AHC: Elected in 1976, Reagan effectively leads taking on oil companies during '79 energy crisis.

'Brown-Bag It,' Reagan Advises 3-Martini Men

Los Angeles Times (from Associated Press), June 7, 1985

http://articles.latimes.com/1985-06-07/news/mn-15972_1_president-reagan

.

.

"It just doesn't seem right for a wage earner carrying his tuna fish sandwich to work to subsidize exorbitant business lunches at luxury restaurants," Reagan said.
Now, in all honesty I myself read Reagan as primarily a rising-tide-lifts-all-boats type of person. That is, in favor of greater business investment, in particular keeping down the percent of income taxes on the upper brackets.

But Reagan did have an economically populist strain.

Let's say during the 1979 energy crisis, that populist strain plays out more. Please paint a picture, and I'd ask mainly optimistically, of how you see some of this working out. :)
 
Last edited:
main-qimg-0807f53c697a188d9a8cfc1b6fef2902

https://www.quora.com/Why-did-stagflation-occur-in-the-70s-Why-didnt-it-happen-in-2009

Stagflation

And those familiar with my work would be disappointed in I did not include a graph such as this! :openedeyewink: When there's supply shock, the supply curve shifts inward. No great mystery to this type of stagflation.

And largely as ripples from the Iranian Revolution, the worldwide price of oil did double in 1979. At the same time, the case can be made that the oil companies also took advantage of the situation.
 
Well, a few PoDs here, that RR wins in '76, but acts exactly like Carter till the 2nd Oil Shock?

For example, RR's Team might not have the same regulations on 'Old' vs 'New' Oil as Peanut had kept from Nixon's time as Prez.

These regulations decreased domestic production from added costs(and restrictions on distribution in CONUS), but not effect imports, and the role of Price Controls, still in place from 1974.

So refineries purchased more and more imported crude, that didn't have all the record keeping involved.

Then you have to have RR treat Iran the exact same way.
 
This might be our last realistic chance in which “the man” gets defined mainly as corporations. I embrace the challenge, and Ronald Reagan is going to lead the way.

Just like LBJ led the way on Civil Rights!
 
Last edited:
If he does something as stupid as "take on the oil companies" he makes things much worse. The best way to deal with a shortage is to simply allow the price to rise. Demand will fall while production rises which solves the problem.
 
Reagan's solution to the 1979 energy crisis was to deregulate--period. (So was Carter's, but Carter wanted to do it in phases instead of all at once.)

The idea that "Reagan went along with the curbing of business deductions for entertainment, therefore he had an economic-populist side, therefore he might have attacked the oil companies" seems to me to be based on a fundamental misunderstanding. Reagan would support the elimination of some deductions in return for the lowering of rates. That last part was what made tax reform acceptable to conservatives in the mid-1980's--the Tax Reform Act of 1986 was designed to be "revenue neutral," Reagan saying that he would veto any reform bill that would amount to a net tax increase. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_Reform_Act_of_1986
 
. . The best way to deal with a shortage is to simply allow the price to rise. Demand will fall while production rises which solves the problem.
I’m keenly interested in when markets work well, and when they work less well.

A medium price rise expected to continue over a long period of time, that’s when markets are at their best. An abrupt change which may or may not be tempura, especially when there’s a relative small number of major suppliers, well, people can make mistakes.

And although we might criticize it as “idealistic” or “socialistic” or “liberal,” a hefty rise in the price of gasoline is going to be quite a blow to the budget of modest-income individuals and families.
 
Last edited:
I’m keenly interested in when markets work well, and when they work less well.

A medium price rise expected to continue over a long period of time, that’s when markets are at their best. An abrupt change which may or may not be tempura, especially when there’s a relative small number of major suppliers, well, people can make mistakes.

And although we might criticize it as “idealistic” or “socialistic” or “liberal,” a hefty rise in the price of gasoline is going to be quite a blow to the budget of modest-income individuals and families.

For a while, then adjustments are made. There is no guarantee in life that you won't suffer a blow to your budget from time to time. They may have to eat out less, buy plainer clothing , go out to the movies less or something else.
 
For a while, then adjustments are made. There is no guarantee in life that you won't suffer a blow to your budget from time to time. They may have to eat out less, buy plainer clothing , go out to the movies less or something else.

I don't want to sound rude but you seem completely disconnected from what it is like to not be well off. People who are living in poverty or near poverty can't just tighten their belts like that so easily. Your examples of eating out less, buying plainer clothing, and going to the movies less is downright insulting. Those are luxuries that are already rare to people who are struggling. A significant rise in gasoline would hurt people way beyond having to skimp on some middle class luxuries.

Unbelievable.
 
I don't want to sound rude but you seem completely disconnected from what it is like to not be well off. People who are living in poverty or near poverty can't just tighten their belts like that so easily. Your examples of eating out less, buying plainer clothing, and going to the movies less is downright insulting. Those are luxuries that are already rare to people who are struggling. A significant rise in gasoline would hurt people way beyond having to skimp on some middle class luxuries.

Unbelievable.

For the record I grew up very poor, you simply adjust. You buy stuff at Goodwill instead of Target. You go to local parks. You eat hotdogs and beans. You live in poor housing. Such is life.

There is only so far you can fall in any Western Country, including the US. Even the poor are pretty rich by Third World standards. There is no real chance you are going to starve.
 
