I got banned from idpol for posting this

We need to start referring to Holla Forums as id/pol/.

Reagan had nothing to do with that, deinstitutionalisation was driven by a combination of outside factors that Reagan had little to no control over

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Mental_Health_Act

Also pic related

yes, it will boost the American corporate sector and them stawks which is the only thing that matters when it comes to the economy he can also combine that with infrastructure programmes. Also low taxes means you actually collect more money since more people are gonna pay lower taxes. As long as corporate profits rise, as long as corporations get multi billion dollar contracts, as long as they get incentives to stay in America re-invest in America through multi billion dollar contracts, investments in the stock/bod market through very low corporate tax and no regulation as long as businesses get cheap credit from banks, then everything is working as it should. Healthcare, welfare spending , nigger literacy programmes and hopefully medicare and social security should be gradually abolished or scaled down.
This isn't something that's necessarily my opinion but this is what the elites and economists sincerely believe. Trump's only problem is his protectionism and anti migration stance which he has now scaled down pretty much.

Raegan didn't into budget austerity.

Clinton policies. Also the 2008 crisis wasn't even that bad it was a well needed market correction. Niggers and low income peole should not be getting mortages for a house when they can't afford one under any circumstances. The fact that it even happened shows how well the economy was doing

Imagine
Just imagine being this guy

one off from satanic trips, but still agree

ah, there you are, Satan

kek moar liek shows how masked everything was. Couple of months before Lehman brothers declare bankrupcy we saw Moody's/Fitch/wtvr saying they were triple A, very safe investment :D
Obviously there were propper economists warning that soon erything would go to the shitter, but those don't go on tv.

what I mean is regarding his mainstream reputation, he is revered despite his disastrous policies.
I know very well what he did didn't actually work for the country's well being, as do all of us (hence why I said "even if we know better"), but his legacy successfully duped the public into thinking otherwise

how were his policies disastrous? They are disastrous in an abstract sense where he's a meanie not in any real sense. It was Clinton who outsourced all of Americas industrial power through the free trade agreement with China and NAFTA because American industrial power made epic gains under Raegan and everyone assumed those gains would last forever.

...

what do you mean by this?

running a massive deficit like he did while lowering taxes on the rich and raising them on the poor, the main comparison between him and trump i was trying to make earlier, and being the start of the enabling the large-scale manipulation of immigrant labor as we are now dealing with are basically under his grasp

that is strawmanning

the defecit wasn't "massive" also Raegan's debt to GDP ratio when he left office was 50% which is fucking nothing. For comparison Japan's debt to GDP ratio was 70% in 1989 and throughout the 80's Japan was considered a rising economic power that would outcompete the US but they cucked themselves during the 90's

also during Raegan there was an average annual GDP growth of 3.5 % to a total of 32% The US GDP grew from 6.5 trillion to almost 9 trillion when he left office compared to almost fucking nothing during Obama and Reagan was also elected during an economic crisis. So when dealing with a recession Raegan is clearly superior

anybody got that wages vs. profits gap chart?

But those were minor recessions and the Volcker shock under Carter had already restored confidence in the US dollar. And arguably the early 80s recessions were just the working out of the economic contradictions of the Volcker shock. The major crises of the 70s had already bottomed out and things were beginning to look upwhen he came into office.

the one in 1980 was way worse fam

I'm sure cutting the hell out of mental health services in federal budgets had absolutely no effect.

...

will this do?

this is a dumbass chart

go shill for porky somewhere else.
the banking sector should be regulated to all hell if not outright nationalised.

fun fact: banks do better off if nobody is bailed out then if you bail out the business sector and the common man, whereas throwing QE at the banks basically does nothing good once you've stopped them from outright collapsing. (the money multiplier is a meme)

in short read steve keen

3.5 a shit.

you're a fucking succdem Keynesian who belives in animal spirits, your entire purpose of existence is to shill for capitalism because you're scared that the business cycle will cause another depression leading to a revolution

Have you considered that your low unemployement figure doesn't account for the massive influx of women into the workforce that started to occur only in the 1960's, followed by a massive influx of migrants half of working age women were economically inactive at the time also On average, workers did a 48-hour week in 1952. Today, a typical worker with a full-time job does only 37 hours. In fact your shitty useless life is guaranteed to be superior to working conditions in the 50's and 60's.

