I don't base my thoughts on economics by appeal to authority. It is not like I think because Paul Krugman said something it must be true.
The point here is that you arrogantly assume you have all the answers and that I must be clueless about economics, simply because I have a different view of it than you. I was just pointing out that well respected economists have a different view on economics than you. That doesn't mean they are ignorant.
Paul Krugman can certainly be wrong about economics, but that does not make him ignorant on the topic.
It is ironic that you bring up the laws of physics, for several reasons. One is that if there is any branch of economics which is guilty of treating economics as if it was physics it must be the conservative/libertarian/Milton Friedman side.
They build these elaborate theories on top of these ridiculous assumptions about hyper rational actors in the market, which simply has nothing to do with actual human psychology. And the economics profession in particular the kind that would support Reagan seem rather hostile to learn anything about human society from either psychologists, neuroscientists or antropologists.
The second reason why this is fun, is because laws of Physics aren't really laws either. Much like economics they are models approximating reality. It just so happens that the physical world is easier to model than human behavior. Thus these "laws" seem much more like laws.
But as Einstein showed with his theory of relativity, Newton mechnics was just approximations. They did not apply in all context and conditions.
You seem to make a very big deal out of my use of the word "believe." Surely you must know how we use figure of speech. E.g. if I say, I have "low energy" it doesn't mean I have low energy in the physics sense. "Believe" in this context means I think the theory is unconvincing, based on what we have observed in the world and what arguments have been constructed against it.
About productivity. Seriously, what is your deal? Why the nitpicking? Who cares who has exactly the highest what year? That wasn't even the key point.
The point was about how US GDP level is higher than most of Europe mostly due to American working much longer days and having a lot less vacation. The point is that Germany made a different tradeoff than the US. That is the main reason why your salary was lower.
But of course the US enjoys lots of advantages Europe doesn't have. A larger integrated market. Controlling the currency used for trade. More space, an abundance of natural resources, no war or destruction on American soil since 1865, while Europe has shot itself to pieces far too often and had to rebuild. That Germany gets so close to American GDP per capita today is quite remarkable given how utterly destroyed the country was after WWII. And keep in mind that prior, it had not even really recovered from WWI.
As for deregulations of the 1980s. It was part of a right-wing shift that began long before Reagan actually assumed power. It was a world-wide phenomenon. Deregulation would have come in the 80s, Reagan or not.
Not sure what you find funny about my "last point." Deregulation in Norway e.g. produced an even bigger failure than in the US. At least in the short term. Banks crashed down, just like they did in Iceland due to their deregulation later.
That Reagan deregulation crashed the economy was careless wording on my part. That was more of a problem in other economies such as the Nordic ones, where dregulations led to excessive borrowing which later lead to bank collapse.
However the reforms of Reagan and later presidents following in the spirit of his bank deregulations, did eventually lead to the 2008 crash. However I will not pin that on Reagan specifically but on the belief in Reaganomics or neoliberalism over so many years.
One of the issues I see with explaining Reagan as some sort of economic genius is the same as with respect to Donald Trump. Anyone can create growth by just borrowing tons of money. Adolph Hitler did the same thing in Germany.
The problems is that a heavy debt easily becomes somebody else's problem later. Then there is the problem of poverty, unemployment and social problems which escalated under his watch.
For me income inequality is not about morality, but about efficiency. If I give $100 to a poor person or to a billionaire. Where does that money produce the most benefit and most happiness? With the poor person naturally.
If you see the goal of human society is to consume as many natural resources as possible, then sure maybe a Reagan approach is best. But if you see the goal as producing as much happienss and well being for as many people as possible, then inequality is highly inefficient. It means you must consume a lot more resources to reach the same level of of overall happiness and satisfaction.
On a planet of limited resources that is a questionable approach. I just position that building housing for the homeless and health care for the sick, has more utility than expanding the fleet of luxury yachts and private jets.
But perhaps most importantly I see inequality as detrimental to good government and democracy as I elaborate on here: https://erik-engheim.medium.com/why-libertarianism-can-never-work-c33cea1f8124
Highly unequal societies tend to become corrupt oligarchies over time. Wanting a vibrant inclusive democracy for the benefit of all, is not being a Buddha in my opinion.
Believe it or not but I am quite materialistic. I do think material wealth is crucial to our well being. However I also see how inefficiently we are using our resources. A lot of that comes down to the overly capitalistic model or production we use.
There is too much focus on making things of friviolous and questionable utlity. We are developing a fashion trend now where you need to throw away your clothes every month because there is a new fashion. People get the latest fashionable smart phone every year.
This in my opinion is a poor usage of the resources at our disposal. Consumers cannot really opt out of this as the system encourages it. Buying the kind of clothes with long durability that I did years ago is increasingly hard. It simply doesn't exist.
The quality of so many things are in decline. Just compare printers today with printers 15 years ago or so. The durability is just not there. Sure you get prettier pictures, planned obsolence is front and center dominating how everything is made.
