The Instigator
CountCheechula
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
ThomasPaineUK
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Reaganomics<Fiscal Discipline

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/12/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 535 times Debate No: 65053
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (6)
Votes (0)

 

CountCheechula

Pro

Reaganomics
noun
noun: Reaganomics

the economic policies of the former US president Ronald Reagan, associated especially with the reduction of taxes and the promotion of unrestricted free-market activity.

https://www.google.com...

Fiscal discipline (As that practiced by William Clinton)
Fiscal discipline is defined as the capacity of a government to maintain smooth financial operation and long-term fiscal health.

https://www.google.com...

1st round make your arguments. Let us begin...
ThomasPaineUK

Con

In the first round, I shall simply provide a brief overview over why unrestricted capitalism (Reganomics, if you prefer) is a more desirable alternative to the fiscal discipline which was exercised by William Clinton in the United States and Tony Blair in the United Kingdom. The reason that this first submission shall be short is that it would be better to use round two to submit the bulk of the arguments.

However, the overall refutation of the claim shall revolve around three key issues. The first of these is the extent to which Government is able to replicate the functions of the free market in theory and in practice. The second issue is whether it is ever desirable to allow for a given class (namely a political minority) to have such sway over one of the vital issues for any society (the strength of the economy). And the third and final issue shall be to consider the case study which is provided, and other case studies from across the globe, in order to compare the relative successes and failures of unregulated capitalism and fiscal discipline.

I am of the opinion when these core issues are taken into account it will be possible to conclude that in fact fiscal discipline is not as desirable as may otherwise be argued. I shall leave it to the opposition to propose the first main argument in the course of this debate. I look forward to partaking in this debate and wish the honourable opposition luck in advance. I hope what shall result will be a debate of real quality.
Debate Round No. 1
CountCheechula

Pro

You speak of three key issues:
1. Government is able to replicate the functions of the free market in theory and in practice.
2. Whether it is ever desirable to allow for a given class (namely a political minority) to have such sway over one of the vital issues for any society (the strength of the economy).
3. Consider the case study which is provided, and other case studies from across the globe, in order to compare the relative successes and failures of unregulated capitalism and fiscal discipline.

First let me give my take of these key issues:
1. In American conservatism harmony is very easy to replicate. The system requires no revolution and there are many right of center people in America. Laissez faire economics is easy to go back to but truly got the states nowhere until WW1 with a whole different system with Wilson. And compared to Fiscal discipline yes it is harder to repeat because you need a real smart administration with a proper cabinet and so fourth. Like that of Clinton staff they gave a 1T surplus.

2. Fiscal discipline is not making decisions or making decisions to implement programs. If you make a good social program you must raise taxes, find out what the people want, if they want it, do it. If not then don't make a deficit. Government must learn to tame themselves before promising too much and ultimately kill the next generations for debt and false promises.
You speak of having a minority having sway on the economy but during the Clinton system he didn't stick out for any class in particular. He gave many working poor homes and made banks give them loans that didn't help in the 08' crisis. The issue is Reagan cut taxes because that is what the base wants, he helped stop the cold war from buying buying buying. Bush Sr had to raise taxes because he got ourselves into another war and got kicked from office, Clinton came in and fixed it all gave us a surplus. Bush slashes taxes the most since the 20's twice. And got us into two costly wars.

3. Unregulated capitalism? Like that of Somalia and Zimbabwe. Take America pre-civil war. We were a 2nd/3rd world country. America became great by the last liberal republican (Eisenhower) and Socialist plans placed in by FDR and JFK and LBJ. FDR didn't practice fiscal discipline but Clinton did and gave us surplus, and literally not enough unemployment. He killed cyclical unemployment and balanced the wage-price spiral by using fiscal discipline. Tony Blair like you said was very good prime minister and even was close friends with Clinton and Bush Jr. He said to be friends with America with no matter who is in the white house.

My arguments are:
You cannot taxes and have war
Reaganomics implements the Republican party as the party of freedom and lower taxes. Bush Sr lies to keep the county from falling apart but is kicked out by the conservative base. His son takes over and goes the way his father didn't and gave is 14 T in debt. Obama then not being a fiscal democrat but rather a social one created a bad stimulus package. By 2080 America will have no money left over after paying for Social Security, Medicaid, and Medicare. I am moving to England.
ThomasPaineUK

Con

It is interesting that you point out that you want to move to England, because I am a Brit who wants to go the other way!
And it is with the United Kingdom and the United States with which the best comparisons between fiscal discipline of the UK and the (relatively) unregulated free markets of the United States.

1.The United States has, in spite of the tendency to partake in costly wars, has in the last 50 years delivered consistently higher growth rates than have been experienced in the United Kingdom (see http://www.tradingeconomics.com...) Even if the superior natural resources are taken into account, it is poignant to notice that the greatest differentials between UK growth and US growth was in the 1980's, where Ronald Reagan was able to implement far greater market liberalization than his UK counterpart (Margaret Thatcher) could ever manage. The fact of the matter is that markets tend to allocate resources better than governments because markets tend to make use of a wider base of knowledge than government, even if the very best technocrats are employed to do the job. I also contend that it would be unfair to expect a state to be economically developed after only a few hundred years of existence and having to bear the necessity to fight a Civil War and a War of Independence in the process. The Clinton administration did indeed deliver a very solid set of economic results but it is important not to overstate the achievement as a whole. Tony Blair in the United Kingdom (to begin with) managed to achieve a very similar set of economic results. It was even having some to declare the end of boom and bust cycles. Alas, fiscal management showed how it must end, which tends to be badly. Britain found itself in a much worse state structurally than the United States, which was reflected in the return to growth in GDP.

2. Fiscal discipline is inevitably going to involve a set of decision which will have its winners and its losers. And due to the nature of government expenditure, it tends to be the losers and the ambivalent who have to foot the bill for those who are most likely to benefit from the program. This is not always a bad thing, but fiscal discipline means a lot more of these decisions have to be made, and there is always more scope for error due to the theory of probability. It is unfortunate that the decisions that tends to be wrong tend to be those which affect the largest number of people. The fact that Bill Clinton pursued populist policies in the housing market could be seen as one of the key factors which led to the Global Financial Crisis and misery for a large section of American society. Banks would have not loaned to these individuals under pure market structures and the banking crisis may have been mitigated (if not avoided) as a result. Clinton by no means had bad terms as President (in fact his economic record is exceptional) but it is not appropriate to look at an exception and say that it proves the rule. Japan had its economic miracle in the era of market liberalization, and suffered its 'Lost Decade' with the backdrop of greater Government intervention in the currency markets. Reaganomics does not equate to the blind fiscal irresponsibility pursued by Bush the Son. It is the advocacy that individuals ought to have the greatest autonomy over the fruits of their labor. Government is very good at providing a safety net for the poor and the needy, but not very good at all for delivering the greatest happiness to the greatest number.

3. Unfortunately the third point which you put forward was the most flawed of the three. Africa actually had a tendency to go in the direction of socialism as opposed to unregulated capitalism. It is the case that the government institutions were so sub-standard in these economies that any attempt to establish any stable market system of whatever character would have ultimately failed. This is more an issue regarding the rule of law than any economic process. With regards to the economic history of the US, I absolutely contend that the version of events put forward is not necessarily false, but unrepresentative. After the end of the First World War, America became a great nation for precisely the reason that it pursued a policy of isolation from the foreign affairs of the rest of the world (in quite stark contrast to today, it seems). And the contention that government can kill off cyclical unemployment and wage price spirals are unfortunately economic nonsense. Wage-Price spirals are associated with rates of inflation, which government cannot make disappear no matter how hard they try. Cyclical unemployment did not disappear because the whole of the period was a Recovery/Boom period. He did not have to go through one major recession and so cannot have by definition have eradicated cyclical unemployment.

You contend that countries ought not to tax in order to fund unnecessary wars, and to that end I absolutely agree with you. But the world has shown us all that the countries which have always had liberalized markets have always outperformed the work of government. There are a few exceptions to this assertion, but it is generally true. Your final point of order with regards to Obama shows what happens when fiscal discipline goes to the second generation of government. It will inevitably do more harm than good.
Debate Round No. 2
CountCheechula

Pro

CountCheechula forfeited this round.
ThomasPaineUK

Con

ThomasPaineUK forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
CountCheechula

Pro

CountCheechula forfeited this round.
ThomasPaineUK

Con

ThomasPaineUK forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
CountCheechula

Pro

CountCheechula forfeited this round.
ThomasPaineUK

Con

ThomasPaineUK forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by CountCheechula 2 years ago
CountCheechula
Sorry for my forfeit I have had some serious personal issues arise. Conduct shall be taken from me.
Posted by cheyennebodie 2 years ago
cheyennebodie
Apparently the American people thought he was a great president. In 1984 he took 49 of 50 states.
Posted by cheyennebodie 2 years ago
cheyennebodie
The president does not spend money, congress does.Under Reagan, tax revenues doubled. The democrats more than doubled spendingDo the math.

In the 90's under a republican congress, we had surpluses.In the 2000's, we had a RINO congress and a democrat congress.And under them the debt went from $5,000,000,000,000.00 to $18,000,000,000,000.00.And if this republican congress would grow some, they can reverse that.
Posted by CountCheechula 2 years ago
CountCheechula
Reagan ended up raising taxes because he knew that he was putting all this debt on the next generations. Same with Bush Jr he had to raise for the war and ticked off the Republican base so his son W learned from his father and gave us what we have now.
Posted by dmussi12 2 years ago
dmussi12
No, the debt arose because of Reagan's massive defense budget. I will say that it did speed up the end of the Cold War, but you can't just throw everything on the Democrats.
Posted by cheyennebodie 2 years ago
cheyennebodie
Reagan cut taxes, cut regulations and the economy started booming.The problem was there was a democrat congress. They saw the huge increase in revenues and started licking their chops. All that money just laying there when it could be put to work buying votes.And after 30 years of democrat influence we are now $ 18,000,000,000,000.00 in debt with nothing to show for it but an over whelming freeloader class that are convinced they are entitled to other peoples money.
No votes have been placed for this debate.