Comments on: Arguing Supply Side with One of Its Founders

By: Bumpa

Bumpa — Sat, 14 Jan 2012 01:21:26 +0000

You say we need more revenue — I think we have the revenue, what we need is for it to circulate instead of just sitting around drawing interest for the lucky few who have the majority of it. It would be better for ALL concerned if it were invested in the infrastructure, industry, manufacturing – creating opportunities and jobs.

By: Jared Bernstein

Jared Bernstein — Fri, 13 Jan 2012 15:05:28 +0000

Sure–see in particular last bullet on pg 2 http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2008/09/pdf/supply_side.pdf

By: Tom

Tom — Fri, 13 Jan 2012 14:34:48 +0000

“History also clearly shows that supply-side tax cuts, since they don’t have the growth effects that their adherents tout, are causally linked to structural budget deficits (meaning deficits that persist even at full economic capacity).”

Can you provide a link to evidence on this statement?

By: dan ellis

dan ellis — Fri, 13 Jan 2012 11:55:43 +0000

Brad DeLong Blog-From Cameron Langford: Investors Say Supply Sider Arthur Laffer Backed a Ponzi Scheme
http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2012/01/cameron-langford-investors-say-supply-sider-arthur-laffer-backed-a-ponzi-scheme.html

By: Ted Boettner

Ted Boettner — Fri, 13 Jan 2012 00:43:42 +0000

One more thing on demand. Fiscal policy at the federal level is not a zero sum game. Art clearly has no understanding of how the money supply works. The Feds are not taking money from farmer b to pay farmer a. Krugman/ Delong had a great exchange with Cochran about this very point. The MMT guys are right about this point.

By: David R

David R — Fri, 13 Jan 2012 00:31:07 +0000

While I applaud your efforts to engage in a reasonable debate over economic policy, it seems to me that for a serious, intelligent, well educated and respected economist to debate someone who is essentially an “economic quack”.

The core argument of Mr. Laffer is that tax cuts pay for themselves by increasing economic activity which results in enough increased taxes to reduce rather than increase deficits. Mr. Laffer has only his divine belief in this concept, it is unsupported by fact, logic, and analysis. Even most Republicans and almost all Republican economists have rejected this as “Laugher Economics”.

Debating this charlatan only gives him credibility where none is deserved. You have inadvertently done a great disservice to economics. Please, for all of us, don’t do it again.

By: jude folly

jude folly — Thu, 12 Jan 2012 23:57:04 +0000

note to supply siders: it wasn’t taxes that pushed the economy into a depression-teetering recession. and you can’t prove it so. the fixation on cutting taxes betrays a dishonest intellect.