How would Sherdog fix the economy?

It's certainly coherent. But so was the school of feudalism.

"Supply-side" is not a paradigm in economics to the degree that NK theory is (or RBCT, Monetarism, Post-Keynesianism, etc). It was basically a set of policies pushed by right-wing policy entrepreneurs (some of whom were economists) in the 1980s.
 
Some posters are super sharp in this area, like Jack. But yeah, most posts are partisan bullshit or flat out wrong.

yea youre right. there are lots of intelligent people in the wr. lots of nutjobs too.
 
I'm fairly certain I heard the SS for children idea from you first, which I love and I know you've talked about the other stuff as well.

A certain segment of Trump supporters also support an SS for children. But I don't think they mean Social Security.

Hitler-Youth.jpg
 
"Supply-side" is not a paradigm in economics to the degree that NK theory is (or RBCT, Monetarism, Post-Keynesianism, etc). It was basically a set of policies pushed by right-wing policy entrepreneurs (some of whom were economists) in the 1980s.

The idea that "the workers win" if the state allows the capitalist class to maximize profits as quickly and easily as possible (by slashing environmental and worker safety regs, by maintaining a very low or non-existent MW, etc.) and to keep as much of those profits as possible (in the way of very low corporate taxes and low personal income taxes on the richest capitalists) is a concept supported by academics Mises, Hayek, Friedman, etc... Some pretty heavy economist hitters.

And that is the idea at the heart of supply-side.
 
probably by monetizing trap threads.
 
  • End federal marijuana prohibition
  • Facilitate American leadership in self-driving technology
  • Undertake massive infrastructure upgrades
  • Profit :cool:
 
The idea that "the workers win" if the state allows the capitalist class to maximize profits as quickly and easily as possible (by slashing environmental and worker safety regs, by maintaining a very low or non-existent MW, etc.) and to keep as much of those profits as possible (in the way of very low corporate taxes and low personal income taxes on the richest capitalists) is a concept supported by academics Mises, Hayek, Friedman, etc... Some pretty heavy economist hitters.

And that is the idea at the heart of supply-side.

What does the capitalist class do with profits?
 
The idea that "the workers win" if the state allows the capitalist class to maximize profits as quickly and easily as possible (by slashing environmental and worker safety regs, by maintaining a very low or non-existent MW, etc.) and to keep as much of those profits as possible (in the way of very low corporate taxes and low personal income taxes on the richest capitalists) is a concept supported by academics Mises, Hayek, Friedman, etc... Some pretty heavy economist hitters.

And that is the idea at the heart of supply-side.

Look, a set of policies is not the same thing as a school of thought. If you open any microeconomics textbook, you're probably not even going to find the phrase anywhere in the text. There is no "supply-side" theory of consumption, inflation, etc. Surely you know the difference.

The schools of though associated with those thinkers isn't "supply side". Mises/Rothbard represent their own strands of Austrian economics, Hayek was a mixture of Misean and Classical economic thought, and Friedman started out as a Keynesian that later ended up levying some pretty significant critiques against Keynes (referred to as Monetarism).

I realize that this might seem pedantic, but the idea that "supply-side economics" represents a dominant school of thought in academic economics isn't realistic at all, and it's largely a result of misinformation (from left and right-wing groups). As someone who corresponds with actual economists, I've never actually heard the phrase being used by one.
 
It's certainly more coherent than "demand-side".

If (most) recessions can't adequately be explained by falls in aggregate demand, then why do you suppose prices move downward in (most) recessions?
 
If recessions can't adequately be explained as falls in aggregate demand, then why do you suppose prices move downward in recessions?

Because they were bid up via speculation during the boom. Aggregate demand is an incredibly simplistic explanation for deflationary pressure. The health of the entire economy isn't explained by just capacity utilization or aggregate employment levels.

Edit: AgD is also a confusion of the order of operations. Something has to be produced before it's demanded, otherwise you''re just describing a desire.
 
Last edited:
As an economics student, I'm curious what my fellow sherdoggers would do to fix the current economy if they were placed in a "benevolent dictator" type of position. What would your top priority (don't say "jobs") be for getting the economy back on track?

Responses need not be in-depth, just clear enough to encourage discussion.

Here's mine. I'm kind of into urban/labor econ, so my policies revolve around what economists in these fields generally support. By no means is this supposed to be exhaustive:

1) Decouple healthcare and labor markets (there is a lot to unpack here, and it doesn't necessarily mean a single-payer system).

2) Modest minimum wage increases in major cities, generous expansion of EITC (alternatively wage subsidies, direct cash transfers could be used)

3) Encourage mixed-use development in major cities, discourage driving to reasonable extents (either through gas taxes, toll roads); couple with public transit where population density is high enough

4) Open the US to trade, but as this is done, implement worker retraining programs so that people are able to continue supporting themselves

Anyway, apologies for disappearing for a bit there. Finals were kicking my butt (calculus 2 brutalized me).
If I was dictator I would delegate running the country to Rand Paul, and just do jack shit. Rand Paul would be sure to cut government spending. Although, I kind of like the job Trump is doing right now (and he's not even in office yet).
 
The idiots of the wr would still vote trickle down

@ripskater @colby25

Are so dumb they vote against policies that would directly benefit their families.

Ask rip for specifics and he runs like a bitch because he can't rationalize
 
Because they were bid up via speculation during the boom. Aggregate demand is an incredibly simplistic explanation for deflationary pressure.

How do you suppose AD is simplistic for explaining recessions? Also, all recessions are caused by artificially low interest rates? Even the ones that were deflationary before 1914?

The health of the entire economy isn't explained by just capacity utilization or aggregate employment levels.

Well, I think most economists disagree. Everyone seems to feel that stable prices, low (but existent) inflation levels, and low unemployment are okay qualities for an economy to have!

edit: lol @ say's law
 
The idiots of the wr would still vote trickle down

@ripskater @colby25

Are so dumb they vote against policies that would directly benefit their families.

Ask rip for specifics and he runs like a bitch because he can't rationalize
Why you're always so triggered, I will never know.
 
The idiots of the wr would still vote trickle down

@ripskater @colby25

Are so dumb they vote against policies that would directly benefit their families.

Ask rip for specifics and he runs like a bitch because he can't rationalize

You keep mentioning trickle down. No one really uses that description anymore, but just beat out some nonsense given some of your other policy prescriptions. What was your problem with it again?
 
Great question, I would pursue the following general policies:

-Have the Fed raise interest rates at a quicker pace
-Lower taxes across the board
-Decrease regulations significantly
-Repeal NAFTA
-Repeal Obamacare completely
 
Back
Top