UnThreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (1) | Ignore Thread Prev Thread | Prev | Next | Next Thread
Author: MadCapitalist Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: of 741702  
Subject: Ignorance Abounds About Supply-Side Economics Date: 12/12/2012 8:16 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 12
Ignorance Abounds About Supply-Side Economics

"I looked and looked at all this stuff, and a definition emerged clear as the sky. This was that supply-side economics favored a particular way of solving the kind of recessions we have been prone to since the founding of the Federal Reserve and the income tax, both in the year 1913. This is to stabilize the dollar and cut taxes.

This definition—stabilize money and cut taxes—was repeated so often, so uniformly, and over so much time by the original supply-siders that it became possible to identify a canonical statement, the Ur-document, the quintessential rendering of the supply-siders as to their philosophy.

This is it, from a paper Mundell wrote in 1971: “The correct policy mix is based on fiscal ease to get more production out of the economy, in combination with monetary restraint….The increased momentum of the economy provided by…a tax cut will cause a sufficient demand for credit to permit real monetary expansion at higher interest rates.”


-------------------------------------

Last week, for the umpteenth time, a major, credentialed economist wrote an article, one read far and wide, contending that supply-side economics has to do exclusively with tax cuts. There is probably no bigger economics blogger than Mark Thoma, and marginal-tax-cuts-equal-supply-side-economics is what he made his supposition in “Why the GOP Won’t Admit Supply-Side Econ Has Failed.”

You can click on the link to see Thoma go about all this, but the essential thing is as follows. There is no credible historical evidence ever produced by a scholar that has served to delink monetary issues from the core doctrine of supply-side economics. In fact, all primary evidence ever produced as to the central claims of supply-side economics has confirmed that supply-siders insisted that monetary restraint and progress toward a gold standard is as crucial as any kind of tax policy. To say otherwise is to speak in the absence of evidence.

But in current circumstances, you see how it can be so…tempting…to say that supply-side economics was only ever a policy of tax cuts. This is because the George W. Bush tax cuts—those things on the chopping block in this fiscal cliff drama—supervised a mere boomlet in the mid-2000s, and then the Great Recession after 2008. If you trash W.’s policy by calling it supply-side, then by association you can discredit the Reagan success too. Conservative economic policy: a comprehensive failure in its decades-long response to Keynes!

Go back to the record ten years ago and see if the supply-siders were unconcerned about monetary issues, as the Bush-era Fed made money as loose as it was in the 1970s. See if Robert Mundell quit on the idea of a unitary dollar-euro exchange rate and an anchor akin to gold. See if the second generation of supply-siders, the next round of journalists and Congressmen (such as Kemp trainee Rep. Paul Ryan) didn’t call out the money-printing 2000s as making the W. tax cuts nothing but a “small, ambiguous reprise” of the great tradition, as I would put it in the book, Econoclasts, which came out in 2009."

http://www.forbes.com/sites/briandomitrovic/2012/12/11/ignor...


The criticism of supply-side economics comes right out of the liberal playbook: misrepresent something, and then criticize the misrepresentation.

Examples:
1) Misrepresent libertarianism as anarchy, and then criticize the results of anarchy as being the results of libertarian philosophy.
2) Misrepresent Herbert Hoover as laissez-faire, and then criticize the results of his interventionist policy as the results of laissez-faire.
3) Misrepresent a market as a "free market," and criticize the results of government intervention as the results of a free market.
4) Misrepresent supply-side economics as just being tax cuts, and then criticize the results of decidedly non-supply-side economics policies as the results of supply-side policies.

I'm sure you can think of other examples as well.
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post  
UnThreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (1) | Ignore Thread Prev Thread | Prev | Next | Next Thread

Announcements

Managing Your Wealth
Our own TMFHockeypop from Rule Your Retirement fame on the TV show Managing Your Wealth.
When Life Gives You Lemons
We all have had hardships and made poor decisions. The important thing is how we respond and grow. Read the story of a Fool who started from nothing, and looks to gain everything.
Post of the Day:
Apple

Apple and Ninety Years Ago
What was Your Dumbest Investment?
Share it with us -- and learn from others' stories of flubs.
Community Home
Speak Your Mind, Start Your Blog, Rate Your Stocks

Community Team Fools - who are those TMF's?
Contact Us
Contact Customer Service and other Fool departments here.
Work for Fools?
Winner of the Washingtonian great places to work, and "#1 Media Company to Work For" (BusinessInsider 2011)! Have access to all of TMF's online and email products for FREE, and be paid for your contributions to TMF! Click the link and start your Fool career.
Advertisement