Has Anybody Seen Jimmy Carter Lately?

At this point, would America settle for a new 1980s?

Veiled within the news that Ronald Reagan handily topped a recent Gallup poll of Americans’ favorite presidents is a pretty clear mandate: We want somebody to make the 1970s end.

This is not the swinging '70s of fond memory (a period during which the nation actually experienced a surge in nostalgia for the 1950s) but the brutalizing fiscal '70s of stagflation, soaring gas prices, President Jimmy Carter’s national “malaise,” and then-California Gov. Jerry Brown’s “era of limits.”

With a Carteresque president, a scolding yet permissive Federal Reserve chairman who inspires even less confidence than Nixon-appointed Fed chief Arthur Burns, and Jerry Brown himself back in charge of the Golden State, the United States is experiencing a grim and pleasureless sensation of '70s nostalgia.

This retro-shock is showing up in political and media rhetoric. President Obama got the ball rolling in May 2009 by announcing “We’re out of money now.” Jerry Brown’s most memorable quote since returning to the office of governor has been a shocker about the state budget: “It is much worse than I thought. I’m shocked.” Succumbing to the spreading panic, Washington Post columnist Steven Pearlstein recently let loose a closing-all-the-exits lamentation:

Now, even three years after reality came crashing down, we have only just begun to figure out how to bring about the reduction in living standards that will be necessary to create a sustainable balance. Will the pain come in the form of prolonged high unemployment? Or wage and salary cuts? Or reduction in the value of homes and financial assets? Or loss of ownership of American companies? Or price inflation? Or higher taxes? Or reductions in government services and benefits?

In practical terms, there is no case to be made against hairshirt drones like these. (Nor is 2011 the first year the United States has been possessed by demons of the 1970s.) Governments in most of the 50 states are facing severe budget deficits. Obama proposes [pdf] adding $1.645 trillion this year, $1.102 trillion next year, and $768 billion in 2013 to a national debt that is already more than $14 trillion, and the full cost-cutting power of a Republican majority in the House of Representatives succeeded in knocking only $61 billion out of that spending.

Commodity inflation is soaring while the value of most Americans’ primary asset—real estate—continues to plummet. When Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-Texas) asked yesterday about the spike in prices for gold, oil, wheat, and other commodities , Fed chief Ben Bernanke—whose expansion of the money supply over the past three years amounts to a highly confident gamble on the Fed’s ability to control the devaluation of the dollar—dismissed the idea that this inflation was related to Fed policy, noting that “commodity prices have risen just about as much in other currencies as they have in terms of the dollars. So while I take those commodity price increases very seriously I don't think they're primarily a dollar phenomenon.” While accurate within a narrow scope, this reply doesn’t provide much comfort to Americans who are subject to the dollar economy. When the central bank is rapidly creating more dollars and the cost of your daily existence is rapidly increasing, do you feel better knowing that other Bernankes in other countries are doing the same thing?

The Congressional Budget Office’s (CBO) most recent Budget and Economic Outlook [pdf] contained more news suited to the Crash of ’79 era. The trust funds for Social Security’s disability insurance (DI) and Medicare’s hospitalization insurance (HI) ran 2010 negative cash flows of $21 billion and $30 billion, respectively, and neither have any prospects of returning to balance. Says the report: “In CBO’s projection, the negative cash flows for the two funds continue throughout the baseline period; their balances are exhausted in 2017 (DI) and 2021 (HI).”

Meanwhile, unemployment remains in the high single digits, economic activity is increasing at too slow a rate to replace the dollar values lost since the start of the 2007 recession, and the real estate market remains stuck in the lieux d'aisance (actually, the real estate market has cleared the loo and is now passing through lengths of cheap PVC pipe toward the municipal sewers).

The fad for calling the great credit unwind the "Worst Since the Great Depression" seems to have run its course by 2009. (And what is the point of ranging recessions on a “good-bad-worst” continuum, given how radically your definition of good may differ from mine when our financial interests are concerned?) But there’s a strong case for calling the Bernanke economy the most stagflationary malaise since the ’70s.

So why shouldn’t people talking to pollsters fondly recall the president they perceive as having ended stagflation the first time around? History has not yet settled on how much credit Reagan deserves for restoring the U.S. economy to vigor. There is a decent presidential-continuity case to be made from the evidence that Jimmy Carter (currently holding twelfth place in the hearts of his countrymen, according to Gallup) began the deregulatory and anti-monopolist processes for which the Gipper gets most of the thanks. But belated interest in the 1980s at least suggests Americans are interested in innovation rather than repetition as a way out of the current jam. The first time around, stagflation was defeated by a combination of tight monetary policy, deregulation, market competition, and supply-side tax policy. What will it take to get America moving this time?

Tim Cavanaugh is a senior editor at Reason magazine.

An earlier version of this article misspelled the name of the Gallup polling organization.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    I've said it before and I will say it again (without hint of hyperbole), the 1970's was the worst decade in the history of the universe.

  • Old Mexican||

    Any decade that brought us the leisure suit, Lawrence Welk, the Chevrolet Caprice and gas price controls had to be the very worst in history - and, welcome back to the 70's, gang!!!

  • Ice Nine||

    Actually, the 50s brought us Lawrence Welk, but we catch your drift.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Ice Nine,

    Actually, the 50s brought us Lawrence Welk, but we catch your drift.


    You're right - it was just so goddamned awful that I thought it had to be a creature of the 70s...

  • Slap the Enlightened!||

    I remember somebody once referring to the 70s as "the 50s in drag", so maybe it doesn't really make much difference.

  • Ice Nine||

    OM>>You're right - it was just so goddamned awful that I thought it had to be a creature of the 70s...

    I know what ya mean. He had a good long run though and I think he actually made it into the 70s. He was certainly dorky enough to be included in this diatribe so, WTH, let's do it.

  • Robert||

    Lawrence Welk was cool. So cool, the less cool couldn't even recognize the cool in him.

  • Robert||

    I forgot to mention, he even took cold showers.

  • Dello||

    Agreed. LW was SO cool that he ACTUALLY appealed to both conservatives and liberals (after all, his show WAS on PBS).

  • ||

    Lawrence Welk once brought his band to Bertha, Nebraska near my hometown back in the 30's. Everybody thought he was cool. My grandma thought he was the cats pajamas. She made good dumplings too. heh heh.

  • Myron Floren||

    And a one...and a two....bite me!

  • ||

    "That's why its time to update our company's stodgy image and give it the sleek dazzling veneer of the 1980's!"

  •  ||

    The 790s weren't so hot.

  • ||

    Yeah, bubonic plagues, invasions by the Huns & Avars, plus the onset of feudalism -- one terrible time no doubt.

  • Ted S.||

    Welk's band actually started in the late 20s or early 30s, although the TV show only started in the 1950s. It was syndicated to 1982, according to Wikipedia.

  • ||

    The 70s brought us endless Lawrence Welk reruns.

  • Concerned Citizen||

    I agree, except when it came to music. Great bands and artists were free to make incredible music, and you could freely toke at their concerts. Economically, it sucked.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Concerned Citizen,

    I agree, except when it came to music. Great bands and artists were free to make incredible music[.]


    Uh, all I did hear back then was ABBA and disco, because that is what my mommy liked to hear.

  • Old Mexican||

    Oh, and Jean Michel Jarre.

  • Almanian||

    I guess I was lucky my mom listened to Bach and Mozart and stuff (music teacher). We kids got a very good foundation in "decent" music...before I got into the Pantera and Motorhead and stufff...:)

  • Concerned Citizen||

    Ye gads!

    I saw Yes for the first time in July of 1977 - a life changing experience.

  • Almanian||

    Yeah buddy! First two albums I bought, in 1973, at the age of 11:

    Genesis "Foxtrot"
    Pink Floyd "Dark Side of the Moon"

    From there it was a short step into the Yes and the Return to Forever.

    First live concert: The Who at the Pontiac Silverdome in 1979, the week after the "Trampled Under Foot" concert (as we called it, somewhat indelicately) in Cincinnati. Blackfoot ("Train Train") opened for them. AWESOME!

    Odd - it was in HS that I suddenly got into Zeppelin, Aerosmith, and metal and stuff like that. 70's acts, all...good times music

  • Almanian||

    I still remember - I had floor passes. When the Who came on, everyone rushed the stage (of course). Pete Townsend said, "We'd like everyone to take one step BACK...."

