3/First, let's bust the myth that Reagan tamed inflation.
It was Paul Volcker who tamed inflation, by raising interest rates.
And who appointed Volcker? Jimmy Carter.
And under which President did Volcker raise interest rates? Again, Jimmy Carter.
4/And of course, raising interest rates to beat inflation came at a cost -- two recessions.
The first of these was under...Jimmy Carter.
5/But did Carter do a whole lot of deficit spending, thus contributing to inflation?
No, he did not.
6/Carter knew Volcker was an inflation hawk. That's why he appointed him. He knew what the cost of beating inflation would likely be. He appointed Volcker anyway. (Reagan later fired Volcker.)
Carter is the conqueror of inflation.
7/Next, let's bust the myth that Reagan was the Great Deregulator. Sure, Reagan did some deregulating. But Carter did much more than Reagan, even in half the time!
8/Don't believe me? Let the libertarian Foundation for Economic Education and the libertarian magazine Reason make my case for me:
(He also did some financial deregulation they don't mention)
9/Carter enlisted the services of a ton of pro-deregulation advisors, including the economist Alfred Kahn, who testified to Congress that “The superiority of open markets…lies in the fact that the optimum outcome cannot be predicted.”
11/OK, on to the third myth: That Reagan outspent the USSR with a huge defense buildup and drove it into bankruptcy.
Yes, in absolute dollar terms, Reagan did increase military spending substantially...
12/BUT, note that Soviet military spending actually rose BEFORE U.S. military spending! And it didn't increase much when Reagan was President.
This suggests the U.S. buildup was a reaction to the Soviets, not a way to get them to spend themselves into bankruptcy!
13/And in fact, the Soviets did NOT spend themselves into bankruptcy. Here's spending as a percent of GDP. You can see that the Soviets came nowhere close to a wartime defense effort (and Reagan's buildup barely registers!).
14/So why did the USSR collapse in the 80s?
According to Yegor Gaidar, it was a drop in oil prices that dealt the final death blow to their tottering, sclerotic economic system
15/Neither Carter nor Reagan had much to do with the collapse in oil prices (it was due to a bunch of non-OPEC countries developing new oil production).
But note that one thing Carter DID do was to arm the mujahideen in Afghanistan to fight the Soviets!
16/So there you have it: Much of what you've heard about Carter and Reagan is a myth.
One lesson here is that people tend to associate economic trends with the President they occurred under, rather than the President who enacted the relevant policies.
17/Carter conquered inflation but it didn't fall until Reagan was in office. Carter deregulated, but the economy didn't boom til Reagan was in office. Carter armed the mujahideen, but the Soviets withdrew from Afghanistan under Reagan. Etc.
18/This means Carter deserves much more of the credit AND much more of the blame for the 1980s and the whole "neoliberal" era. If the Volcker recessions broke the power of labor, well, that was Carter. If deregulation increased inequality, that was also Carter.
19/It also means that U.S. policy has much more continuity than we realize.
20/I think busting these folk-historical myths can help us understand our current political age.
We're seeing a classic "thermostatic backlash" here, just like when Dems won a bunch of minor elections in 2017. Unless something big changes, a red wave in 2022 seems like a safe prediction at this point.
Also I do not think that Biden passing the BBB bill -- even a version of BBB untouched by Manchin! -- would have much effect on this, any more than the ARRA and ACA helped Dems avoid a wipeout in 2010.
I'm reading "The Sleepwalkers". About 10 minutes into the section about European politics, you realize that the question of why these people went to war has an obvious, boring answer: All of these people were just totally batshit insane.
Everyone in Britain, Russia, France and (eventually) Germany was just constantly thinking of how to conquer more of the world -- not even considering the possibility that that might not be a good goal. Very few of them were particularly afraid of war.
When you have a bunch of countries that are used to constantly trying to conquer more territory, and who aren't particularly afraid of war, you will get a war. It's not even a question. Asking "What if they hadn't gone to war?" is like asking "What if my dog hadn't pooped?".
The idea that "Japan is not really democratic" is very wrong. It is. The LDP occasionally does lose power, and doesn't use anti-democratic methods to prevent this. But the LDP is very good at triangulating on policy, so it bounces back.
Giving people a choice doesn't preclude that they'll make the same choice most of the time. The LDP plays the game fairly and usually wins, because it's generally pretty good at giving Japanese people what they want -- or at least, less bad than the opposition.
Most of the countries where one party usually (or always) wins have some sort of authoritarian structure that advantages the dominant party. Japan does not. This book is a little dated, but it basically explains why the LDP usually wins.
Suppose IQ = The kind of mental ability we actually care about + Some other pointless crap that's specific to the person being measured + random measurement error
Then someone's change in IQ = The change in the kind of mental ability we care about + random measurement error
In other words, even if the "pointless crap" part of IQ is very large, as long as it's specific to the person, it nets out when we look at the individual change.
(Economists recognize this as just a good old fixed-effects model.)
Our online replay of the 60s/70s is interesting, because in the original version, the "peace and love" hippies, the angry identitarians, and the leftist radicals all happened basically at the same time. But we got our peace-and-love in the 00s and our angry radicals in the 10s.
In 1969 you could be for "revolution", and that could either mean you wanted to change our culture so people weren't uptight assholes anymore, or it could mean you wanted to bomb bathrooms to bring down capitalism. (Only one of these worked.)
In the 2010s, both radical leftism and radical identitarian movements had a very downbeat, grim attitude (which persists to this day). No beads and flowers. Not much music or art or self-expression. No Age of Aquarius. Not much vision of utopia.