Also Keynsianism was discredited

well you're wrong.

...

hahahahaAHAHAHAH

...

And I love how you included a pic of One Flew Over, as if that's the definitive story for every mental health patient. Nothing's wrong with any of them ;)

who the fuck even measures this shit? This is like looking at /pol's/ jew conspiracy chart

READ
STEVE
KEEN
(p.s. even that strawman is better than "stock market traders are literally psychic lmao")

No, because I'm scared we'll be mired in a depression - like the one we're in now - for my entire life. Or failing that, a situation of purely notional growth while living standards stagnate - i.e. the lot of the working class since the 1970s.
Mass-Immigration is part of the moves made by capital to ensure a labour surplus, though. That does nothing to disprove the validity of full employment as a policy goal. Furthermore (iirc) Italy has an unemployment problem despite far lower workforce participation by women.
And yet we still have a huge labour surplus. HMM…

There is a 70% chance I'm going to kill myself before 40 because of the poor prospects of living in the UK, actually.

The rate of improvement is dead. Even if we're stagnating at a higher level, there's no future.
As part of an intellectually disingenuous campaign by free-market shills: bbc.co.uk/blogs/adamcurtis/entries/fdb484c8-99a1-32a3-83be-20108374b985

Read Steve Keen and realize what hogwash neoclassical bollocks is.
Whoa great argument.

There's a chart for Jewry and Zionist tricks?

We are not in a depression. Just because you're in a depression doesn't mean we're in a depression. We are not booming anymore but Trump will fix it

I'm not saying migration is a bad thing I'm saying you didn't account for the influx of millions of new workers as one of the reasons why there was very low unemployment and unemployment around 5-6% is a good thing unemployment around 1% isn't.

good

I shouldn't have said that it's discredited, I don't even consider it as a bad school of thought it was discredited at the time because it failed to deal with the crisis at the time but post 2008 governments and central banks followed through on Keynesian crisis policy almost to the letter and it worked and a depression was avoided.

...

The vast majority of non-porkies are.
you're going to eat those words when the pre-2020 recession kicks in.
unironically kill yourself.

no they didn't, they followed neoclassical-synthesis bullshit. the money multiplier didn't exist and all quantitative easing did was save the banks.

R E A D
S T E V E
K E E N

this one

...

you're a moron

Oh right, you probably think Milo and thunderf00t are smart too

it literally is, you retard
forcefully incarcerating people and drugging them into vegetables is literally what the whole institutionalized industry is about
there's no materialistic basis to psychiatric diagnosis, it's all clinical practice, correlation not causation
open DSM and tell me why we shouldn't incarcerate all of humanity into mental asylums
its motto literally is "life is a disease of matter, consciousness is a disease of life"
and it got worse from when the book was written
cutting mental health services was the only thing Reagan did right

fucking pathetic
majority of mental patients just quietly off themselves
tho I can understand mass shooters who were forced to take drugs and had to deal with fuckers like you
if you're already half-dead, why not take some ignorant normies with you? why they should live and enjoy life when you're rotting alive?

i would unironically sign up for voluntary institutionalisation if it was available, had internet access, and i didn't have to wageslave, or only had to do simple repetitive tasks for a low period. (actually even if you put it at average working hours, the relative security would make it highly tempting.) which obviously isn't what old asylums were like, but would be possible with efficient central government resources.

that said i'm an autist with only incidental depression so whatever.

It's usually he who is being pissed on.

[spoiler]yes, there are legitimate criticisms of the BBC from the left since the position they generally push is "very serious person" third-way neoliberalism and they've produced outright propaganda like pic related, but the specific writer of the article - adam curtis - basically spends all his time talking about how shit it is now. combined with the rest of this conversation, it's pretty clear that's not what we're dealing with here.[spoiler]

Percent or absolute numbers not both.

I don't know who you're responding to, but I'm >1697666

Read pic related - tl;dr deinstitutionalisation started in the fifties, mostly driven by pharmaceutical advances that were viewed as more effective in treating mental illnesses than simple institutionalisation (when combined with after-care). The Community Mental Health Act further exarcerbated this trend by encouraging states to shutdown state mental hospitals (i.e. the existing mental health system) without any realistic plan to follow up the treatment of discharged patients.