    *CHEEEEEEEEEEEERS*

  • Pete Townsend||

    Now I scream, "Get the bugger offa my lawn!", while I "research" kiddie diddling online. Oh god, I hope they make CSI:TexArkanastan...I need the money!!!1!!one!

  • ||

    Rush, Yes, Supertramp, Boston, ELO, Kansas, Little River Band, Air Supply, Foreigner...

    It's a wonder anyone survived that decade without committing suicide.

  • Jeff P||

    The 70s gave us the Ohio Players. It also gave us the greatest porn soundtracks ever, possibly the pinnacle of Western culture.

  • rather||

    ^And that ladies and Gentlemen is the clearest insight into the libertarian mind

  • ||

    STFU

  • Really?||

    rather, you say that like it's a bad thing.

  • Wise Ass||

    Libertarians aren't necessarily "bad," just stuck in adolescence.

  • Wendy||

    I like a man that's young at heart! Muah!

  • ||

    "Adolescence" = saying something I don't like.

  • Growlygus||

    David Bowie, the PDP-11.

  • ||

    This is Unix! I know this!

  • ||

    Except for films and some music.

  • db||

    The '70s brought us:

    Rush
    Todd Rundgren
    Yes (yeah, I know, Yes is dated 1969, but that was only one album)
    The MP-5
    The Personal Computer
    The BMW 3 Series

    What more do you want?

  • Destructozach||

    Don't forget Star Wars dude

  • ||

    yeh, but the business two martini lunch was brought to a close. A damned shame.

  • SIV||

    The 70s were great! The most libertine era in modern American cultural history. Dope was practically legal.Everybody had lots of unsafe sex. The drinking age was 18 and never enforced. You could buy "classic muscle cars" as cheap used cars for less than a grand (gas was no small issue). The music was the best ever (glam, metal, punk, new wave, everything the Rolling Stones did between Sticky Fingers and Some Girls). Hippies were totally out of style. Best decade for movies in the history of "cinema". Sure the economy sucked but I was 7-17 years old!

  • l0b0t||

    Mardi Gras 1971, the New Orleans Police Dept. went on strike so the governor called out the National Guard. The Guard (bless their hearts) announced that the only laws they planned on enforcing were the ones concerning public safety (property crimes and crimes of violence). It was a carnival season of sex and dope in the streets and is remembered as the BEST MARDI GRAS EVER!

  • ||

    ^^^ THIS ^^^

    I have no memory of this -- being all of eight, and having grown up in the El Lay metroplex -- but that is teh awesome.

  • Mr Whipple©®™||

    I'm sure many people that were there have no memory of it.

  • ||

    And the children conceived in discos '76 were shooting innocent bystanders in turf battles over crack territories in '93. Just sayin'. Hell of a party. Hell of a hangover.

  • alan||

    Get your fuckin' DNA testing corrected, son. Those baby's pappa was The Great Society.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    I agree, except when it came to music.

    Except for films and some music.

    etc.

    And I'm sure Hitler once helped an old lady across the street, BUT IT DOESN'T EXCUSE A THING.

  • Old Mexican||

    With a Carteresque president, a scolding yet permissive Federal Reserve chairman who inspires even less confidence than Nixon-appointed Fed chief Arthur Burns, and Jerry Brown himself back in charge of the Golden State, the United States is experiencing a grim and pleasureless sensation of '70s nostalgia.


    We have (or just had) our Pinto scare (this time the Toyota scare scam), our bad police shows, our really bizare celebrity scandals... All that is needed is a really good crisis in the middle East and.... Uh, oh...

  • .||

    The "Middle East" is in perpetual crisis so it doesn't count.

  • Growlygus||

    I bought a Ford Pinto for $500, right after the scare, and sold it, a year later, for $600. That would be one and only experience with selling a car for more money than I used to buy it.

  • Old Mexican||

    Or, a confirmation of "The Greater Fool" theory!

  • kinnath||

    I miss tricky dick.

  • Barney The Frank||

    Here give mine a lick.

  • ||

    Barny Frank sucks.

  • Smooth Barry||

    You have me now.

  • ???||

    Is that Uncle Miltie in the pic?

  • cynical||

    It's George Schultz and Arthur Burns. You can tell, because they're labeled in the picture.

  • ||

    He was not referring to the article picture, but the teaser picture..

    [Bottom right]

  • Bicicletas Estáticas||

    I haven't

  • Schwinn Evolution||

    Great article. Thanks for sharing.

  • Growlygus||

    Schwinn bicycles! Twice the cost and twice the weight of a European bicycle

  • Sniktpool||

    I'd rather have a bike that I can zombies with than one that will simply outrun them

  • Stopper||

    Drowning things in the tub has consequences. There's a reason for that too.

  • Chupacabra||

    Only the magic of high-speed rail can get us out of this funk.

  • ||

    Awesome! That's funny every time!

  • ||

    That's ironic, considering how utterly tiresome your complaining about it is. How's that manic phase going, buddy?

  • ||

    Wow. I thought Reason was supposed to be a serious publication. This article isn't worth the diskspace it's loaded on. It's nothing more than an entertaining piece of fiction replete with all kinds of logical fallacies. President Obama is closer to Bill Clinton than Jimmy Carter in substance. QE2 is the only thing that kept us from deflation (though it needs to start rolling back). And the job numbers this morning were terrific.

    There still needs to be a serious discussion about the nation's fiscal situation. Reason would be well-advised to publish a serious piece on those issues rather than something this garbage. With all the far-fetched linear connections being drawn through time and space I felt like I was watching Glenn Beck there for a minute.

  • ||

    It's also worth noting that if Ronald Reagan ever finds his way onto a piece of currency it should be a credit card, because unequivocally he and President Bush were the two worst deficit spenders in our nation's history (not accounting for times of war or economic crisis).

  • ||

    Hey, no reality allowed here. Inflation is 1.2%, the S&P 500 is up 80% under Obama strictly on earnings, the PMI just hit a 20 year high, and Obama has cut FICA taxes and now allows full depreciation in one year on capital equipment purchases....

    And Bush the Lesser threw the company into a $1.3 trillion deficit and a financial crisis.

    But this is Libertarian Land - where Ron Paul counts is an intellectual and any Democrat must be compared to Carter while Bush 43 is already the worst president ever according to 61% of historians.

  • Realist||

    "And Bush the Lesser threw the company into a $1.3 trillion deficit and a financial crisis."
    Aaahhh, there's the problem, it's a country...NOT a company. A common mistake made by you and all the other shit fer brains libs!

  • Paul||

    And Bush the Lesser threw the company into a $1.3 trillion deficit and a financial crisis.

    Maybe the board of directors could start looking at marginal tax rates again?

    and Obama has cut FICA taxes and now allows full depreciation in one year on capital equipment purchases....

    DREGULASHUN!

  • Kevin ALL IS WELL Bacon||

    Gas, food, gold, commodities spiking, but look at this graph here, no inflation!

  • And Smooth Barry O||

    Is really much closer to Tricky Dick in substance.

  • Great cut and paste job||

    from the Soros Blog, shrike-the-koran-humper and underimpressed.

  • KPres||

    "Inflation is 1.2%"

    Of course, if inflation was measured the same way it was in the 70s, then inflation would be as high as it was in the 70s.

    http://www.shadowstats.com/alt.....ion-charts

  • Sniktpool||

    Fuck, I almost forgot about that.

  • shrike||

    YOU LIBERTARDS SUCK!!! Now I have to go suck on my dad's dick.

  • Growlygus||

    So you're counting Reagan's election in the last quarter of 1979 as 1970's event? You really are unimpressive.

  • db||

    Huh? Reagan was elected in 1980.

  • Mike Laursen||

    By one definition of decades, the one compatible with how we count off centuries and millennia, the 1970's were from 1971 to 1980.

  • Paul Krugman the Keynesian||

    because unequivocally he and President Bush were the two worst deficit spenders in our nation's history

    Why do I oppose their economic policies, then?

  • ||

    I defy you to justify this slander against two fine presidents. All government spending is the result of laws and policies passed in congress and signed by the president. LBJ and the Democrats passed the wasteful, corrupt, ineffectual War on Poverty that cost $6.6 trillion over a thirty year period and left us with a $6 trillion national debt. Reagan's only contribution to this process was to try to reform it, but the reforms were blocked by Democrats in congress.