. . The idea that "Reagan went along with the curbing of business deductions for entertainment, therefore he had an economic-populist side, therefore he might have attacked the oil companies" seems to me to be based on a fundamental misunderstanding. Reagan would support the elimination of some deductions in return for the lowering of rates. That last part was what made tax reform acceptable to conservatives in the mid-1980's--the Tax Reform Act of 1986 was designed to be "revenue neutral," Reagan saying that he would veto any reform bill that would amount to a net tax increase. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_Reform_Act_of_1986
But you know I’m going to bring up Reagan and the cold war, right? And the idea that it’s very possible for him to play against type.
 
. . There is no guarantee in life that you won't suffer a blow to your budget from time to time. .
I tend to agree that if we attempt to prevent every bad outcome, we’ll probably end up micro-managing the economy at harm to the overall economic engine.

I mean, growth of GDP is pretty key.

And I’ll debate my fellow liberals and lefties on this every day of the week if necessary, but I think most get it. Now, all this said, I believe in a mixed economy in big, major terms. And these days, I’m looking at the East Asian Miracle (1960-95), the “Asian Tiger” economies, and the continued growth of China itself. They are not purist capitalists. In particular, they put some stops on financial markets so that the casino economy doesn’t put as much risk on the real economy.
 
Last edited:
I tend to agree that if we attempt to prevent every bad outcome, we’ll probably end up micro-managing the economy at harm to the overall economic engine.

I mean, growth of GDP is pretty key.

And I’ll debate my fellow liberals and lefties on this every day of the week if necessary, but I think most get it. Now, all this said, I believe in a mixed economy in big, major terms. And these days, I’m looking at the East Asian Miracle (1960-95), the “Asian Tiger” economies, and the continued growth of China itself. They are not purist capitalists. In particular, they put some stops on financial markets so that the casino economy doesn’t put as much risk on the real economy.

Oil prices weren't going up because of speculation but for three reasons, cheaply available oil was getting scarce in US oil fields, the oil embargo, and Nixon and Ford's price controls caused big shortages.

Regulating prices is almost always a bad thing. Prices are how the economy communicates scarcity. You can manipulate interest rates up and down, taxes up and down and level of spending but when you micromanage to the extent of dictating prices you tend to end up with shortages and wastage. It is a big part of the reason the Soviet Economy eventually collapsed.
 
Reagan in '76 means you get a populist democrat and the "neoliberal" dems/atari dems sidelined in response his screwing up.
No, you would get Kennedy winning the Dem Primary in 1980.

All Presidents screw up, but RR would be doing it in different areas than Peanut. Having that 2nd Oil Shock isn't carved into stone, a guaranteed event
 
No, you would get Kennedy winning the Dem Primary in 1980.

All Presidents screw up, but RR would be doing it in different areas than Peanut. Having that 2nd Oil Shock isn't carved into stone, a guaranteed event

Nah, Ted Kennedy wouldn’t have run in 1980 without facing Carter. Somebody like Brown or Bayh would probably replace him in ‘80.
 
But you know I’m going to bring up Reagan and the cold war, right? And the idea that it’s very possible for him to play against type.

I am very skeptical of the argument that "Reagan helped end the Cold War, therefore we can get him to take left-wing positions on other issues." Reagan was just as anti-Communist after he warmed up to Gorbachev as before; he simply recognized that the USSR under Gorbachev was changing. By contrast, blaming business rather than government for the oil crisis in 1979 would have been totally against everything Reagan believed ever since his conversion to economic conservatism under the tutelage of GE's Lemuel Boulware in the mid-1950's (though this was only the completion of a process that had been underway for some years and accelerated after his marriage to Nancy Davis). It's not surprising that ending price controls on oil was one of the very first major actions he took after becoming president: https://www.nytimes.com/1981/01/29/us/president-abolishes-last-price-controls-on-us-produced-oil.html

In fact, Reagan's position on energy was so well-defined and so often repeated that it was even the subject of satire: On April 19, 1980 Saturday Night Live had a skit called "Invasion of the Brain Snatchers" where some lefties at a party have suddenly become Reaganite pod people. (My favorite part was when a stereotyped folksinger sang to the tune of Blowin' in the Wind "Yes, and how many times must our taxes be raised/Before they forever are banned?/The answer, my friend, is Ronald Reagan/The answer is Ronald Reagan.") One of the pod people, watching Reagan on TV, says in a mechanical voice, "He's so right--federal bureaucrats never produced a single barrel of oil!"
 
Last edited:
Nah, Ted Kennedy wouldn’t have run in 1980 without facing Carter. Somebody like Brown or Bayh would probably replace him in ‘80.
OTL, Teddy was planning for a Run right after Carter was elected, so why wouldn't he do so against RR? For 1979, Teddy would be facing Jerry Brown, for sure, not incumbent President. That would change the Primary immensely
 
OTL, Teddy was planning for a Run right after Carter was elected, so why wouldn't he do so against RR? For 1979, Teddy would be facing Jerry Brown, for sure, not incumbent President. That would change the Primary immensely

He might try but Chappiquidick killed any chance he would succeed. Too many people thought he simply "left the girl to drown" if not flat out murder her to cover up an affair. He also was unpopular outside of Massachutsus.
 
Top