[setr]

Given that you don’t know what would occur without reagonimics, even that much isn’t safe to say. It’s quite possible that reagonimics is in fact helpful, just not enough to overcome other negatives in the environment (so in sum, a loss). Removal may very well increase the rate of inequality.

In other words, with just the evidence provided, you can’t safely say much of anything beyond “it started getting worse in the 80’s”

[boomboomsubban]

>Given that you don’t know what would occur without reagonimics, even that much isn’t safe to say.

Yes, I can. The current situation seems undesirable. While it's possible that the situation would be worse without Reaganomics, the actual situation is still undesirable. Looking towards the future, it seems unwise to continue a plan that led to undesirable results.

[JoshuaDavid]

Your argument proves too much. Consider the following example:

> You are diagnosed with Type II Diabetes. Your doctor tells you to monitor your blood sugar and take insulin. This situation seems undesirable. While it is possible that the situation would be worse without monitoring your blood sugar and taking insulin, the actual situation is still undesirable. Looking towards the future, it seems unwise to continue a plan that led to undesirable results.

[boomboomsubban]

If Reaganomics came from a trained professional who were basing their recommendations on the best theory science had developed through experimentation, I would not advocate changing the policy. That is not the case though, as we both agree that reliable evidence is scant.

Going forward, there isn't a great theory showing that Reaganomics is worth continuing, and the hypothesis that different policies would provide a better outcome seems worthy of testing.