    Bush had four excellent years, 2004-2007, when growth resumed, jobs increased (and unemployment dropped) to near record levels, and the markets went to new highs. Unfortunately, Bush's good years were sandwiched between the earlier Dot.com Bubba Bubble crash and the Bubba Recession that added $3 trillion to the national debt and the later Democrats' Unaffordable Housing Project, from which we have not yet seen the end of our suffering.

    There is an inescapable conclusion from this that has somehow escaped you: Democrats are ignorant twits and terrible managers, and should never be allowed to interfere in the economy or in social programs, or in purchasing decision, such as housing and Government Motors.

    There is this marvelous Internet device called "Google" where you can find historical records for federal budgets, surplus/deficits, employment records, housing, and such. You might want to consult Google before broadcasting you insufferable ignorance worldwide.

  • zoltan||

    the result of laws and policies passed in congress and signed by the president.

    Did you forget that part? Reagan and Bush the dickless wonders couldn't stand up to a bunch of weak Democrats and veto every spending bill sent to their desk.

  • ||

    Zoltan -

    There is this marvelous Internet device called "Google" where you can find historical records for the workings of our government, senate procedures, and such. LBJ's War on Poverty disaster was already on the law books long before Reagan became president and before Reagan and Bush took an oath to uphold the law regardless of the waste, corruption, and ineffectiveness of the law that the Democrats passed. The Senate requires sixty votes to invoke cloture, end debate, and force a vote. At no time were there sufficient Republican votes to maneuver around the effects of the senate rules. You might want to consult Google before broadcasting your insufferable ignorance worldwide.

  • ||

    unequivocally he and President Bush were the two worst deficit spenders in our nation's history

    Check your math. I believe the current President is the reigning world champ.

  • Smooth Barry O||

    Is the Barry Bonds of SPENDERS.

  • LifeStrategies||

    Now the current Democratic President - Obama - has surpassed all records with lots of help from the GOP in Congress.

    Both parties pretend to compete, but they both like spending your money. Libertarians seem to be the only ones willing to realize you can't spend your way out of debt!

  • Fatty Bolger||

    President Obama is closer to Bill Clinton than Jimmy Carter in substance

    Hah! No.

  • KPres||

    "It's also worth noting that if Ronald Reagan ever finds his way onto a piece of currency it should be a credit card, because unequivocally he and President Bush were the two worst deficit spenders in our nation's history (not accounting for times of war or economic crisis)."

    Actually, Obama has already surpassed Reagan's 2 terms, and should surpass Bush's 2 terms before the next election.

  • RyanXXX||

    I'm starting to think Tony, etc. are right about this place being populated mostly by frusterated Republicans.

    You guys are taking time out of your day to defend Bush? Really?

    Reagan only looks good in hindsight, as well.

  • Montani Semper Liberi||

    A+. Would read again. Take note liberal trolls, this is how it's done.

  • Old Mexican||

    Wow. I thought Reason was supposed to be a serious publication[...]


    If I had a penny for every....

    http://cache.kotaku.com/assets.....mcduck.jpg

  • ||

  • Paul||

    President Obama is closer to Bill Clinton than Jimmy Carter in substance

    I uhh, compliment or insult?

  • Smooth Barry O||

    Is as bright as Carter, but no where near as bright as Clinton.

  • Spiny Norman||

    You should cancel your subscription to this blog.

  • ||

    President Obama is closer to Bill Clinton than Jimmy Carter in substance. QE2 is the only thing that kept us from deflation (though it needs to start rolling back). And the job numbers this morning were terrific.

    Honestly, how much of a TEAM BLUE zombie do you have to be to actually believe any of this shit?

  • nekoxgirl||

    How much does the DNC pay you to come here and bother us?

  • George Soros||

    Ahhh my deeyar...I pay pretty penny to foyal evul Koch bros.! Now, I crush you currency...behold! Bwaaaahaahahahaha!

  • Slavish Progressive||

    Slurp, slurp, please send me another million, Mr Soros.

  • ||

    "Boy the way Led Zeppelin played.
    Songs that made the Hit Parade.
    Even ugly guys got laid.
    Those were the days.

    You never knew who you slept with
    cause guys looked like girls as much as men.
    Mister we could use a man
    like Jimmy Carter again.

    He kept growing the welfare state.
    But deregulating beer was great.
    Gee, our old Gremlin ran great.
    Those were the daaaaaaaaaaaays."

  • Concerned Citizen||

    awesome

  • ||

    Brilliant. And parodying a song from a 70s sitcom closes the deal.

  • Fatty Bolger||

    Verra nice.

  • ||

    +1

  • The Other Kevin||

    I was very young during the 70's, but what I do remember is that for the most part music was terrible, and even worse was the sense of style. Seems like everything in our house was brown or rust colored. The clothing was just as bad.

  • Ice Nine||

    Those were earth tones, man. Earth tones, Earth Day, Earth Wind and Fire, Earth Shoes, Rare Earth, Earth mothers - the earth was very hip in the 70s.

  • ||

    70's music was particularly terrible. otoh, that terribleness brought us punk as a backlash.

  • ||

    Replace "earth" with "Gaia", and -

    Voila! The oh-tens!!!

  • RockLibertyWarrior||

    WTF is it with all these comments about 70's music sucking? Sure you had disco but what about Led Zeppelin, Black Sabbath, Queen, Pink Floyd, Rush, Parliament, Sex Pistols, Lynrd Skynryd etc. It seems to me there is alot of people on this forum who wouldn't know good music if it hit them on the head. Maybe alot of you are too young to appreciate good music.

  • SIV||

    You are right, for the most part, about mainstream fashion in the 1970s. There was quite a bit of impressive "alternative fashion" particularly in various sub-cultural scenes. The one really cool mainstream fashion trend took off at the end of the decade and reached it's apogee in the early 1980s.Chicks wearing shiny metallic lycra spandex.

  • Ted S.||

    I was a kid in the 1970s, and in my coloring books, I would try to color the people as wearing plaid pants.

    Tough to do with crayons.

  • ||

    "Chicks wearing shiny metallic lycra spandex."

    Prob was that the guys took that up too.

  • MC Hammer||

    I'm still too legit to quit! Stop! Hammer time...

  • ||

    It could cost as much as $7.5 million to repair damage protesters have done to the Capitol Building marble say officials in Madison. Fixing posters to the marble with tape and glue appears to have done the bulk of the damage.

    During testimony Thursday, a representative from the Attorney General's office said a contractor estimated it would cost $500,000 to remove all of the posters and garbage. He says it would cost $6 million to restore the marble inside of the Capitol building and another $1 million to touch up the marble outside of the building.

    (I'll try posting a ling, but it might be considered spam by the server squirrels).

  • ||

    Yup

  • Confused||

    "Fixing posters to the marble with tape and glue appears to have done the bulk of the damage."

    The fuck? How can marble be so weak?

  • Binky||

    It was government red tape. Everything gets eaten away by that stuff, and the subsequent rip-offs just compound the damage.

  • ||

    You are the witty one...

  • Zeb||

    The protesters certainly have a right to assemble in the capitol building and air their grievances, but shouldn't the ones who did all this be charged for vandalism or littering or something? Like a bunch of spoiled children more than anything else.

  • ||

    Fuck, does this mean I have to wear bell bottoms again?

    The 70's did suck, except for music:

    1971 = Meddle
    1973 = Dark Side of the Moon
    1975 = Wish You Were Here
    1977 = Animals

  • Elvis Costello and the Clash||

    Sure you aren't forgetting some?

  • ||

    The Wall came out at the end of 1979, but I didn't include it because it is one of my least favorite floyd albums.

    I am sure there is some other stuff I am missing:

    1971 = LA Woman
    1975 = Frampton comes alive
    1976 = 2112
    1977 = News to the World (My very first Rock and Roll album

  • Ska||

    As did London Calling, which has to be in my top 5 of rock albums ever.

  • Redland Jack||

    Two of my top five albums are from the 1970's (oddly, the other three are from 2001-2003):
    1972 = Thick as a Brick
    1974 = The Lamb Lies Down on Broadway

  • db||

    HFC,

    Fly by Night
    2112
    Hemispheres
    Relayer
    Excitable Boy
    Van Halen
    Brain Salad Surgery
    Communique

    No-one who rejects the music of the '70s as nothing but dicso crap can be taken seriously.

