Krugman: Reagan and Revenues

[Derechos]

The wholesale voodization of the GOP is a sight to behold; apparently the nonsense about the Reagan tax cuts having led to a vast rise in revenue is now something one must claim to believe. Anyway, a quick note about Federal revenue history.

The way I like to look at it is to compare business cycle peaks. We know that recessions reduce revenue and recoveries raise it. So it’s much more informative to look at peaks (not troughs: all happy economies are more or less alike, each unhappy economy is unhappy in its own way). Oh, and since 1979-82 was really one double-dip recession, I just use 1979 and ignore the 80-81 “recovery”.

So here’s the rate of growth of real per capita federal revenues between successive business cycle peaks:

See lin for graph - http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/06/22/reagan-and-revenues/

[Wilms]

1. K&R n/t

[Romulox]

2. One might suggest that Krugman's own cheerleading for "Free Trade" and globalism helped.

The wholesale voodization of the GOP is a sight to behold; apparently the nonsense about the Reagan tax cuts having led to a vast rise in revenue is now something one must claim to believe.

You yourself lent credence to neo-liberal economics during the 90's and 2000s, Mr. Krugman, with your advocacy of NAFTA and similar "Free Trade" agreements. Most of DU has forgotten, but I haven't! :hi:

[Derechos]

3. fair enough

"Paul Krugman, a trade economist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, said that for the United States, the agreement is "economically trivial." Professor Krugman supports the treaty, saying he thinks it will help to keep free-market reformers in power in Mexico. He sums up the war of words this way: "The anti-Nafta people are telling malicious whoppers. The pro-Nafta side is telling little white lies." Well-Established Theories."

From NYT 1993


http://www.nytimes.com/1993/09/17/us/a-primer-why-economists-favor-free-trade-agreement.html

See also - Paul Krugman Gets It Wrong On Trade--Sadly

I am glad Paul Krugman is a columnist for The New York Times. He is one of the great voices exposing the incompetence and dishonesty of the Bush Administration on all matters economic and chimes in usually quite well on foreign policy. But, he has one blind spot---trade. His column today does a great disservice to the debate about trade. My goal here is not to tear down Krugman--for whom I have enormous respect--but, hopefully, to get us to change our language about the trade debate.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jonathan-tasini/paul-krugman-gets-it-wron_b_48401.html

[Romulox]

4. Thanks. Krugman has helped fetishize "free trade" beyond all reason in the same way

that others have fetishized tax cuts and trickle down beyond all reason. His work has been largely complementary to the trickle downers and the tax cutters.

In fact, if you dissect Krugman's "free trade" arguments, there are extremely similar to "trickle down" style arguments (i.e. providing a benefit to one group (cutting taxes, or cutting tariffs) will auto-magically distribute resources to the suffering masses.

[el_bryanto]

6. Well i think the difference is that there is slightly more evidence in the case of free trade

As lousy as conditions in third world companies seem to us, they are in many cases better than what they are doing before. Unless you are arguing that the third world should remain primitive and agriculture based.

Bryant

[Romulox]

7. Um, no. "Free Trade" was said to benefit workers BOTH in the third world AND in the US.

That has proven to be utterly false.

"Unless you are arguing that the third world should remain primitive and agriculture based. "

Two pivots in one post.

[el_bryanto]

5. It's not of a piece though. It's possible to be in favor of sane tax policy and free trade

I tend to be more in favor of fair trade (as I understand it), but do think free trade is better than protectionism and tarrifs.

Bryant

[Romulox]

8. There is no ala carte laissez faire economics. nt