Peter1469
09-10-2016, 08:35 AM
Maybe Supply-Side Economics Deserves a Second Look (https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-09-07/maybe-supply-side-economics-deserves-a-second-look)
This is an interesting article for serious discussion. The author claims that demand side economics provides some protection against crashes but limits risk taking. Hence the flaccid recovery since the last crash. He then claims that supply side economics could invigorate the economy by rewarding risk taking.
Although I do disagree with him about the results of the Bush tax cuts. He claims that it did not invigorate the economy. A careful look at the CBO numbers on federal tax receipts shows this claim to be false. Tax revenue skyrocketed. The problem was Congressional spending skyrocketed higher- hence my resignation from the GOP. He would have a better argument to say that the economic increase after the tax cuts were not realized in all sectors of the economy.
Anyway, here is a bit of the article. Read the rest at the link.
ECONOMICS (https://www.bloomberg.com/view/topics/economics)Maybe Supply-Side Economics Deserves a Second Lookhttps://assets.bwbx.io/images/users/iqjWHBFdfxIU/iyh8R2FEuFS4/v1/120x120.png
208
SEP 7, 2016 8:30 AM EDT
a | A
ByTyler Cowen (https://www.bloomberg.com/view/contributors/AS6n2t3d_iA/tyler-cowen)
Since the Great Recession, macroeconomic discussion has been dominated by discussions of aggregate demand, and how to create more of it through monetary and fiscal policies. That has led to a strange state of affairs where those topics still dominate the debate, even though they've done most of the job economics expects of them: The U.S. is fairly close to full employment and seeing continued positive momentum. Supposed remedies such as making interest rates negative, with the goal of accelerating monetary circulation, seem better suited to 2010 than 2016.
Maybe it’s time to start paying more attention to other approaches, specifically those based on the supply side. Supply-side economics has been discredited since the Bush tax cuts failed to boost economic growth (http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/11/18/were-the-bush-tax-cuts-good-for-growth/), but there is another way of thinking about the problem. It is not enough for funds to be left in the hands of the wealthy; rather they must be invested in risk-bearing equity capital, focused on innovation.
So argues Edward Conard in his new book (http://www.edwardconard.com/), "The Upside of Inequality: How Good Intentions Undermine the Middle Class." Think of it as a revamp of supply-side economics but with the concept of risk-bearing at the core, a fitting perspective for an author who was a founding partner of the private equity firm Bain Capital and a former business associate of Mitt Romney.
This is an interesting article for serious discussion. The author claims that demand side economics provides some protection against crashes but limits risk taking. Hence the flaccid recovery since the last crash. He then claims that supply side economics could invigorate the economy by rewarding risk taking.
Although I do disagree with him about the results of the Bush tax cuts. He claims that it did not invigorate the economy. A careful look at the CBO numbers on federal tax receipts shows this claim to be false. Tax revenue skyrocketed. The problem was Congressional spending skyrocketed higher- hence my resignation from the GOP. He would have a better argument to say that the economic increase after the tax cuts were not realized in all sectors of the economy.
Anyway, here is a bit of the article. Read the rest at the link.
ECONOMICS (https://www.bloomberg.com/view/topics/economics)Maybe Supply-Side Economics Deserves a Second Lookhttps://assets.bwbx.io/images/users/iqjWHBFdfxIU/iyh8R2FEuFS4/v1/120x120.png
208
SEP 7, 2016 8:30 AM EDT
a | A
ByTyler Cowen (https://www.bloomberg.com/view/contributors/AS6n2t3d_iA/tyler-cowen)
Since the Great Recession, macroeconomic discussion has been dominated by discussions of aggregate demand, and how to create more of it through monetary and fiscal policies. That has led to a strange state of affairs where those topics still dominate the debate, even though they've done most of the job economics expects of them: The U.S. is fairly close to full employment and seeing continued positive momentum. Supposed remedies such as making interest rates negative, with the goal of accelerating monetary circulation, seem better suited to 2010 than 2016.
Maybe it’s time to start paying more attention to other approaches, specifically those based on the supply side. Supply-side economics has been discredited since the Bush tax cuts failed to boost economic growth (http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/11/18/were-the-bush-tax-cuts-good-for-growth/), but there is another way of thinking about the problem. It is not enough for funds to be left in the hands of the wealthy; rather they must be invested in risk-bearing equity capital, focused on innovation.
So argues Edward Conard in his new book (http://www.edwardconard.com/), "The Upside of Inequality: How Good Intentions Undermine the Middle Class." Think of it as a revamp of supply-side economics but with the concept of risk-bearing at the core, a fitting perspective for an author who was a founding partner of the private equity firm Bain Capital and a former business associate of Mitt Romney.