Reagan didn't do anything significant to combat mental illness, but the argument that deinstituionalisation was his fault is simply lazy handwaving

r/soc

does this ever work?
I've read that it's a fantasy but I'm economically retarded so don't have any evidence

Sometimes it happens, but it's retarded to make a general rule of it.
(The simplified logic of it, the "laffer curve", runs as follows: At 0% taxes, you get no revenue because there are no taxes, at 100% taxes, you get no revenue because nobody works, therefore the optimum rate is somewhere - possibly at multiple points - between 0 and 100% taxes")

Now I know what you're thinking - we should find that rate and set taxes to that rate, right? Wrong, you fucking idiot. We should cut taxes.
"But isn't there a rate where tax increase would actuall–"
WE SHOULD CUT TAXES.

Also it's worth noting that since tax revenues vary year-by-year and when you fuck with the system you often change more than the headline rate of tax, there are many more factors than a simplistic "lower taxes = more revenue" alignment.

(Also sometimes it only works for certain countries - i.e. a hypothetical independent Scotland [pop 5 million] could have taxes a few % below the UK [pop 60 million minus scotland] rate. This would increase revenue because business would move there from the UK making up for the revenue lost from the small number of originally-Scottish firms, but if the UK went below the Scottish rate this would probably reduce revenue because the number of businesses taken from the smaller country won't make up for the lower rate paid by the greater number of companies in the larger UK economy.)

As a general rule distrust anyone talking about tax cuts unless they use the words "modern monetary theory/MMT" or they're talking about cutting consumption taxes.

Still better than Carter.

Most homeless, the numbers of which ran up under Reagan, have mental health issues left untreated. I would rather have them institutionalized, receiving treatment, that freezing and starving on the streets.

You sound like some teenager who thinks you're a mental health expert because mom had you prescribed Adderall, FFS.

It's because he did exactly that, you absolute retard.

Oh for fuck's sake, which part of
Deinstitutionalisation was practically finished by the time Reagan was inaugurated don't you understand?

Practically all the mentally ill persons that Reagan "forced" onto the streets were already on the streets long before he came into power, so whether he cut mental healthcare funding or not is completely irrelevant to the question.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deinstitutionalisation#20th_century

You really don't know what the fuck you're talking about user

This doesn't actually follow.

I mean simple example: Crazy person is de-institutionalized under Nixon but is the beneficiary of mental health spending elsewhere, either walk-in centres or other kinds of assistance. Thanks to this, they buck the trend and get a job under carter and live a relatively acceptable existence, but when Reagan cuts mental health spending this assistance is rolled back and crazy person threatens to stab his manager and landlord. Now he's homeless and threatening to stab a statue of Abraham Lincoln.

Except the vast majority of people discharged from state mental hospitals via deinstitutionalisation before Reagan simply fell through the cracks, as the book I linked above clearly demonstrates. Whatever mental health spending Reagan may have cut was a drop in the bucket compared to what deinstitutionalisation had already done to the mentally ill population

You've just identified the biggest problem of the community mental health centers, i.e the vast majority of mental patients discharged from state hospitals that didn't go on enjoy treatment at community mental health centers.

The association with Reagan (outside the lazy handwaving I mentioned above) is that the problems associated with deinstitutionalisation (i.e. spikes in crime caused by discharged mentally ill patients, increased homeless population due to the same etc) only started entering the media (and the wider public consciousness) in the early '80s - long after deinsitutionalisation had happened. But as that coincided with Reagan's presidency it led to a fuzzy logic that Reagan "must" have somehow been responsible for deinstitutionalisation

you want them out of the streets?
give them a job and a place to live
by isolating and drugging them into submission
you are not helping them, you are helping yourself

no more dirty dregs on the streets! they are getting taken care of, amiright? I'm such a good guy!

Not a Reagan defender by any means, but Clinton has far more blood on his hands for the 2008 crisis.

Well now you're just going to have to placate my autism and tell me where the money was going if it wasn't going on people.

...

...

What happens when the rate of profit reaches zero?

Either revolution -> communism

or fascism -> exterminism -> communism

Up to us, really

socialism fails and the american government reinstitutes glorious capitalism by bailing out all the poor banks that were swindled by predatory loan seekers