And the 1966 loss AFAIK apparently helped make him an evangelical back then.
How would Carter handle the inflation crisis? Would Ford have appointed Volcker or would Carter have done it?
Udall loses to Ford in 1976, Carter 1980?
- Thread starter Nightingale
- Start date
And the 1966 loss AFAIK apparently helped make him an evangelical back then.
How would Carter handle the inflation crisis? Would Ford have appointed Volcker or would Carter have done it?
To be honest, I could see a situation where Ford doesn't appoint someone like Volcker, a Democrat (in this case Carter) wins in 1980, appoints Volcker or some sort of equivalent, and loses re election in 1984 due to the harsh FED polices Volcker pursued to break inflation (which while they were painful in the short term, they worked).
And I thought Ford was an economic conservative... They would still appoint along party lines, as usual...
AFAIK some say that Ford's economic conservatism lowered inflation from 1974 to 1977, though.
Well if Carter's gonna lose in 1984 or if he wins but has a reduced majority, I think he better ram much legislative agenda before his Democratic supermajority (I think this would be the case given a Ford 1974-81 Presidency, and they did have a supermajority come 1976) evaporates like OTL Democrats did from 2009 to 2010.
I don't think they worked so well!
I mean, if we look at GDP growth as the main economic number, which is an entirely conventional view, well . . . we lost a lot of GDP growth because of Volcker's policies.
And if I were to wax idealistic (and of course I am a closet idealist
), we keep this as the main number but also add wise environmental stewardship as the main tension and the main challenge.
Last edited:
Hence why I said they were painful in the short term. I don't think Inflation would've fallen the way it did without Volcker's FED policies, and while Reagan's unintentional Keynesian approach (which led to historically large debts and deficits that we never recovered from) to the economy helped, I don't think the recovery would be as strong if inflation hadn't fallen as much as it did.I don't think they worked so well!
I mean, if we look at GDP growth as the main economic number, which is an entirely conventional view, well . . . we lost a lot of GDP growth because of Volcker's policies.
And if I were to wax idealistic (and of course I am a closet idealist
I made this map for when Udall loses in 1976,
And when Udall wins. It's narrower then IOTL, and I flipped Ohio in both cases and I picked Carter as Udall's running mate.
Do you guys think they're plausible?
AHC: Mo Udall wins in '76 and has successful two-term presidency.
https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...nd-has-successful-two-term-presidency.403771/
I did this mini-timeline back in November. Basically, I set the plate for an OTL 1979,
three major tech failures, and
an early May '79 AP-NBC News poll found that 54% of Americans believed energy shortages were a hoax.
Okay, so what does President Udall start getting going in response, or keep getting going and ramps up? (or a President Ford!)
Last edited:
But we lose the trajectory. We lose that amount of growth we could later build on with future growth.
Besides, the whole thing reminds me too much of when we used to attach leeches to patients with fever, or give mentally ill patients cold baths. It's the idea that something dramatic will work in proportion to how dramatic it is, and if things later improve, that's taken as ipso facto evidence that it did work.
Glad you asked!
Either the supply curve is steep . . .
AS = Aggregate Supply
. . . or not.
http://www.harpercollege.edu/mhealy/eco212i/lectures/asad/asad.htm
For starters, let's understand that stagflation is very straightforward. There's a "negative supply shock," sometime like an abrupt rise in the price of oil. This moves the supply curve inward. And that's it. That's pretty much the complete explanation, at least for chapter 1.
When the media talks about it being this great mystery, maybe it was back then. But I think a lot of it is reporters not diving in and trying and insisting that economists put things in plain English. Plus, it's better hype to present it as a great mystery.
Chapter 2 . . . alright, going back to the steepness of the supply curve on the first graph. So, if we do things to pump the economy and move up the supply curve, we will pay the price of more inflation but not get much benefit of more GDP.
--> As a non-economist, I just don't know if we can tell how steep the supply curve is in real time.
* PS Again, I'm not an economist, just a regular person who dives in and tries.
Last edited:
YOUTUBE: 3.8 Supply Shocks AS/AD Model AP Macro
SRAS = Short Run Aggregate Supply
This high school AP government and economics teacher is explaining how a "negative supply shock" causes stagflation.
Last edited:
Oh, so basically you have to increase energy production to reduce and kill stagflation. I think a massive clean energy production bonanza can handle this, but then, the economic conservatives...
Not necessarily.
If you're in the non-steep part of the supply curve, yes, these kind of things will work to rev up the economy.
If you're in the steep part, increased governmental spending will just add to inflation without much benefit of GDP growth.