Reaganist/Thatcherist/neoliberalist policies are bad for countries

Before I set out my primary arguments against Neoliberalism, Thatcherism and Reaganism, let me first address what you have so far posited. "Reagan conservative policies amounted to the most successful economic experiment in world history:" - No, they didn't. I'll get to why. "20 million new jobs were created."- Where they? According to the BLS (Bureau of Labour Statistics) Reagan only "created" 5,322 jobs in his first term and 10,780 in his second. "Unemployment fell to 5.3% by 1989 " - From what? If it was by 0.2% from 1988 its hardly an impressive feat is it? "The top income tax rate was cut from 70% to 28%." - I fail to see how this is an argument, you are just stating a fact. "Total federal spending declined to 21.2% of GDP in 1989 (even with the Reagan defense build up, which won the Cold War.) " - What is your point? Spending isn't necessarily a bad thing. "Eliminated price controls on oil and natural gas. Production soared, and aided by a strong dollar the price of oil declined by more than 50%."- Production soared; well i'm glad Reagan helped environmental desecration along just fine. "The poverty rate declined every year from 1984 to 1989, dropping by one-sixth from its peak."- Define poverty, that is quite a confusing term. Do you mean Absolute Poverty or Relative Poverty? "The Reagan recovery started in official records in November 1982, and lasted 92 months without a recession until July 1990 (when the tax increases of the 1990 budget deal killed it.)"- You previously mentioned this but without data? Strange. Anyhow, I fail to see how an economy can recover for 92 months; at some point the economy stops "recovering" and beings booming, unless it recovered extremely slowly of course, which would not be good for a country. "During this 7-year recovery, the economy grew by almost one-third (equivalent of adding the entire economy of West Germany to the U.S. economy.)"-When you say the economy grew you mean GDP increased of course; all this means is the value of all goods, services and assets increased, or their are more goods, services and assets. "In 1984 alone real economic growth boomed by 6.8%, the highest in 50 years."- But in the previous year it was 4.6% and the year after it was 4.2%. This suggests this statistic is an outlier. "The period from 1982 to 2007 is the greatest period of wealth creation in the history of the planet."- It created wealth, that's great, but America has the highest Gini Index of any developed country at 0.42 post-tax and transfer, according to the World Bank. Its all very good and well when wealth is created but it matters where it goes for it to benefit a country. What "bad" is bad for a country is very much dependent on one's views as to what constitutes "good" for a country. What I see as good for a country is policy that aims to improve the quality of life and standard of living for ALL citizens of a country via working towards central aim of development and fair redistribution of income via progressive taxation. So in my mind what is "bad" for a country in terms of policy-making are policies that do NOT improve the quality of life and standard of living for all citizens of a country via development and redistribution of income via taxation. Both Reaganism and Thatcherism comprise of 2 strands: social conservatism and economic neoliberalism. While social conservatism isn't necessarily bad for a country's development (for example, making addictive and harmful drugs illegal means not as many people take them, making them more productive citizens who then spend their income on other goods, services and assets rather than addictive and harmful drugs) it does in some aspects prevent a decent quality of life being handed out to all citizens; for example many social conservatives are against gay marriage, which means homosexuals are not allowed the same quality of life as heterosexual people. But neoliberalism prevents ALL citizens from being granted a decent quality of life. By deregulating corporations via cutting corporation tax, deregulating corporations via simplifying or exempting red tape around employment legislation and smashing trade unions (as Margaret Thatcher did) means that workers are unable to argue a fair wage, which means wages are often cut and there is no firm job security. Cuts to employment are made, and the remaining workers are coerced into working harder to keep their job. This in the end means workers work longer hours for less money to keep their job, while the corporations can keep a larger cut of profits that the workers made for the corporations in the first place. This is bad for a country as the state shrinks due to a cut in revenue and a cut to intervention in markets means the education and health of the labour supply deteriorates, the infrastructure of the state collapses and the effectiveness of law enforcement collapses. This in the end is neoliberalism shooting itself in the foot. Neoliberalism itself is bad for countries, and only good for corporations and large businesses. While Reagan and Thatcher were not full neoliberalists, but equally as atrocious as the ideology of neoliberalism. REAGAN: Under Reagan productivity (efficiency of production) did increase by 45%, but working peoples' wages only increased by 1%. Thanks to deregulation under Reagan, General Motors saw profits of $24.1 billion, while laying off 100,000+ employees, General Electric saw profits of $20.4 billion while laying off over 100,000+ employees. Household debt increased increased from 47% of GDP in 1980 to over 111% in 2000. There was an explosion in personal bankruptcies, from 287,000 in 1980 to 2,039,000 in 2000. Healthcare costs as a % of GDP were up from 9.1% in 1980 to 12% in 1990. By 1989 General Motors was making profits of over $4 billion, while eliminating thousands of workers; Flint lost 3,600 jobs in 1983 according to the newspaper "The Detroit News". The manufacturing complex Buick City eliminated 1,300 in 1986, according to the newspaper "The Flint Journal", while "The Detroit News" reported 4,500 jobs cut at the start of the year (All above statistics supplied by Michael Moore's Documentary "Capitalism: A Love Story"). All this occurred under Reagan's famous, "Reaganomics", or "Trickle-Down Theory", which he was majorly enamored with. In 2012 a study by the Tax Justice Network indicates that "the wealth of the rich does not trickle down to improve the economy but is instead amassed and sheltered in tax havens with a negative effect on the tax bases of the home economy". My favorite non-fiction author Ha-Joon Chang, is an Institutionalist Economist and Professor at Cambridge, responsible for writing many popular economics books, writes "Slow job growth in the last few decades, rising income inequality in most rich nations and the inability provision in raising living standards across all income brackets rather than at the top only." The IMF in 2015 published a report reading "If the income of the top 20% increases, then GDP growth actually declines over the medium term, suggesting that benefits do not trickle down. In contrast, an increase in the income share of the bottom 20% is associated with higher GDP growth." Reaganism is ultimately bad, as I have just shown. His application of trickle down theory and his deregulation of the economy have led to the Gini Index of America being the highest of any developed nation, and mean that ultimately Reaganism was bad for the USA, & should be a warning for other countries not to do the same. Not only did Reagan NOT perform the duty of a good government, he has provided problems that, like Thatcher, have lasted beyond his Premiership and still wreak havoc to this day in the United States. If you consider any of my points null, please, I encourage you to refute. While you have only discussed Reagan so far I assume you are, as I am, going to discuss Thatcher and how she damaged Britain next round.