The 1980s
This is an excerpt from the paper...
Kevin Phillips and Alan Reynolds take quite a different stand on the decade of the 1980s, and whether it was an era of greed or one of sound economic policies. Phillips makes the contention that the switch from Keynesian to supply-side economics, namely Reaganomics, did nothing to help those outside of the top five percent of income earners in the U.S. In fact, he argues that the economic policies enacted by the Reagan administration had two main effects: a polarization of income; an enormous buildup of debt. His argument is convincing, with data and evidence culled from reliable sources as well as a broad understanding of the economic history of the 2oth century via which he frames his 1980s comparisons. Reynolds, on the other hand, puts together a spurious argument that contends that the economic policies of the 1980s lifted the “boats” of 90 percent of the American public. He basically provides no evidence for his argument except for his deconstruction of one source, by Krugman and Nasar, which shows he is attacking one document as erroneous but he forgets there are many other documents which, like Krugman’s and Nasar’s, contend the 1980s were a decade of greed. Further, his argument smacks of a level of racism, bigotry, elitism and obtusity as to make one wonder why he isn’t a Republican leader. For example, his argument for why the poorest percentage of Americans is poor, a number he says is much lower than actually reported (as he
. . .
to spend twice more yearly than they make because they get government assistance not counted as income and they are involved in crime, “Another reason why those in the bottom fifth are able to spend twice their earnings is that many in-kind government transfers (such as food stamps) are not counted as ‘money income.’ Census surveys also acknowledge that a fourth of the cash income from welfare and pensions is unreported. And, of course, very little income from illegal activities is reported” (Reynolds 394).
Another aspect of Reynolds’ essay that is flawed is his basic use of only one source to prove his point. He rips to shreds articles by Krugman and Nasar as being erroneous in virtually their entirety. Takes one to know one I imagine. However, even if the Krugman and Nasar statistics are exaggerated or need defined to understand their true meaning, Reynolds does not use much evidence to support his own statistical information. He acts like merely criticizing the flaws of the Krugman and Nasar articles is enough to prove his point regarding the benefits Americans received in the 1980s. Yet, he cannot prove their statistics are wrong, he merely attempts to redefine the meaning of every economic measure they employ. For
. . .
Some common words found in the essay are:
Obviously Reynolds, Krugman Nasar, Social Security, Alan Reynolds, Krugmans Nasars, Reynolds Phillips, War II, Phillips Phillips, Examining Reynolds, References Phillips, economic policies, poorest americans, krugman nasar, 1980s decade, real income, decade greed, factual evidence, 1980s decade greed, american history, taking clashing views, reagan administration, clashing views controversial, reynolds 392, improved investment opportunities, eds taking clashing,
Approximate Word count = 1658
Approximate Pages = 7 (250 words per page)
More Essays on The 1980s
|
Customer Service
to Over
32,000 Professionally Written Papers!!!