  • Led Zeppelin!||

    You guys forgot a band in this thread. Not just #I (yeah, dated '69), II, III, 'zofo' & Houses... but especially Physical Graffiti ('75).

    The LSD, mescaline and peyote were good too.

  • Elvis Costello unforgettable||

    but I can easily forget the Clash.

  • ||

    ZZ Top, mofos....

  • Fatty Bolger||

    Pop music for the most part sucked. But there was great stuff coming from the rock-bands-in-exile.

  • Mike Laursen||

    For music, the Sixties really ended, and the Seventies really started in 1973. The exact moment may have been when Jonathan Richman and the Modern Lovers played at Gram Parson's wake.

  • The Other Kevin||

    Is Justin Bieber this generation's David Cassidy?

  • Ted S.||

    No; he's this generation's Shaun Cassidy.

  • ||

    Yanno, that's probably the BEST description of him I've seen of Bieber yet. Shaun Cassidy. Just glad I wasn't drinking anything when I read that.

  • Cowboy||

    Let's not forget: The 1972 Miami Dolphins

  • alan||

    And if we did, they will remind you every time the last undefeated team of a season falls. Christ on a Cracker, I was a huge Griese fan as a wee lad, but, man, I want that record laid to rest one day. Preferably by the Cleveland Browns, because nobody would see that shit coming.

  • ||

    So what would the odds on that be for the 2011 season? Do numbers go that high?

  • Obama||

    Look under my desk.

  • ||

    And Bernanke is right on monetary policy.

    The dollar is stronger than it was three years ago before QE1 or QE2 began. There is no correlation between higher commodity prices and monetary policy.

  • Growlygus||

    As man finds more efficient was to produce commodities, commodity prices should trend down. They are trending up. Why?

  • ||

    Russia now forbids wheat exports and China is in the midst of a 200 year worst drought - Australia is flooding its grain region, world demand is up, the US wastes grain on ethanol, Brazil sugar harvests are down, demand itself is up everywhere.

    Mining cannot keep pace with metal demand, cotton is near all-time highs due to demand and less land devoted to it.

    This season is crucial - speculators will be all over supply constraints.

  • Paul||

    To say there's no correlation between [higher] commodity prices and monetary policy is dubious.

    You might argue that a particular rise (or drop) in commodity prices is not related to monetary policy, but monetary policy can definitely affect commodity prices, just like it can affect prices on anything. If the fed makes paper dollars cheap and abundant, what's going to happen to prices?

  • ||

    Because prices are not rising except in some fungible commodities in high world demand.

    Major components of inflation levels are stagnant in the USA - see labor, home prices, commercial real estate, equipment, electronics, and engineering.

    Look at the 10-yrs that are repriced daily - they see inflation at a fraction of a percent for a decade.

  • alan||

    We get it already. You're a loser. There is no reason to continue to remind everyone.

  • Paul||

    Monetary policy influence of commodity prices:

    Real interest rates are an important influence on real prices of mineral and agricultural commodities.
    [...]
    High interest rates reduce the demand for storable commodities, or increase the supply, through a variety of channels:
    ¤ by increasing the incentive for extraction today rather than tomorrow (think of the rates at which oil is pumped, gold mined, forests logged, or livestock herds culled)
    ¤ by decreasing firms' desire to carry inventories (think of oil inventories held in tanks)
    ¤ by encouraging speculators to shift out of spot commodity contracts, and into treasury bills.

    All three mechanisms work to reduce the market price of commodities, as happened when real interest rates where high in the early 1980s. A decrease in real interest rates has the opposite effect, lowering the cost of carrying inventories, and raising commodity prices, as happened from August 2007 to September 2008. Call it an example of the "carry trade."
  • ||

    "There is no correlation between higher commodity prices and monetary policy."

  • ||

    There is no correlation between higher commodity prices and monetary policy.

  • ||

    There is no correlation between higher commodity prices and monetary policy.

  • ||

    That level of ignorance could make you sterile even when shielded behind 6' thick concrete walls.

  • ||

    "There is no Soviet domination of eastern Europe."

    (Seein' as how this is a 70's thread...)

  • Paul||

    Holy... is George Schultz smoking in that picture?

  • ||

    Why not, hash was 15 cents a gram.

  • ||

    What is with all this 70s music sucked crap? Black Sabbath, Thin Lizzy, Motorhead, and Iron Maiden all formed during the 70s. If you want to get technical Maiden didn't get Dickinson until 81 and Sabbath formed/started doing early demos in 68. That's pretty much the foundation metal was laid on, and if you're not into metal, you are not my friend!

  • AlmightyJB||

    Ozzy is God

  • ||

    If you want to get technical Maiden didn't get Dickinson until 81

    As much as I like Bruce, Paul Di'Anno had a better sound. It made them a little punkier. Those first two albums are the fucking best.

  • db||

    Yes, THE Bruce Dickinson.

  • ||

    Right on, Bro!

  • RockLibertyWarrior||

    Amen Sean!

  • AlmightyJB||

    This was the best thing about the 70's

    http://www.cybertown.com/ffposter.html

  • Tony||

    The whole Obama=Carter thing is entirely the product of a right wing that wants the comparison to be apt, because in their minds Carter was a failure, and more importantly a one-termer. Obama is not Carteresque in any way.

  • Ballpunch||

    "Obama is not Carteresque in any way."

    Why, because he's not even white? Racist.

  • Hey Tone-Def||

    He's not Carteresque, but he is undeniably Nixonian.

  • ||

    I'd agree. I've been comparing him to Nixon for the past year. Enemy lists and all...

  • Robert||

    Even before reading the article, I just had to jump at this silly label, "Carteresque", and I'm glad someone else has started the jumping. Obama resembles Carter only in possibly some very abstract spreadsheet-entry way. He's less like Carter than most of Carter's successors as president. Obama's no damn good, but he's not much like Carter, and even in the evaluative sense, Carter, although bad, was better than Obama. Carter's been more of an asshole since leaving office.

  • Tony||

    And, in fact, why is it considered a strike against Obama to be like Carter?

    Carter was a moral capable, president, as is Obama. Most of the problems of his administration were either inherited or beyond his control, just like Obama's problems.

  • ||

    Right...

  • ||

    Carter was the most libertarian president since pre-Lincoln times - it goes unchallenged. He deregulated air, trucking, finance, power - he never raised income/cap gains taxes, he avoided idiot wars and respected civil liberties.

    Reagan, Clinton, and Obama were/are middling - Bush the Fascist was downright anti-Libertarian.

    Don't fuck with Tony. He is not an LP goon - I was.

  • Fuck shrke||

    Barry is Nixon's son. Forget those other comparisons. They both inherited problems and made them all worse on purpose.

  • ||

    Winner!

  • ||

    "He avoided idiot wars..."

    Iran hostage crisis, anyone? My, how obamaesque...

  • Selective Service||

    Have you registered, slaves? It's the law.

  • cynical||

    "Carter was a moral capable, president"

    "Obama is not Carteresque in any way."

    You said it, not me.

  • Ballpunch||

    Oh, HERE it comes out. I somehow knew it would. It's funny, I know a couple other Carter apologists, and the contortions they engage in to defend the unmitigated disaster that was his too-long one term always remind me of Mahmoud Ahmajinedad trying to find a polite way to deny the Holocaust.

    Stick as many fig leafs on it as you like, we all know an *sshole when we see one.

  • ||

    You must have missed the Bushpig - who lied us into a disaster war, blew up the budget, and caused a financial crisis not seen since the 1930's.

    Your stupidity is preserved here for posterity.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    You must have missed the Bushpig - who lied us into a disaster war, blew up the budget, and caused a financial crisis not seen since the 1930's.


    And how did he cause the financial crisis?

  • ||

    Bush purposefully blew up sub-prime via the ownership society.

    He gave away $10,000 via the American Dream Downpayment Act to each borrower, he subverted attempts to rein in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, he colluded with Greenspan to stop regs and lower interest rates in an up cycle, he killed off leverage limits on banks with his Net Capital Rule which allowed banks to go to 40/60-1 leverage from earlier 8-1 leverage.

    Let me buy stock on 60-1 leverage and I will either get rich or bust - and if I bust write me a TARP check.

    Bush 43 is the biggest fucking idiot this country has ever produced.

