You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
POLL: Do you believe that supply-side economics is legitimate economic theory?
- Thread starter Thunderdog
- Start date
This thing oughtta be moved to Politics & Religion, given the caliber of responses so far. Does anyone on this board think?
Supply side economics, among other things, states that if you have a large supply of [wanted] goods, it will sop up a large supply of money, something that is lost on 99 and 44/100ths percent of the posters in this place, who cry inflation every time the money supply increases, regardless of the magnitude.
So yes, it's legit. That goes for whether you're on the left or the right.
Fahgeddaboudit. Sorry to confuse everyone.
Yes, I'm impatient. With ignorance.
Supply side economics, among other things, states that if you have a large supply of [wanted] goods, it will sop up a large supply of money, something that is lost on 99 and 44/100ths percent of the posters in this place, who cry inflation every time the money supply increases, regardless of the magnitude.
So yes, it's legit. That goes for whether you're on the left or the right.
Fahgeddaboudit. Sorry to confuse everyone.
Yes, I'm impatient. With ignorance.
Supply side is a set of principles mostly, some of which I agree with. Within the human race Paretto's (sp?) principle says that about 10% of the people are really the creative driving force behind material progress, the rest are just followers and infrastructure. The more I live, the more I agree. What I like about supply side is that it partially recognizes that.
Economic theories come and go like fashion, but mostly decison makers work by the seat of their pants. Do we need anymore evidence of the failures of economic 'science' than to see how all those genius economic quants on Wall Street so screwed up?
There are no causual predictive theories, only curve fitting history, just like what traders tend to do.
Economic theories come and go like fashion, but mostly decison makers work by the seat of their pants. Do we need anymore evidence of the failures of economic 'science' than to see how all those genius economic quants on Wall Street so screwed up?
There are no causual predictive theories, only curve fitting history, just like what traders tend to do.
Quote from 5yrtrader:
Although it is true that at some point between 0-100% tax rate the government would maximize revenue, there is more to the laffer curve than that.
5yr
I think that's the key point. Regardless of your political persuasion, it must be acknowledged, that from the standpoint of maximizing government revenue, there is probably an optimum tax rate. Thus those who would claim that lowering taxes will actually increase revenues may be way off base unless they know where the optimum rate lies. And similarly those who clamor for higher taxes may also be wrong. And to make any sense at all, one's arguments must take into account both direct taxation, and indirect via inflation.
The main failing i have noted among the public in general, and also among a surprising fraction of ET posters, is a lack of understanding of how, given modern political exigencies, deficits lead to inflation (they don't have to, but in practice they do) and that the total tax burden encompasses both direct taxation and indirect taxation via inflation. In short, there is a lack of understanding about how debt is monetized. It's regrettable.
supply side has been the only valid, proven economic theory for the past 30 years. Supply side economics is the catalyst of the 80's and 90's economic boom.
Quote from Thunderdog:
I think that supply-side, trickle-down "economics" is more voodoo than legitimate economic theory. I believe it is an excuse to enrich the already entitled by adopting a top-down approach, rather than a demonstrably more inclusive bottom-up approach. And as I had occasionally quoted Galbraith in these forums regarding his views on supply-side economics, "After feeding oats to the horses, one should not gaze too closely at what trickles down to the sparrows."
And so, I'd like to know what you think.
Inclusiveness.... supply side says if you want to be included, take the proper steps, go work for it... the legal system is supposed to protect you if that is what you are doing.... seems pretty straight forward and workable to me. I've always been "included", and I worked my ass off for decades for it...
Marxist "geniuses" don't see it that way, it's too simple, therefore it can't be the only answer... there has to be a much better, way more complex, answer than that... never mind that marxism is a complete and utter failure everywhere....
Quote from Fractals 'R Us:
Inclusiveness.... supply side says if you want to be included, take the proper steps, go work for it... the legal system is supposed to protect you if that is what you are doing.... seems pretty straight forward and workable to me. I've always been "included", and I worked my ass off for decades for it...
Marxist "geniuses" don't see it that way, it's too simple, therefore it can't be the only answer... there has to be a much better, way more complex, answer than that... never mind that marxism is a complete and utter failure everywhere....
Laissez faire capitalism doesn't seem to have worked very well either, at least when it's been tried it led to problems. The kind of hybrid socialist capitalism, where the government engages in both corporate and individual welfare, that the US has tried throughout much of the twentieth century seems to have worked fairly well, as have mainly socialist systems of government in smaller, more homogeneous countries such as those of Scandinavia. If there were only perfect people, i'm certain a perfect form of government would emerge.