You're quoting the outputs of a propaganda industry, not the outputs of credible independent research.
These are the orgs who persistently try to sell trickle-down economics, minimal taxation, low regulation, and other discredited, disastrous, and irrational neoliberal policy arguments.
Many are also enthusiastic climate change denialists.
> and other discredited, disastrous, and irrational neoliberal policy argument
Never mind. I guess we have nothing to agree on.
> Many are also enthusiastic climate change denialists.
You're clearly influenced by the outputs of a propaganda industry, not the outputs of credible independent research. See what I did there? I'll even one-up you with some links:
Inflation in 1980, when Carter's presidency ended, was at 12% YoY, the highest they'd ever been in his entire presidency. Rising oil prices were not the only, or even primary, cause of inflation.
From the article: "In the early 1960s, a pair of Nobel Prize–winning economists, Paul Samuelson and Robert Solow, argued that in order to keep unemployment around 3 percent, U.S. policy makers should be willing to accept that "the price index might have to rise by as much as 4 to 5 percent a year. That much price rise would seem to be the necessary cost of high employment." Both economists were close to Kennedy, who pushed for low interest rates, hoping to spur rapid economic growth."
This idea turned out to be false.
Also from the article: "In the early 1960s, a pair of Nobel Prize–winning economists, Paul Samuelson and Robert Solow, argued that in order to keep unemployment around 3 percent, U.S. policy makers should be willing to accept that "the price index might have to rise by as much as 4 to 5 percent a year. That much price rise would seem to be the necessary cost of high employment." Both economists were close to Kennedy, who pushed for low interest rates, hoping to spur rapid economic growth."
This turned out to be true. And, lastly:
"In the 1970s, that is exactly what happened in the American economy, often by design. As Frum wrote, "The United States had consciously chosen to inflate its currency. It made that choice because of the political ideology and personal weakness of the men entrusted with the job of managing the American economy: their utopianism, their arrogance, and then finally their cowardice." The inflation that vaulted Reagan into office was not an accident or an incidental effect of policy. It was the result of deliberate policy choices."
As I said. Took several years and Volcker was appointed late '79. To R's credit, he didn't get in the way of that part.
Although tax cuts don't help inflation so wasn't a clean assist.
He also vastly increased govt spending later in his term, despite the common narrative about being frugal.
"It was only after the election, when Volcker knew Carter had lost, that he really clamped down on the money supply. This illustrates an important point: Presidents get the Fed policy they want, no matter how “independent” the Fed may be. If there had been any doubt about this, it was settled in 1967, when Fed Chairman William McChesney Martin buckled under pressure from Lyndon Johnson and eased monetary policy even though Martin knew he should be tightening. This caused inflation to jump from 3 percent in 1967 to 4.7 percent in 1968 and 6.2 percent in 1969."
And:
"Few people now remember how much pressure there was on Reagan to get rid of Volcker and have the Fed run a more accommodating monetary policy. Yet Reagan not only supported Volcker publicly, he appointed like-minded people to the Fed whenever he had the chance. He reappointed Volcker to the chairmanship in 1983 and appointed Alan Greenspan to replace him in 1987.
The result of the Fed’s tight money policy was a far faster reduction in inflation than most economists thought feasible. From 12.5 percent in 1980, inflation fell to 8.9 percent in 1981 and 3.8 percent in 1982. It is difficult to explain just how remarkable this achievement was. Most economists would have considered it impossible in 1980, especially given the big 1981 tax cut, which economists schooled in Keynesian economics generally viewed as pouring gasoline on the fires of inflation."
You can be as self-assured as you like, and that's your prerogative, but why post a response if you're not going to take the time to be convincing in any way, such as by providing any evidence, information, or even rhetoric? I'm certainly not going to change my mind because you said you read a book.
Cutting and pasting someone else’s work is not a discussion. Not to mention what you added didn’t exactly contradict my take so there’s not much else to say.
I mean, I did contradict your take. I contradict that inflation dropped primarily due to Carter picking Volker, or that dropping oil prices were a major factor. How much more contradictory can I be?
The authors claims that the Reagan tax cuts were a key ingredient without which the inflation reduction may not have occurred at all, or it at least would have occurred at a much slower rate.
But, look at me not carrying on a "discussion" because I keep citing other sources. I should just respond with one single sentence stating my belief as fact, right?
Inflation was fixed in the U.S. when Reagan became president: https://www.pacificresearch.org/beating-back-inflation-team-...
Recent studies in fact show that wages and productivity are still linked: https://www.aspeninstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/3....
And, finally other analyses show that studies on wage stagnation fail to take into account other factors, like the increase in non-wage benefits since the 70s: https://www.cato.org/projects/humanprogress/cost-of-living