Supply Side Economics Debate Proposal

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2004-10-13 05:27pm

Alright everyone, I'm getting a little sick of people persisting in this idea that supply side economics, Reaganomics, or trickle down economics is somehow a working economic principal that actually benefits the middle and lower classes. Since economic policy is a pretty hot topic right now in the Presidential Elections, I want to decide the issue once and for all by holding a formal debate on the subject with someone on this board. I know there are several people here that are big supporters of supply side economics, so I'd like one of you to come forth and hold a one-on-one formal debate on the issue.

This is a chance for someone here to make their case for their favored economic system. Anyone willing to step up?

The Cleric · Post by **The Cleric** » 2004-10-13 05:48pm

Although I favor the idea (I have an example of it's effectiveness in my house), I don't have the time or the skills to do it. Sorry man

.

Einhander Sn0m4n · Post by **Einhander Sn0m4n** » 2004-10-13 05:50pm

It would work except that money tends to have negative mass, aka it migrates upward and pools at the top!

The Dark · Post by **The Dark** » 2004-10-13 06:20pm

Sorry, I'm more Keynesian than supply-sider / trickle-down (which may win Obvious Statement of the Year Award if people have been reading my posts on the economy). I could do it, but not as well as someone who believes in it.

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2004-10-13 06:47pm

The Dark wrote:Sorry, I'm more Keynesian than supply-sider / trickle-down (which may win Obvious Statement of the Year Award if people have been reading my posts on the economy). I could do it, but not as well as someone who believes in it.

No, I want someone that really believes in this to debate me.

*starts looking around for Joe*

tharkûn · Post by **tharkûn** » 2004-10-13 08:36pm

Are you looking for an arguement that lowering taxes on the rich doesn't end up fueling economic growth eventually or if it is more benificial than some form of "progressive" tax reduction?

The first I think is trivially obvious that yes reducing taxes in general increases economic growth; the latter I cannot argue as I am undecided upon the issue. The rich must either buy something, invest the money, or save it. The first obviously puts more money into the economy, all of the value added onto whatever they buy gets paid out somewhere in the economy. The second means that either somebody else makes an economically advantageous deal or businesses get more capital to expand. The last means that lending institutions can lend on lower margin due to higher volume; more money is loaned into new ventures, and the economy. Even if their aren't good ventures to loan money too then the glut of lending funds increases the supply of loans, which eventually equilibrates to a lower cost. Really the only way the rich can remove the money from the economy is if they buried it in the garden, just about any other action they take has positive effects on economic growth.

Aside from burying money in the ground there is no way that a tax cut, trickle down or progressive, can fail to be a positive force for economic expansion. Other factors can override it, it can lead to a decline in government revenue, and it can lead to inflation ... but it does tend to heat up the economy.

The big reason I see for not soaking the rich are Alexander Hamilton's:
1. It is a good thing when the fortunes of the powerful follow the fortunes of the country at large.
2. If you soak the rich too much, then the rich will leave and take their wealth with them.

Straha · Post by **Straha** » 2004-10-13 08:45pm

I might be up for it... though my general knowledge of economics has rusted throughout the ages.

If no one else shows up I'll at least put up token resistance.

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2004-10-13 10:31pm

tharkûn wrote:Are you looking for an arguement that lowering taxes on the rich doesn't end up fueling economic growth eventually or if it is more benificial than some form of "progressive" tax reduction?

The later. Of course cutting taxes can fuel spending, I am arguing that the tax cuts have to be much more heavily biased towards the middle and lower class to be effective.

Straha wrote:I might be up for it... though my general knowledge of economics has rusted throughout the ages.

If no one else shows up I'll at least put up token resistance.

Thanks Straha, but I'd really like to debate with someone who REALLY believes strongly in the issue rather than someone to just trade token blows with.