Reaganomics achieved the impossible: expanding savings for investment without hurting consumption levels.
The short term effect was an historic economic expansion.
The long term effect was enormous class separation and income inequality.
Squeezing that genie back in the bottle has been a progressive priority for decades.
It does beget one question; is there a liberal/progressive answer to Reagan’s alchemy? Are there other methods of achieving the same thing?
Comments
The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written.
Reaganomics achieved the impossible: expanding savings for investment without hurting consumption levels.
The short term effect was an historic economic expansion.
The long term effect was enormous class separation and income inequality.
Squeezing that genie back in the bottle has been a progressive priority for decades.
It does beget one question; is there a liberal/progressive answer to Reagan’s alchemy? Are there other methods of achieving the same thing?
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
Universal health care would do that. So would universal child care.
>What are some alternative economic policies to grow savings without reducing consumption?
Increasing incomes, pretty much by definition: [Income]-[Consumption]=[Savings]
Some ways to get there include:
Hilarious that we can have a question about Don’t Look Up on the front page of r/askaliberal at the same time as a post asking for ways to avoid reducing consumption.
Reducing inequality by taxing companies for overly excessive salary ratios, and those who rely on workers being subsidized by the state.
/u/StupidStephen
I saw your comment saying:
>Hilarious that we can have a question about Don’t Look Up on the front page of r/askaliberal at the same time as a post asking for ways to avoid reducing consumption.
…but I couldn’t reply, because you blocked me.
The idea that economic consumption is bad for environmental reasons is a commonly repeated myth.
Many forms of economic consumption don’t involve consuming more natural resources nor doing environmental damage.
An alternative has been actually implemented in some poor countries, by lending small chunks of money to responsible borrowers (women mainly). With this small money, these responsible ones can buy a fridge and start a micro business, which will in turn give them enough money both for saving and for consuming.
Lending money to ” irresponsible” borrowers usually lead to absence of savings and increase of consumption, as shown over the last 2-3 decades in the US.
It’s the same for education. You make education free for someone who is responsible, knows their limits and have a purpose, it’ll always pay off. You make education free for everyone, well it’s great, but many people don’t have a job at the end (example in Europe).
What expanded growth during Reagan’s term was stimulus spending – there’s nothing special about giving money to the rich – it just effects the distribution. The liberal version of “reaganomics” is stimulus spending where the stimulus is provided to the poor and middle class and then one might say the growth “trickles up”
Morganizing federal and state services.