• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Where in the world did Supply Side Economics Originate? It's being laughed off the economic stage as it should be.

Razoo

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 1, 2017
Messages
24,476
Reaction score
7,808
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
 
While he’s always had detractors, Laffer also had a lot of fervent fans back in the day. But his latest excursion into the public debate has drawn harsh criticism not only from liberal economists like Berkeley’s Brad DeLong but also from stimulus-hating, anti-Keynesian economists you might expect to agree with the Laffer line. The consensus? Laffer seems to have forgotten, or ignored, some pretty basic concepts in economics. In other words, Laffer is getting laughed off the economic stage.

In his WSJ piece, Laffer sets out a simple enough argument: In the current troubled world economy, he claims, the countries that have relied the most on fiscal stimulus — Estonia, Ireland, the Slovak Republic, and Finland — have done the worst. Why? Because, Laffer argues, the money for the stimulus has to come from somewhere, and therefore “every dollar of public-sector spending on stimulus simply wiped out a dollar of private investment and output, resulting in an overall decline in GDP.”

A rather elementary fact about fiscal stimulus, however, is that it doesn’t “wipe out” private spending in the present. Rather, it borrows money from the future. By relying on deficit spending, stimulus programs are designed to pump more money into the economy during downturns, when private spending and tax revenues are soft. The temporary deficits can be reduced, at least in theory, once the economy is back on its feet and tax revenues perk up

 
How can reckless ALEC Fascist conservatives be concerned about tax dollar debt when Supply Side Economics cannot exist without borrowing followed by reckless
spending of borrowed money?
 
Simple thought experiment.

I am going to open my own business. I have 10 potential customers. I NEED to make 100k to cover costs and pay myself a livable wage. I am going to make 10 of my product...1 for each prospective customer.

Scenario A - All 10 customers have 100k of disposable cash split somewhat evenly among them. I price my product 10k each, and sell 1 to each.

Scenario B - 8 of the 10 customers only have enough to live on, no disposable cash. 2 of the customers have 100k between them. As a seller, I have a choice...keep prices low, and hope the 2 who have money buys multiples of my product...or, assume they're only buying 1 each, and price them at 50k each.

In which of the 2 above scenarios is demand for my product the strongest?
 
If you are going into business based on the above I would recommend you not do that. IMO that is as nutty and unrealistic as supply side economics. The plan is too narrow in scope.

Supply Side Economics and Austerity have common ground = both weaken economies by way of pulling money out of the economy.
 
In his WSJ piece, Laffer sets out a simple enough argument: In the current troubled world economy, he claims, the countries that have relied the most on fiscal stimulus — Estonia, Ireland, the Slovak Republic, and Finland — have done the worst. Why? Because, Laffer argues, the money for the stimulus has to come from somewhere, and therefore “every dollar of public-sector spending on stimulus simply wiped out a dollar of private investment and output, resulting in an overall decline in GDP.”

A rather elementary fact about fiscal stimulus, however, is that it doesn’t “wipe out” private spending in the present. Rather, it borrows money from the future. By relying on deficit spending, stimulus programs are designed to pump more money into the economy during downturns, when private spending and tax revenues are soft. The temporary deficits can be reduced, at least in theory, once the economy is back on its feet and tax revenues perk up.

But you don’t have to be a raging Keynesian to have trouble with Laffer’s argument. On his blog The Market Monetarist, Danske Bank Chief Analyst and self-described “right-wing economist” Lars Christensen suggests that Laffer has joined a number of other right-wing economists in the U.S. who “seem to have forgotten everything about economics — mostly as a result of an apparent hatred of President Obama.” Laffer, he argues, “is embarrassing himself” with his WSJ op-ed by pretending that Estonia, Ireland, the Slovak Republic, and Finland have been ruined by an excess of Keynesian zeal.

In fact, as Christiansen points out, Estonia, the Slovak Republic, and Finland are among “the most fiscally conservative countries in the EU,” while Ireland’s been spending its money on banking bailouts, not stimulus.

How did Laffer get things so backwards? Christensen suggests the following:

 
It's amazing how making up a 'fancy name' for something helps propaganda.

If you said, "should we have most people get a lot less money and instead give it to rich people to help them keep breaking new records in being rich?", not many people would say "yes". But call that "supply-side economics" and you get idiots (and rich people and political operatives for rich people) saying "hell ya!"

If you said, "should we teach the truth about our history of slavery and racial discrimination and how we have moved closer and closer to equality over time but still have a way to go", most people would say "yes". But tell people, "are you in favor of shoving liberal propaganda called critical race theory down the throats of children", and you get idiots screaming "no!"

It works on so many things. See the "WMD" arguments for the Iraq war. It doesn't have to be a 'fancy name', sometimes it's just a well-picked phrase, but it's powerful in shaping public opinion.
 
It's amazing how making up a 'fancy name' for something helps propaganda.

If you said, "should we have most people get a lot less money and instead give it to rich people to help them keep breaking new records in being rich?", not many people would say "yes". But call that "supply-side economics" and you get idiots (and rich people and political operatives for rich people) saying "hell ya!"

If you said, "should we teach the truth about our history of slavery and racial discrimination and how we have moved closer and closer to equality over time but still have a way to go", most people would say "yes". But tell people, "are you in favor of shoving liberal propaganda called critical race theory down the throats of children", and you get idiots screaming "no!"

It works on so many things. See the "WMD" arguments for the Iraq war. It doesn't have to be a 'fancy name', sometimes it's just a well-picked phrase, but it's powerful in shaping public opinion.
Regarding the "WMD" reference : http://www.antiwar.com/orig/odom.php?articleid=10396. Oops there were none.....
 
Back
Top Bottom