  • l0b0t||

    Carter and Bush 43 similarly misuse the word nucular when they mean to say nuclear but Carter was a nuclear engineer in the USN so he really should know better. They both also have shifty, n'er-do-well brothers, although IMO, Neil Bush caused far more damage than Billy Carter.

  • Maybe, SHreek.||

    But you are a certified Koran-Humper.

  • CatoTheElder||

    The financial crisis is a fully bi-partisan clusterfuck, but you're right about Bush's fatuous ideas about an ownership society.

    BTW, the Community Reinvestment Act was a product of the Carter Administration. Though not by any means the only cause of the crisis, Clinton era regulation promulgated pursuant to the CRA was an integral part of the cause of the financial crisis.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    Bush purposefully blew up sub-prime via the ownership society.

    And of course, the Dems were dragged along with this kicking and screaming, right? Right?

    he subverted attempts to rein in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac

    Check out the RIGHT WING SUBVERSION!!

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs

    he killed off leverage limits on banks with his Net Capital Rule which allowed banks to go to 40/60-1 leverage from earlier 8-1 leverage.

    And that's why, when they had a supermajority in the House and Senate, and Obama took office, they reinstituted Glass-Steagall, right? Right?

  • Tony||

    And of course, the Dems were dragged along with this kicking and screaming, right? Right?

    Heads Bush wins, tails Democrats lose.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    Heads Bush wins, tails Democrats lose.

    Hey, just watch the clip, Tony--your beloved Dems are right there in bold, moronic color, pretending that nothing's wrong with housing values going through the roof for no apparent reason.

  • ||

    *Bush* "subverted attempts to rein in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac"? I think you're dreaming: it was Democrats who defended them every step of the way, and even now.

  • Justin Cases||

    Yeah, its not like the Democrats are in charge at Fannie and Freddie and swore blind there were no problems there when the Republicans wanted to look into it.

    It's not like Obama himself was responsible for suing banks because there weren't being generous enough with the loans they were giving out to people that couldn't afford them.

    You're a fucking tool if you really want to argue that Republicans were all about giving easy loans to people that couldn't afford them.

  • ||

    My Libertarian cred is pretty strong, and I have to say that yes, Bush contributed strongly to the explosion of 2008 through easy-money policy. Deficit spending, tax policy encouraging the inflation of the housing bubble, and unlimited backstops for poorly run financial institutions all took flight under his administration and led to the explosion.

  • ||

    What the fuck does Bush have to do with Carter's merits? Try to stay focussed here shrike. Resist your Bushpig Tourette's for once.

  • juris imprudent||

    What will it take to get America moving this time?

    CBGB

  • Robert||

    Look up the history of the most prominent deregulations associated with Carter, and it turns out -- as I was shocked to learn -- that it was the Nixon administration that got the ball rolling. Under Nixon various commissions were quietly set to work studying federal regulation of various businesses, and they unrolled their findings, advocating deregulation, over the years to follow. What Carter's administration did was not sweep the recommendations under the rug but enact those that could be done without legislation, and push legislation for those that required it.

    Some changes took place earlier; you know, of course, about the end of the draft. Not everything went through; the temporary placement of marihuana in schedule 1 of the Controlled Substances Act remained rather than, as was "supposed" to happen, its being put into a less restrictive schedule once the findings came in.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    Look up the history of the most prominent deregulations associated with Carter, and it turns out -- as I was shocked to learn -- that it was the Nixon administration that got the ball rolling. Under Nixon various commissions were quietly set to work studying federal regulation of various businesses, and they unrolled their findings, advocating deregulation, over the years to follow. What Carter's administration did was not sweep the recommendations under the rug but enact those that could be done without legislation, and push legislation for those that required it.


    One good thing in which he did get the ball rolling was the CIA intervention in Afghanistan when the Soviets invaded.

  • ||

    yes, the 70's were Carter's fault..hello, anyone remember the completely anti-free market policies of Nixon and Ford??? I was only in the single digits, but Jesus I remember I bit of history. Price controls? WIN? making friends with communists? complete violation of rights, the Constiution by Nixon and pals? where is the balance to the supposedly conservative site Reason people? the only consistent person I've been reading is Chapman. This is a site for GOP thinking and the GOP is completely about more gov't just like dems.

  • Fatty Bolger||

    Drink! And why not? It's Friday night, after all.

  • Mr Whipple©®™||

    What about the "Guns-N-Butter" policies of Johnson? That is what really caused our vaults to be depleted of gold, which led to the "Nixon Shock". Can you say "Bretton Woods"?

  • Concerned Citizen||

    Exactly!

  • juris imprudent||

    where is the balance to the supposedly conservative site Reason people?

    Another glass of chardonnay!

  • Mr Whipple©®™||

    Heineken Chardonnay? Fuck that shit! Pabst...Blue...Ribbon

  • ||

    guess if you like soda, PBR is ok..

  • ||

    Everybody's really showing their TEAM BLUE/RED ass on this thread, no?

  • ||

    Just do what I'm doing. Keep your head down, and drink quietly until all the tu toque fallacies stop flying through the air like shirikens.

  • ||

    ROFL, too true.

  • commentkazi||

    Breakfast of Champions...1973

  • Adonisus||

    Well, at least the 70s were awesome as far as Rock was concerned.

    KISS, Led Zeppelin, Black Sabbath, Blue Oyster Cult, Alice Cooper, Aerosmith, Boston, Ted Nugent, Yes, Genesis.......granted, alot of the stuff that topped the charts then was utter garbage, but at least we had a viable rock scene with concerts that blew your mind with the lazers and pyrotechnics.

  • Adonisus||

    Sadly, the 70s was also when The Christian Right became a powerful voting force.

  • ||

    I remember the 70's as double digit inflation, unemployment , and interest rates. Gas lines where you could only buy gas every other day, Trickie Dick, useless Carter and leisure suits. Great Rock, shitty disco and weed. Lots of weed.Then Reagan showed up and cleaned up this trainwreck, and set us up on on an unbelievable prosperity cycle

  • Mr Whipple©®™||

    For a website that is supposed to be "libertarian"....

    Jesus H Christ. All of the talk here about all of the "good" and "bad" that came out of the 70s, not one mention of the formation of the Libertarian Party.

    Geeze. Libertarians, indeed.

    So! Drink, bitchez!

  •  ||

    Indeed, the 70s was the Libertarian Party's zenith.

  • Mr Whipple©®™||

    Why yes, I believe I did own a Zenith in the 70s. It came with one of these:

    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wi.....er_600.jpg

  • Predicador||

    Googlė AdSense thinks "Uzbekistan News Updates" are somehow relevant to all this. :D

  • ||

    Although I'm a conservative, I have to agree with Perlstein on this one. The inclusion of 1.3B Chinese, 1B Indians and countless Indonesians and Brazilians into the world's market economy MUST have a huge impact on american standards of living. Here's how I think it will play out:

    1. The Lower Middle class will be hardest hit. These are people with only a HS degree; those who used to get all those high paying union jobs that no longer exist. This huge and growing class will see significant reductions in standards of living while working 1-2 minimum wage/part time jobs and achieving permanent quasi-welfare status.
    2. The Middle class. Semi professionals with some college education like electricians, physical therapists, etc. A huge struggle to just maintain where they're at. Some reductions in standards of living.
    3. The Upper Middle class. The lawyers, doctors, managerial class. Not much drop for them, but no improvement either.

    Once our wages/benefits (standard living) reaches some level of equilibrium with China/Inda/etc. then we'll be able to compete again.

    The formula is aggressive GDP growth. It would be a disaster to follow the Left's ideology by transferring vast wealth (i.e. investment capital) from the top to the bottom and to leap headlong into 1970s era european socialism.

  • l0b0t||

    "The inclusion of 1.3B Chinese, 1B Indians and countless Indonesians and Brazilians into the world's market economy MUST have a huge impact on american standards of living." Got a source for that claim of fact? Life is not a zero-sum game, one person getting wealthy does not make another person poor.

  • MNG||

    But for those in the same labor market one person willing to do the same work for less than another will push that wage down, right?

  • l0b0t||

    Not necessarily, there are many variables involved. Remember the claim that I was challenging was that "The inclusion of 1.3B Chinese, 1B Indians and countless Indonesians and Brazilians into the world's market economy MUST have a huge impact on american standards of living." not "The inclusion of 1.3B Chinese, 1B Indians and countless Indonesians and Brazilians into the world's market economy MIGHT have a huge impact on American standards of living." It's the absolutist language that shoots down JohnR22's argument (and yours as well BTW).

  • Realist||

    Ifm an uneducated Chinese rice farmer can do your job...you're fucked. This is what unions are for to protect the useless!

  • Realist||

    ...should be "If"

  • ||

    Actually, I like "Ifm." It soundsm better.

  • ||

    Protect the "useless?" Don't forget the Lazy, Weak and Stupid!

  • Tncm||

    You're making the common mistake that labor is homogeneous. Indonesians and Chinese will lower wage rates only in markets that they enter into, and even then only if they can do the same amount of work as their American counterparts. I suppose average wage rates will fall, sure, but I can't see the wages of lawyers falling due to the liberalization of the Chinese and Indonesian economies.

    And lets be honest, nominal wage rates don't matter to begin with. The loss in wages will be more than offset by the increased production brought about by a larger supply of labor. Deflation via increased production is a wonderful thing.

  • ||

    These are people with only a HS degree

    And...... cut!

    Credentialist bullshit, blah, blah, blah...

    "What this country needs is more useless unskilled idiots mired in debt because they wasted four (or six) years getting an irrelevant piece of paper!"

  • MNG||

    Er, maybe he was implying that some knowledge and skills might come along with all those hours of classes you have to sit in to get that piece of paper...

  • Fatty Bolger||

    I don't know what he was implying, but unfortunately he and P Brooks are both right. The quality of a college education is far out of sync with its high cost. It's become more of a way to weed out the riff raff.

  • Realist||

    Exactly....skip college an go to work for GM, making $45/hour bolting in transmissions.

  • ||

    Where do I start?

    I'll keep my comments to the specifics of Jerry Brown as our new governor-and YES, I USED TO BE A REPUBLICAN...after the deregulation and decimation of millions of jobs due to non-enforcement of the Sherman Antitrust Act and Taft-HArtley, I couldn't vote for Mr. Reagan again, but I digress.

    Gov. Brown is ABSOLUTELY the guy to get us out of the doldrums and clean up the budget!

    As the most fiscally conservative Democrat in politics, he has voted in the past against muni/state employee raises while governor and mayor of Oakland. It is a MYTH he is owned by the unions...soooooo, as for California being such a state in decline, why have the Chinese chosen Los Angeles for its' North American operations site of their rapidly growing automobile industry and their huge electric conglomerate? We are the country's if not the world leaders in biotech and green tech. How can this be a bad thing?

    And finally,our deficit as a percentage of GDP is one of, if not the LOWEST in the US. Always remember our economy is the seventh largest IN THE WORLD.

    Anne Gabriel, Patriot

  • l0b0t||

    Please explain for us how "millions of jobs" were lost (you actually said "decimated" which means reduce by 1/10th but we can probably chalk that mistake up to the wonderful public school system) by "non-enforcement of the Sherman Antitrust Act and Taft-Hartley"?

  • ||

    What is this lieux d'aisance crap? (Pun intended.) Trying to impress the liberals?

  • ||

    We haven't seen Jimmy Carter lately, but we sure have seen Jimmy Obama! Obama has now easily overtaken Jimmy Carter as the worst President in at least 100 years. Jimmy Carter never even thought of plunging the nation into the kind of debt that Obama has created for us. Jimmy had the Iran catastrophe, Obama has the entire Middle East ablaze and gasoline prices shooting over $5 a gallon. Our only hope is that we can end the incompetence and failure and find another Reagan in 2012! If not we may not recover for generations!

  • ||

    "The first time around, stagflation was defeated by a combination of tight monetary policy, deregulation, market competition, and supply-side tax policy."

    Well, if the Obama Administration has already tried loose monetary policy, heavily regulating the financial industry, sucking all the market competition out of the healthcare sector, and completely ignoring supply-side tax policy?

    Then may I humbly suggest we try a combination of tight monetary policy, deregulation, market competition, and supply-side tax policy?

  • ||

    What will it take to get America moving this time?

    The new president takes real initiative and shows the way: she abolishes several incompetent departments in her administration (Education, HUD, FCC, etc), immediately announces the construction of 1,000 new power plants, unleashes domestic oil and natural gas production, and, taking a page from the one-term Obama administration, her AG refuses to enforce certain federal anti-business laws and regulations she personally decides are unconstitutional.

    In short, the new president stuns the world with her novel new approach: being pro-America at every turn.

  • High Point||

    What will it take to get America moving this time?

    Basically the same thing that Reagan did, hopefully with a more conservative Congress.

  • Charles||

    You mean massive government spending and tax cuts?

    Done and Done!

    So where's my recovery?

  • zoltan||

    Fuck pro-America, I want a pro-Constitution president.

  • RyanXXX||

    That is one of the ugliest parts of Reagan's legacy. The jingoistic, chest-thumping "USA! USA!" bullshit.

    "Pro-America"???? It's almost as meaningless as "support the troops."

  • l0b0t||

    I don't know. I seem to recall an awful lot of America, Love It Or Leave It & My Country, Right Or Wrong during the early 1970s. Also, the run-up to the bicentennial saw every available surface plastered with the flag. Hell, Merle Haggard wrote "Okie From Muscogee" in 1960 and released in 1969.

  • ||

    Gallup, not "Gallop"

  • ||

    U.S.A. State Sponsored Terror (rock music video) Released

    Anti U.S. Police State Musician/activist releases his 5th rock video.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXbojImKNlI

    Television interview at:

    http://www.youtube.com/user/RT.....KxmgZRUOnU

  • ||

    "What will it take to get America moving this time?" Oh that's easy to answer. It will take a president, legislature and Fed that understands that the only way to create jobs is by improving the income statement of business through appropriate policies. That means that we must reduce regulation so that business can work more quickly and competitively. We must also CUT federal spending very very much to bring the balance of payments into balance - if our competitors don't have our debt to buy they will have to buy our products!! We must also reduce taxes on people that pay taxes so that they will invest in their businesses. Wow, that was easy to say. The hard part is doing those simple things.

  • x,y||

    A Carteresque president? Oh, you mean the guy you voted for because he is black.

  • l0b0t||

    ^^THIS^^ Those that answered thus need to be reminded of their stupid choice again, and again, and again.

  • ||

    "Jbama"?

  • ||

    Hate to break the news to you but the Jimmy Carter economy was far stronger than the GW economy. For starters, Jimmy Carter ranks #1 in job creation. He created 10 million jobs and the population was about 50% of the current population. He created more jobs in 6 monthsn than Bush created in 8 years.

    Let's look at the numbers:
    US
    1977 to 1981
    Consumer Price Index 10.67%
    Unskilled Wage 8.77%
    Nominal GDP 11.40%
    Real GDP 2.72%
    GDP Deflator 8.45%
    Nominal GDP per capita 10.21%
    Real GDP per capita 1.62%
    S&P Composite 11.70%
    Population (millions) 1.09%

    US
    2001 to 2009
    Consumer Price Index 2.43%
    Unskilled Wage 2.18%
    Nominal GDP 4.04%
    Real GDP 1.60%
    GDP Deflator 2.40%
    Nominal GDP per capita 3.07%
    Real GDP per capita 0.65%
    S&P Composite -3.29%
    Population (millions) 0.94%

  • l0b0t||

    Except that neither Bush or Carter created ANY jobs. Creating jobs is not one of responsibilities of the POTUS.

  • ||

    Wrong about Carter. Apparently you have never heard of the Humphrey–Hawkins Full Employment Act signed into law by Carter in 1978.

    But you are right about Bush. He never crated any jobs.

  • ||

    Since when is anybody around here defending the Bush Administration on anything?!

    joe, is that the real joe?

    Who around here thinks the disgusting Bush Administration should be defended as a shining example of anything except bailouts, piling on debt and torture?

    This is still a libertarian site, right?

    Nobody skewered the Bush Administration around here more than me--is that the new standard we're supposed to compare Obama to? Is comparing Obama to Bush somehow supposed to make Obama look better by comparison?

    That won't work on Ken Shultz.

  • l0b0t||

    "...Act signed into law by Carter in 1978."

    Joe are you retarded or just obtuse? Signing a law that was written, proposed, debated, & passed by the legislative branch != creating jobs.

  • Tony||

    And if Bush's tax cuts had created 20 million jobs instead of none at all, I'm sure you'd have exactly the same attitude.

  • l0b0t||

    Tony, I know you are stupid, but try to pay attention to basic civics. The president did not cut taxes, the president did not create, save, or lose any jobs. Employment relations between individual actors in the marketplace do not, in any way, shape, or form fall under the purview of the chief executive. If you are looking for a branch of govt. to credit or blame then the legislative branch is where you should cast your gaze, not the executive.

  • Merriam Webster||

    Tim Cavanaugh, you're a "senior editor" (cough) and you can't spell Gallup? It's in the first sentence. Way to make a splash in "journalism" there, buddy.

    Funk n Wagnall noticed. Your spell checker didn't? Howsabout your editor? What's that? Oh, right - your work isn't edited because you're an editor already.

  • ||

    Wow, "Merriam".
    You are one shaaarrrp minutia maven!
    What an insightful and erudite post.
    You spotted the typo, and you did it all by yourself?
    We are all impressed.
    BTW, as long as we're being picky, you might want to add a comma after "...(cough)..." It's that conjunction, two-thoughts joined thing.
    Now why don't you go back to lining up your socks in a drawer, or whatever it is folks like you do.

  • LASERTAZER||

    +1

  • Tim Cavanaugh||

    Corrected. Thanks for the note.

  • ||

    Carter?
    Last time I looked, he was fighting off an attack by a killer rabbit with an oar.
    Don't know if he made it or not.

  • ||

    Have I seen Jimmy Carter? Yeah. He's in the White House, wearing Black Face.
    Everybody knows that.

  • ||

    I've seen Jimmy Carter. He's alive and well in at 1600 Pennsylvania.

  • ||

    what deregulatory bill or act did carter put through im curious,,

  • ||

    There can't be another 1980s. That was a one shot deal.

    Reagan had the luxury of being the first conservative charlatan to promise a no-tax Utopia with no consequences.

    He dropped taxes which stimulated the economy but caused a tripling of the debt. Bush 1 and Bush 2 accelerated that tactic.

    The result? Enormous debt and deficits. The card has been played, the secret behind the tax cut-trick revealed. Can't be done again. Not without destroying us.

    Which is precisely what today's conservatives would like to do.

  • ||

    I love it when someone brings up the Carter mythology as believed by conservatives.

    Unemployment in 77 when Carter took office was 7.1%. When he left it was 7.1%. Since I was there, I remember the two deep recessions in the nixon era when the DOW lost HALF its value and the country was in turmoil due to nixon's republican criminality.

    But what's that? Unemployment rates hit a very high level two years into reagan's first term! In fact, 33 states hit their highest unemployment rates of the last 37 years records have been kept in either 82 or 83, under....wait for it.....REAGAN!

    You can also find yourself a chart of federal revenue increases under Carter showing how they rose steadily only dropping like a rock after reagan's first wave of tax cuts. In fact, In a recent NYTimes article (Four Deformations of the Apocalypse), David Stockman, reagan's first budget director, talks about the folly of modern republicans thinking. He says they had to roll back 40% of reagan's cuts or bankrupt the country. He says the modern republicans are crazy. Go read it. if you think you can.

    As for interest rates as a measure of economic health: They're near zero right now. Have been for some time.

    How's that working out?

  • Tim Cavanaugh||

    Unemployment hit its peak in 1982 under Reagan? You must have read that in a Reason cover story.

    David Stockman criticizing contemporary Republicans? Sounds like a 42-minute Reason interview I saw.

    You'll find all your other points addressed by google-izing "site:reason.com".

    Though you won't find anybody claiming interest rates are a "measure of economic health." (Wha?)

  • ||

    But you didn't present any of those facts in your misty-eyed reminiscence of the Reagan years. You talked of "the crash of 79", not the mini-Depression of 82. You didn't address the plummeting revenue that occurred after the much heralded 1981 tax cuts, the tripling of the debt.

    I have little interest in Google-ing counterpoints to your article. A well-written piece would have covered that.

    As for my mention of interest rates: When you present a conservative with the facts of how truly awful the reagan years were both then and in their future effects on the culture/economy, they inevitably bring up inflation or interest rates.

    Sorry for lumping you libertarians in with the conservatives, but since we're referencing past Reason talking points, I remember reading in the mag that what distinguishes libertarians from conservatives is sex and drugs. Libertarians are conservatives who want to be free to view porn and get high.

  • ||

    "Libertarians are conservatives who want to be free to view porn and get high."
    spoken like a regular at DU.

    Now from FREEREPUBLIC.COM:
    "LIBERALtarians are just low-tax Libs!"

  • zoltan||

    You're lazy and can't bring yourself to type in a search term that will find you myriad articles criticizing Reagan. Unworthy.

  • ||

    Articles in magazines are normally free-standing. You shouldn't have to research the archives to find facts or positions of the publication that should have been included in the article being presented.

    Though I do understand the child-like libertarian beliefs that somewhere out there is a magic conservative who will deliver that no-tax, full employment, full-service Utopia for free.

    Anyone else is criticized after the fact as not a "real" conservative who didn't deliver the goods. Because "real" conservatives are like unicorns and elves. Often anticipated, never seen.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    You shouldn't have to research the archives to find facts or positions of the publication that should have been included in the article being presented.

    Because "real" conservatives are like unicorns and elves. Often anticipated, never seen.

    So basically, they're the same as "real" liberals.
    "PLEASE DO MY RESEARCH FOR ME! I CAN'T BE BOTHERED TO PUT FORTH THE EFFORT MYSELF!!!"

    Tell you what--take your complaints in this regard to Mother Jones. It might be amusing seeing them cite old articles criticizing the TSA, given their current "The TSA keeps us safe!!" position.

  • ||

    Sorry, but when one reads an article in a periodical, one doesn't research the periodical's position on every issue they present.

  • l0b0t||

    Then one has either failed reading comprehension or is just too fucking lazy to type a search string. Regardless, one should keeps one's poorly researched, poorly thought out opinion to oneself.

  • ||

    The points of discussion (omitted by the author) are not in the article. That's the point.

    How can you comprehend something that's not there?

    And why would you search for an author's or publication's position on an issue not presented?

    You wouldn't.

    You libertarians are as intellectually dishonest as you are deluded.

  • Tim Cavanaugh||

    What misty-eyed reminiscence of the Reagan years? Inflation was 10.35% when Reagan came into office, 4.08% when he left. Unemployment was 7.6% when he came into office, 5.5% when he left. On that basis, I say stagflation was subdued by the combination of policies Reagan enacted/tolerated. Because Reagan also produced deficits that (while mild by contemporary standards) vastly exceeded those of his predecessor, his combination of policies is not repeatable, which is why I ask what recipe will work this time.

    If you want to come up with a suggestion, I'm all ears. If you want to say my stagflation argument is bullshit and we're not paying too much for gas, food and government services, go for it. If you want to say measuring inflation through CPI or CPE is itself bullshit, I shall call you brother.

    But the time for wanking is over.

  • ||

    This misty-eyed reminiscence:

    "The first time around, stagflation was defeated by a combination of tight monetary policy, deregulation, market competition, and supply-side tax policy. "

    One can almost hear "The Safety Dance" playing in the background.

    Those deficits of the reagan years were hardly mild when you consider that they TRIPLED the national debt. And, as I suggested before, get yourself a chart of federal revenues. Notice the steep drop after the 81 tax cuts. That set us on a path of disaster. It also encouraged the zombie lies that tax cuts always produce economic growth. As if the Laffer Curve has no inflection points.

    It was comparable to you running out and charging up a bunch of credit cards buying pretty things only to be bankrupt when the bills starting arriving. It looked nice but had a less-than-ideal outcome. That's why I stated that the reagan tricks could only be pulled once. When Bush II tried it, it not only doubled the debt in the 6 years from 2001 to 2007, it failed to create the economic growth that was promised.

    You want my solutions? You won't like them. They've become heretical in this backwards, selfish, greed-soaked culture. They involve returning us to the pre-reagan tax rates and a host of other reversals that probably aren't achievable seeing as how they've had 30 years to destroy our economy and our future.

    But then, that's precisely what was intended. "Starve the Beast" so that government goes into full retreat allowing the capitalist predators to run wild, much as they were allowed to do for most of the last decade, leading us to an awful place.

    If you have kids, better hope they are talented. It's going to be a jungle out there thanks to 30 years of conservative economic policies.

  • Tncm||

    "One can almost hear 'The Safety Dance' playing in the background."

    So stagflation wasn't stopped by those things?

    "Those deficits of the reagan years were hardly mild when you consider that they TRIPLED the national debt."

    I don't think that Tim or anyone else on here is arguing that the Reagan deficits are a good thing. But compared to the deficits incurred under the current presidential administration, I'd say they're pretty mild, though your mileage may vary on how mild.

    "It also encouraged the zombie lies that tax cuts always produce economic growth."

    Someone's been reading the poorly-constructed arguments in "Zombie Economics". I assume your talking about his argument against trickle-down economics, which, by the way, was a theory used by FDR to justify bailouts of large companies during the New Deal, but I digress.

    Tax cuts put control of economic resources back into the hands of individuals. Individuals can then use their new found money to make the structure of production more in-tune with consumer demand, which raises the standard of living. Production goes to satisfy consumer demand as opposed to "government" demand.

    "As if the Laffer Curve has no inflection points."

    The Laffer curve is a theory regarding federal revenue as it relates to taxation policy, not economic growth.

    "You want my solutions? You won't like them. They've become heretical in this backwards, selfish, greed-soaked culture."

    As opposed to the altruistic, environmentally-friendly culture where the government massively subsidizes the poor and rapes everyone else with taxes.

    "They involve returning us to the pre-reagan tax rates and a host of other reversals that probably aren't achievable seeing as how they've had 30 years to destroy our economy and our future."

    A return to pre-Reagan tax rates would be the death knell for our economy. You think the rich "voting with their feet" and international investors treating America like a lepor colony is bad now? Wait until you bring back income tax levels higher than most in Western Europe. That idea is so unbelievably stupid that people like Michael Moore would guffaw if you suggested it as a serious answers to our nation's budgetary problems.

    "But then, that's precisely what was intended. 'Starve the Beast' so that government goes into full retreat allowing the capitalist predators to run wild, much as they were allowed to do for most of the last decade, leading us to an awful place."

    I'm pretty sure our economic crisis was brought upon by artificially low interest rates, government-backed bank deposits which encouraged risky spending, and a slew of other government interventions in the economy.

  • ||

    1. Supply-side failed. Unless you think success is a tripling of the debt under reagan, doubling under bush, skyrocketing deficits and rampant income inequality with no return in the form of increased employment.

    George Bush cut taxes twice during wartime, something never done before in US history.

    In Bush’s 8 years, 3 million net jobs were created.

    Bill Clinton raised taxes.

    In his 8 years, 23 million jobs were created.

    The Kicker:
    In Jimmy Carter's 4 years, 10 million jobs were created.

    George bush: 3 million jobs in 8 years
    Jiimmy Carter: 10 million jobs in 4 years.

    Search "bush job creation" and read the article from the WSJ.

    2. The Laffer curve is the holy grail for the misguided notion that tax cuts always lead to increased revenue.

    3. The economic crisis was not brought on by government but by the lack of government oversight. I assume you subscribe to the "Barney Frank as Emperor" theory where Barney (a member of the minority party from 1995 to 2007 with no power, chairmanship or oversight) and his creations Fannie & Freddie loaned money to poor people who couldn't pay it back. That plays nicely into the inherent classism and racism of conservatives (and pseudo-conservative libertarians) but is far from the truth. Or perhaps you think JImmy Carter's CRA had a 34 year time delay? In either case you'd be wrong.

    Why Fannie & Freddie had nothing to do with the meltdown:

    Percentage of loans securitized by Fannie & Freddie:

    2003: 70%, 2004: 47%, 2005: 41%, 2006: 40%, 2007: 58%, 2008: 73%

    See the drop during the peak bubble years? That’s because WALL STREET was buying and securitizing the worst, most toxic loans.
    Fannie & Freddie picked up again after the crash. That’s the purpose of F&F, to buy loans. During the bubble, Wall Street was buying them as fast as they could to sell to unsuspecting investors, even selling them to F&F. Maybe even to your 401k manager!

    You can look all this up, but it will interfere with your racism-based explanation, that F&F loaned money to poor blacks because Emperor Barney Frank forced them to.

    As for the CRA:

    The CRA was passed in the 1970s to combat redlining, the practice of taking deposits from a working poor neighborhood and then not loaning them money for homes, businesses, education, etc. The idea was that the people who's deposits the bank was taking should be able to borrow it. It worked fine for decades. Nowhere in the Act does it force banks to make loans to the non-creditworthy. There are NO enforcement provisions in the Act.

    Your theory falls apart when you discover that 84% of the bad loans were made by lenders not subject to the CRA. Look it up. Also, people with loans over 1 million are defaulting at a much higher rate than the lower end. Are they poor people who got “CRA loans?”

    What the CRA theory does do is play to ignorance and deeply-held, misguided beliefs:

    1. PC liberals handing money to poor minorities, particularly black ones
    2. 2. Lazy, shiftless minorities not paying back the money
    3. The constant victimhood-seeking middle class having to pick up the tab.

    Those are very strong themes in the conservative American mind, built up over years of racist thinking.

  • ||

    Oh, and as for those deficits:

    The CBO projected the deficit at $1.2 trillion for 2009, two weeks before Obama took the oath.

    From FOX Business News, 1/7/09:

    Hill Aide: CBO to Forecast $1.2T Deficit in 2009

    WASHINGTON--The U.S. federal budget deficit will hit an unparalleled $1.2 trillion for the 2009 budget year, according to grim new Congressional Budget Office figures.
    The CBO estimate released Wednesday also sees the U.S. economy shrinking by 2.2% this year and recovering only slightly in 2010, and the unemployment rate eclipsing 9% early next year unless the Obama administration steps in.
    "The recession -- which began about a year ago -- will last well into 2009," the CBO report says.
    The dismal figures come a day after President-elect Barack Obama warned of "trillion-dollar deficits for years to come."
    (emphasis mine)

    The truth is always bad for the conservatives.

  • ||

    One more thing:

    The 8 Bush II years saw the creation of 3 million jobs.

    The 4 Carter years saw 10 million.

    Search the phrase "bush job creation" and see the story from the WSJ.

  • Robert Paulson||

    Nothing will get us going, we're doomed - Start learning Chinese

  • RyanXXX||

    Man, the republitards are really out on this one.

    Like people above said, the 1970's were not that bad. Great era for culture (cinema, music), and a libertine (maybe even libertarian) attitude toward social and military issues. Distrust of gov't was high due to Watergate and Vietnam.

    Jimmy Carter, from a libertarian perspective, was a better president that Reagan. Huge deficits for his day (admittedly small by today's standards), rampant protectionism, foreign policy disasters (again, small by today's standards), the "moral majority", and Just Say No should be enough to demolish the aura of worship surrounding ol' Ronnie. There's no excuse for a "libertarian" to look back on him with fondness.

  • ||

    The question was,Whwat will get America back again? I've said before and I say it again GET RID OF WTO & NAFTA. Most of the suff writen on News Line is a bunch of CRAP

  • ||

    Re: Bernanke. An inflationary policy has real effects and when the US pursues such a policy, the US is big enough to create a global wave of commodity speculation. Other nations cannot reasonably offset these real effects by allowing the value of their currencies to double.

    There is no doubt that the US will pay a huge long term price for the misdirected investments of the last decade together with the foolish bailouts of the banks. But the Obama Administration is digging a much deeper hole. The value of domestic assets and domestic labor is falling because of current policy. What is needed is deregulation, lower marginal tax rates combined with the elimination of credits and deductions, and true reform of the two government dominated sectors of the economy that are dragging us down: education and medical care.

  • منتدى العرب||

    Thank you

  • منتدى العرب||

    Thank you

  • ||

    Is somebody suggesting Obama is Carter in blackface? No wonder there's no birth records!

  • kelly||

    Whoa...since when did you guys start doing game commentary?

  • nike running shoes||

    is good

  • tory burch||

    oh,useful information.

  • قبلة الوداع||

    thank u

  • قبلة الوداع||

    thank u

  • دليل||

    asvasvzxv

  • mbti||

    asdvgasvcasv

  • xiingguan||

    asdvgasvcasv

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement