Reagan called his plan "trickle down". Turns out that's pretty far from the truth. The revert message suggested to make it a see also. At first, I thought ok, then was going to make the edit.
But after seeing trickle down in the see also, I really don't like propagating the false impression that I used to have. This makes me uncomfortable because the only reason I ever had that false impression was because of very successful POV messaging. Opponents called Reagan's policy trickle down. In fact, virtually all uses one can find of "trickle down economics" are critical shorthands. Many just outright dismissals. There aren't very many honest uses. Heavy Chaos ( talk) 06:50, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
There is research that because of the Neoliberal policies enacted by Raegan and later Bush and Clinton, there is a noticable stiffling of Scientific innovation. I see no mention of it here. Should perhaps be added?
Note: I understand "Jacobin" is left leaning. I also note that they are consistently rated as "High" or at least less problematic than many other media sources when looking at fact check sites such as: - https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/jacobin/ - https://adfontesmedia.com/jacobin-bias-and-reliability/
Sources:
-
https://jacobin.com/2023/05/science-neoliberal-model-innovation-publications-quantifying-wage-labor/
-
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-022-05543-x
-
http://www.countdownnet.net/Allegati/31%20Neoliberalism%20and%20technology_Perpetual%20innovation%20or%20perpetual%20crisis.pdf
94.110.113.219 (
talk)
23:59, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Reaganomics article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2 |
This
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This has been
mentioned by a media organization: |
This article was nominated for deletion on May 12, 2006. The result of the discussion was speedy keep. |
There are some who insist that Reagan engineered a miracle economy, including by crushing persistent inflation, so saying the Fed's actions were "in part" to credit fuels that narrative. The source added by Bellowhead678 makes clear that during the Reagan presidency it was Volcker's policies that crushed inflation.
But the Volcker Fed continued to press the fight against high inflation with a combination of higher interest rates and even slower reserve growth. The economy entered recession again in July 1981, and this proved to be more severe and protracted, lasting until November 1982. Unemployment peaked at nearly 11 percent, but inflation continued to move lower and by recession’s end, year-over-year inflation was back under 5 percent. In time, as the Fed’s commitment to low inflation gained credibility, unemployment retreated and the economy entered a period of sustained growth and stability. The Great Inflation was over.
soibangla ( talk) 18:42, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
This is a complex topic but most sources give the FED credit here. Reagan's role (for the most part) is standing behind Volcker even as the situation became worse and worse from the FED's actions (in 1982). Volcker himself has noted this. That (if anything) is probably what should be noted. Rja13ww33 ( talk) 01:44, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
There is the section “Income distribution“ which lays out some bare stats. But there isn’t anything in the analysis section breaking down the practical impact.. And Ronnie Regs did get plenty of criticism for income inequality. Also, the analysis section seems to be lacking any criticism on the harsher side. And it seems pretty packed with analysis that paints Ronnie Reaganomics in a positive light. Some of which seems to say the same thing to a degree. I figured I’d ask here before editing as I’d imagine this discussion has happened before. DonkeyPunchResin ( talk) 11:14, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
...I think causes issues with some people, so I'm just going to help a little bit here - neoliberal --- Apeholder ( talk) 05:04, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
I'm a Lemon Demon fan too, but his song doesn't have an individual article, and I don't think a reasonable person would expect it to (it's on a Bandcamp album, admittedly a very popular one, and other, more popular tracks¹ from Spirit Phone don't have articles either). Does it need to stay?
¹Spirit Phone's article lists Touch-Tone Telephone from the same album as Lemon Demon's most played song on Spotify, and that song and Eighth Wonder as being mentioned in citable sources but not the others 96.19.2.200 ( talk) 20:50, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
I'm skeptical that this is the best target for this redirect, as there's very little on the term (or even any definition of it as a concept) here. If it does continue to point here, surely there should be a hatnote, a bold alt-title, or both. A more logical target seems to be trickle-down economics, but that article is... rather problematic itself at present (and in current process). Suggestions welcome. 109.255.211.6 ( talk) 04:50, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
Comparing this hat
to this hat
I made an edit to add trickle down to the distinguish hat (the second one), but it was reverted. I chose "not to be confused" specifically because for a long time I actually believed they were the same thing, and that Reagan called his plan "trickle down". Turns out that's pretty far from the truth. The revert message suggested to make it a see also. At first, I thought ok, then was going to make the edit.
But after seeing trickle down in the see also, I really don't like propagating the false impression that I used to have. This makes me uncomfortable because the only reason I ever had that false impression was because of very successful POV messaging. Opponents called Reagan's policy trickle down. In fact, virtually all uses one can find of "trickle down economics" are critical shorthands. Many just outright dismissals. There aren't very many honest uses. Heavy Chaos ( talk) 06:50, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
There is research that because of the Neoliberal policies enacted by Raegan and later Bush and Clinton, there is a noticable stiffling of Scientific innovation. I see no mention of it here. Should perhaps be added?
Note: I understand "Jacobin" is left leaning. I also note that they are consistently rated as "High" or at least less problematic than many other media sources when looking at fact check sites such as: - https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/jacobin/ - https://adfontesmedia.com/jacobin-bias-and-reliability/
Sources:
-
https://jacobin.com/2023/05/science-neoliberal-model-innovation-publications-quantifying-wage-labor/
-
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-022-05543-x
-
http://www.countdownnet.net/Allegati/31%20Neoliberalism%20and%20technology_Perpetual%20innovation%20or%20perpetual%20crisis.pdf
94.110.113.219 (
talk)
23:59, 19 December 2023 (UTC)