Hacker News Reader

Comment by nwah1 | Hacker News Reader

He was definitely unlucky as a president. He presided over the bad part of the business cycle, and his attempt (Operation Eagle Claw) to rescue the American hostages in Iran via helicopter completely failed leading to a disastrous PR nightmare.

But if he had been given another shot, then he could have continued the program he started with Operation Cyclone, to train and fund Bin Laden's forces. But with conviction! Unlike that other guy.

Maybe in his second term he would've rolled back his policy of deporting all Iranian students.

View on HN

> and his attempt (Operation Eagle Claw) to rescue Iranian hostages

Which was thwarted by Reagan doing backchannel negotiations, in bad faith, while Carter was still in office.

So, he was unlucky in that Reagan was a criminal.

Yup, THIS is what the Logan act was designed for.

Perhaps there is reason to suspect that Iran held the hostages longer because of a deal. But Reagan didn't make the helicopters go down, or are you suggesting otherwise?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_Surprise_conspiracy_th...

I doubt Reagan even knew of the rescue attempt. And he absolutely did not conjure a sand storm causing a copter crash.

He also created the Department of Education, the Department of Energy, advanced nuclear disarmament, and brokered a middle east peace deal.

He also gave attack helicopters to Suharto's regime while they were committing genocide.

Also don't forget, Carter was brave enough to get the fed to kill the inflation monster by forcing high interest rates which he knew would tank the economy into recession. It was a terrible price to pay on the economy but seems like the right idea in retrospect. Then the next president benefited a few years later when inflation ended (and took credit for it of course). Not many presidents would be willing to do that.

He didn't have power over the Fed, but he did nominate a wise man to lead it. He would've come out looking tarnished under any circumstance, regardless of what the Fed did. Either inflation or high interest rates eventually result in bad times, because that is the nature of the business cycle.

The Volcker shock was in 1981-1983, Reagan was incredibly unpopular before the summer of 84 because of the severe recession it caused.

Some people paid that price more than others, and some not at all. Those who paid the most might say that it wasn't worth it to them, and you're in no position to say they're wrong.

I was referring to the people who said it was a bad move politically. I was like 5 years old then. But it looks like the right thing looking back historically and politically in reality, except that it lead to Reagan winning.

> But it looks like the right thing looking back historically and politically in reality

to you

This is a week old, but in retrospect what would you have done at that time? I don't know, I was fortunate as a child that my parents remained employed during that time. I wonder what they thought might happen. There must have been people that lost their jobs and then lost their houses, just like in 2008 and maybe even now with interest rates going up, one can't afford a new house. Everything's more expensive.

People lost their jobs at that time not because of inflation, but because of Volcker's efforts to reign in inflation. Throwing people out of work was a feature not a bug. Raising unemployment was his objective, and he achieved that. That's certainly one way to go, but it's not the only way to go. It's not the way I would have gone.

"rein in" not "reign in"...typo

Reply on news.ycombinator.com