I personally didn’t get that from the highlight reels of the mid 70’s and early 80’s.
Mostly it was the total chaos, riots, and unrest.
They were also immediately followed by Reagan, who wasn’t exactly a shining beacon of progressivism.
But there were a lot of changes during that time, many that could be considered progressive, mixed in with (or perhaps the reason behind?) the chaos. A lot of folks don’t like change, after all.
Carter could have ended the soul-sapping, grinding misery of endless gas lines, like Reagan did on his very first day in office, with the stroke of a pen.
Carter had no idea how economics works. The prosperity of the 80's was great.
It was Carter who did most of the deregulation (air travel, trucks, trains — elimination of icc). Reagan switched to a deficit-based fiscalized economy, hollowed out manufacturing, and channeled cash upwards towards the wealthy.
Sure, the “prosperity of the 80's was great” for me — I was getting FAANG scale salary as a new grad to do AI development. But plenty of my friends were on the losing side of that divide (think, “breaking away”) and it wasn’t great for them, and never became great.
The economy has been on a long term trend of requiring more and more training since the start of the Industrial Revolution.
Reagan's two terms saw explosive growth in the computer and software industry.
If you're suggesting that Reagan should have tried protectionism, I suggest it is about as effective as the sanctions put on Russia & Iran to boost their economies.
I’m actually a big fan of Ricardo and free trade. Protectionism is not the only (and a destructive way) to address the dislocation of these kinds of transitions. But the USA of the 80s and 90s took then opposite path.
The national guard doesn't shoot people; that's been democratized to police and private citizens.
The big violent demonstrations are gone. What passes for it these days is a pale shadow.
One "benefit" of the increased inequality is that people making less than the median are too exhausted to demonstrate, much less rebel. Rebellion has always been the act of those who belong, and by excluding more of society there is "peace".
Scare quotes used in case it's not obvious that I don't approve.
Is that meant to be ironic or not? It is a fact that [real] incomes have not risen for decades, and now , at least in europe, we are facing catastrophic consequences
[2] Using the PCE inflation index, which includes energy and food prices: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/PCEPI -- I used January 1994 and January 2021 as the reference points.
I have spot checked the data cited there to compare with the Census data...
The 'median' earnings data they cite comes from the BLS 'usual weekly earnings' release.
One can check that release on the bls.gov website. It is labeled "Series Id: LES1252881500". I compared Q1 1994 to Q1 2021, inflation adjusted using the PCE index:
1994: $750
2021: $983
That is an increase of 31.1%. The Census data which I cited previously is annual earnings, not weekly, but it seems relatively consistent with the BLS data, as the Census data showed a growth rate of 34.4%.
In short, both sets of data show relatively consistent income growth over that period.
I gotta say, I should not be surprised at people advocating for inflation. But I am. High inflation has been the boogeyman, foe and underminer of economies world-wide, left-leaning and right-leaning, so I didn't see it coming. But here we are, people advocating for the erosion of purchasing power!
But, if it were a wining combination I guess we can expect Biden to embrace Inflation, Advocate for it and pronounce that he will redouble efforts to accelerate inflation so that we can all look forward to a better economy and better future with High Inflation.
This is WILD. I can't believe my eyes. Despite the Zimbabwe, Brazil, Turkey, etc., experience, people are making the case FOR inflation? My word.
Also, you’re assuming debt has fixed interest rates and asset prices will continue to rise forever. Neither of those things is likely to be true in the medium term (~5 years).
It’s complex. You can’t just look at high inflation in a vacuum without also considering that interest rates will rise (and possibly overcorrect) in response to high inflation.
Housing is pretty big counter-point for this. Everything is fine if you don't need to move, but if you need to you are unlikely to sell for what is left of your capital or be able finance with similar monthly payment. You are locked in your current house...
It’s very different if your debt is in your national currency ( that will loose value if your country turns to shite), or in another currency. US can print money as long as it wants to pay its debts. It may have an impact on the interest rate for future debts, but at least it won’t default on the current ones.
i think this would only work with fixed rate debt which narrows it down to home and, maybe, auto loans. However, there are variable loans for everything (including homes) and they're pushed heavily since there's more profit on a variable rate loan.
Ok. Show me economies that did well with high inflation. Where did that work, where is it working today? Are economists wrong to treat it as an electric third rail?
