Reaganomics supply side inconsistency?

[Conquer or Die]

In monetary policy. In very basic terms I would like to appreciate the reaganomic policy combatting inflation and promoting hard (strict?) currency while vowing supply-side economics.

Thx :thumbup1:

[Jazzhands]

Read your history first. Reaganomics was an even more massive failure than anything else the USA has had since, well, the last Republican president.

Ronald Reagan was the second worst president of the 20th century, following Nixon, who was only worse because he caused the Khmer Rouge genocide. (speaking of which, Reagan and Carter both funded the Khmer Rouge after they fell from power). His major actions included:

1. Causing two recessions and a massive debt with Reaganomics, which preaches that by not taxing the only people who can afford to be taxed, you will increase tax revenue.

2. MASSIVE military spending at the same time as this, meaning that our nation is adopting the same policy that destroyed the USSR and the Roman Empire: massive military spending on capital that is designed to be destroyed rather than flow back into the economy until the debt finally brings the nation crashing down.

3. Funding the Khmer Rouge.

4. Ousting democratic left-wing governments around the world.

5. And selling it all to the American people with a fake smile :D as he takes checks from the leaders of the most exploitative industries, like healthcare.

[Conquer or Die]

I'm familiar with the party line on Reagan. I was hoping somebody with an understanding of supply side economics could illuminate the inconsistencies that his politics produced vis a vi supply side doctrine.