Free Capitalist Network - Community Archive
Mises Community Archive
An online community for fans of Austrian economics and libertarianism, featuring forums, user blogs, and more.

Supply side economics?

rated by 0 users
Answered (Verified) This post has 1 verified answer | 13 Replies | 4 Followers

Top 75 Contributor
Male
1,018 Posts
Points 17,760
Kelvin Silva posted on Fri, Jul 20 2012 5:22 PM

What is this kind of school of thought?

Looked it up on wikipedia: school of macroeconomic thought that argues that economic growth can be most effectively created by lowering barriers for people to produce (supply) goods and services, such as lowering income tax and capital gains tax rates, and by allowing greater flexibility by reducing regulation.

So im assuming that the supply side economists will agree a lot with the austrians then?

Am i getting it right?

“Since people are concerned that ‘X’ will not be provided, ‘X’ will naturally be provided by those who are concerned by its absence."
"The sweetest of minds can harbor the harshest of men.”

http://voluntaryistreader.wordpress.org

  • | Post Points: 80

All Replies

Top 500 Contributor
128 Posts
Points 2,945

What exactly is supply-side economics?  It's a term coined by the media and politicians, and is not a school of thought whatsoever.  

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 50 Contributor
Male
2,439 Posts
Points 44,650

Supply Side economics isn't exactly a school as much as an emphasis of certain principles of neo-classical economics, namely focusing on free markets and capital formation to help move LAS to the right and increase the amount that society can produce. In terms of method and much of their beliefs it has nothing to do with the Austrian school, although it's closer than most economic schools of thought to its policy prescriptions.

At last those coming came and they never looked back With blinding stars in their eyes but all they saw was black...
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 25 Contributor
Male
4,249 Posts
Points 70,775
Suggested by Anton

http://mises.org/econsense/ch10.asp

My humble blog

It's easy to refute an argument if you first misrepresent it. William Keizer

  • | Post Points: 20
Not Ranked
40 Posts
Points 2,255

What is the Austrian view on 'trickle down' economics? Aside from moral arguments, what negative consequences would redistributing more income from higher  to lower wage earners have (assume for argument's sake it is a closed economy)?

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 10 Contributor
6,953 Posts
Points 118,135

@The Bomb19:

[edit: see above]

 

  • | Post Points: 50
Top 75 Contributor
Male
1,018 Posts
Points 17,760

I think this one really answered it:

http://mises.org/Community/forums/t/4797.aspx

Thanks John james.

“Since people are concerned that ‘X’ will not be provided, ‘X’ will naturally be provided by those who are concerned by its absence."
"The sweetest of minds can harbor the harshest of men.”

http://voluntaryistreader.wordpress.org

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 75 Contributor
Male
1,018 Posts
Points 17,760

This one answered it:

http://mises.org/Community/forums/t/4797.aspx

thanks john james

 

“Since people are concerned that ‘X’ will not be provided, ‘X’ will naturally be provided by those who are concerned by its absence."
"The sweetest of minds can harbor the harshest of men.”

http://voluntaryistreader.wordpress.org

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 75 Contributor
Male
1,018 Posts
Points 17,760

Also i think that supply siders think that the economy is best run by production, while austrians just think that the free market will decide how much demand/supply there should be.

Thoughts?

“Since people are concerned that ‘X’ will not be provided, ‘X’ will naturally be provided by those who are concerned by its absence."
"The sweetest of minds can harbor the harshest of men.”

http://voluntaryistreader.wordpress.org

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 75 Contributor
1,288 Posts
Points 22,350
Suggested by Jargon

It seems to me that the whole supply side vs. demand side conception accepts Keynes' supposed refutation of Say's law, i.e. that supply and demand are not just the flipside of eachother.  From an Austrian point of view, then, there is no need to divorce these two concepts and create such a dichotomy. 

The Voluntaryist Reader: http://voluntaryistreader.wordpress.com/ Libertarian forums that actually work: http://voluntaryism.freeforums.org/index.php
  • | Post Points: 5
Not Ranked
40 Posts
Points 2,255

John James

The evidence posted in the links points to higher total tax rates not impeding job growth. So then does the question whether to redistribute become purely a moral rather than economic one?

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 10 Contributor
Male
4,987 Posts
Points 89,745

Aside from moral arguments

Austrian economics doesn't make moral judgments on taxation, come on.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 50 Contributor
Male
2,439 Posts
Points 44,650
Neodoxy replied on Sat, Jul 21 2012 12:23 PM

"The evidence posted in the links points to higher total tax rates not impeding job growth."

Actually AE doesn't say that taxes or government spending will necessarily kill off jobs, that depends upon the type of intervention. What AE does say is that taxation and spending will prevent private job growth under most situations and will reduce real living standards from what they would have been. There are also situations in which government spending will radically increase uncertainty and will therefore kill off jobs, or prevent them, which is one thing that someone could claim is going on now. 

From an empirical point of view it's also difficult to actually measure the rate of taxation in America sinc there's state, local, and federal, and all of these focus on various income brackets.

 

 

At last those coming came and they never looked back With blinding stars in their eyes but all they saw was black...
  • | Post Points: 5
Page 1 of 1 (14 items) | RSS