- Joined
- Apr 30, 2014
- Messages
- 4,810
- Reaction score
- 2,250
- Location
- is everything
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
Here's just one link
I typically ask posters to cite excerpts, but since yer a moderate, and because that was a short piece, I will comment on it. Gee, aren't you lucky?
Increase the range and supply of goods, the supply-sider says, and demand—the other critical part of the economic equation—will take care of itself.
How will that occur? If consumers don't have any disposable income, how can they buy more stuff, even if there's a large supply of it? Otoh, if they get their hands on more money, businesses will surely produce products for them to purchase in order to earn profits.
[Keynesians argue that] since government has lots of money, it can stimulate growth faster by spending it quicker.
Well, if the economy is in a downturn, consumers will spend less, which can lead to a downward spiral. Gubmint can step in and spend money through deficits and thereby create demand that turns things around.
The supply-sider sees this formula as wrong-headed. The marketplace, as opposed to government, knows best where economic effort should go to satisfy demand based on consumer tastes.
Keynesians do not argue that gubmint "knows best where economic effort should go to satisfy demand based on consumer tastes." They see it as a "demander" of last resort.
Keynesians agree that overregualtion is of course bad. They support adequate regulation. Like, e.g., enough regulation of mortgage derivatives to avoid a housing bubble and an event like the Great Recession.
[Supply-siders also favor] tax cuts, especially cuts in capital gains and in marginal tax rates on higher income brackets.
Keynesians are not opposed to low levels of taxation for those areas. Otoh, they do want sufficient revenues collected to avoid large deficits. If the political will exists to limit gubmint spending and thereby allow for those tax cuts, I don't see a problem. I'll generally support tax cuts that are paid for by reduced spending.
President Obama and his advisers tried the Keynesian "stimulus" formula to get the country back on track after the 2007-8 recession. The result has been the slowest economic recovery in modern history.
The reason the recovery has been so slow is that this was not a business-cycle recession like the ones we've seen over the past seventy years, but rather a near-collapse of the financial sector akin to the Great Depression. Consumer and business confidence are severely shaken by such an event, and it takes years for them to recover psychologically.
President Ronald Reagan self-consciously tried the supply-side formula
I think he must have meant "consciously," but I don't see the reason to include even that. Sorry, copyeditor's sidenote.
The result was 12 years of sustained economic growth in a row—the longest unbroken expansion in American history—with an average GNP growth rate of 3.2 percent.
I don't find that to be accurate, cherry-picking aside. Economists generally look at real GDP. If you use annual figures, first you need to recognize that the economy shrank in 1982, I'd say in response to Reagan's policies. It wouldn't do it again until 2008. That's a lot more than twelve years. Using quarterly data, we had growth Q4 1982 - Q4 1990, which is eight years, not twelve. Nominal GDP doesn't work either, with a steady expansion annually 1950-2008, and quarterly Q2 1982 - Q4 1990.
No big deal, but eight years, not twelve. Funny though that there were twelve years of Republican presidents. Maybe that's what he was thinking of.
[G]government revenues rose—a paradox created by the fact that the increased economic activity generated more taxable income.
Yeah, revenue did increase … eventually. A large part of the "increased economic activity" he speaks of was … gubmint spending, up 85% 1981-1990. Revenues grew by only 11% 1981-84, and by 72% 1981-1990.
[Keynesians] admit economic growth happened in the Reagan years, but insist it was the "wrong" kind of growth because it was aimed at satisfying fleeting consumer tastes, instead of creating new infrastructure or green jobs or something.
Not "wrong," but rather "suboptimal." We in fact did not make adequate public investments in infrastructure and education during the Reagan era. That would not have made sense, of course, since "gubmint is the problem."
Last edited: