Ellen writes: >I will say that these guys [supply-siders] are way less
mean-spirited than creeps like Armey.<
right. If anyone remembers Jack Kemp, he advocated supply-side economics as
beneficial not only to the majority of Amurricans but also to minorities. He
was quite the optimist in terms of
Absolutely right. That's the whole idea. In thier world-view,
which I think is widely held in America, businessmen (and women!)are the
heroes. Adversity -- like unemployment -- spurs the heroic to action --
to take risks, start businesses. In this way the heroes provide incomes
and opportunity
Doug writes:
>And there's
>
>(3) Excessively tight monetary policy, courtesy of central bankers
>who believe in the discredited notion of the Phillips Curve, when
>they really should set policy by the gold price and other
>market-based measures.
>
>If you're by a TV the morning of the next empl
Ellen Frank wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>>CB: Do supply-siders express an aim to lessen recessions' unemployment
>>etc by their tax cuts for capital, or do they say recession is a
>>necessary, good thing ?
>
>Real supply-siders believe either
>
>(1) that unemployment is mostly voluntary and
when they feel compelled to address recession, they use
that claim. otherwise they try to change the subject to the
long-term need for investment, or they try to inveigle people
with the promise of "giving you your money back."
On the positive side, they do not invoke the Democratic canard
tha
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>CB: Do supply-siders express an aim to lessen recessions' unemployment
>etc by their tax cuts for capital, or do they say recession is a
>necessary, good thing ?
Real supply-siders believe either
(1) that unemployment is mostly voluntary and the
unemployed should ge
Charles Brown wrote:
>CB: Do supply-siders express an aim to lessen recessions'
>unemployment etc by their tax cuts for capital, or do they say
>recession is a necessary, good thing
They're mostly optimists, who don't like unemployment or recession.
Take a gander at Larry Kudlow some Friday m
They say the recession is somebody else's fault and will be over soon.
mbs
>
> %%
>
> CB: Do supply-siders express an aim to lessen recessions'
> unemployment etc by their tax cuts for capital, or do they say
> recession is a necessary, good thing ?
>
>
Rakesh - Honestly I have not read Mattick Sr's book on Marx and Keynes since grad
school, where it was required reading in Shaikh's class. I have continued these
discussions with Anwar as well as some of his former students who have continued this
work, like Jamee Moudud. Actually we were supp
>Rakesh - I don't see why I am assuming that underconsumption is the
>problem. Why not underinvestment (public as well as or even more so
>than private)? I am supporting govt spending for both
>infrastructure investment and spending on education, health care,
>child care, etc. I could (and
Rakesh - I don't see why I am assuming that underconsumption is the problem. Why not
underinvestment (public as well as or even more so than private)? I am supporting
govt spending for both infrastructure investment and spending on education, health
care, child care, etc. I could (and do) be
Rakesh Bhandari wrote:
>ah a bit of guilt by association, Ellen. But who would have thought
>a decade later Nixon would be saying that we are all Keynesians and
>four decades later Lawrence Lindsey and George Gilder would be
>trying to assure us--in explicitly Keynesian language--that
>reco
>On the flights to and from Atlanta, I began reading this
>new book by Rick Perlstein called Before the Storm -- about
>Barry Goldwater and the rise of the new right. It's a bit
>long-winded with sometimes tedious detail about this and that
>right-wing crank. But what's fascinating is the veheme
On the flights to and from Atlanta, I began reading this
new book by Rick Perlstein called Before the Storm -- about
Barry Goldwater and the rise of the new right. It's a bit
long-winded with sometimes tedious detail about this and that
right-wing crank. But what's fascinating is the vehemence o
Mat wrote:
>Right Rakesh. But we still have to ask whether working people and
>the poor will be better off with more spending and jobs and less
>taxes or not. In the long run we need to think about alternatives to
>a system that just doesn't make sense, but in the meantime we need
>to think a
Right Rakesh. But we still have to ask whether working people and the poor will be
better off with more spending and jobs and less taxes or not. In the long run we need
to think about alternatives to a system that just doesn't make sense, but in the
meantime we need to think about how we can ha
as often is the case, I wonder what is worse--that the Deomorats don't understand the
wrongheadedness of the claim that the disappearance of the surlus is the cause of the
economic troubles or that they know that is not right but are saying it for political
reasons. Either way, they are sicken
I would hope that progressive economists argue that overcoming the
Treasury view does not guarantee that the economy can be free from
downturns or even protracted depressions. Otherwise, progressive
economists are simply subscribing to the hydraulic or mechanical view
of Keynesianism or rather
"Devine, James" wrote:
>
> [clip]
>
> fools! The Democrats are using the failure to balance the budget against
> Bush. Again! don't they know that it's bad economics and bad politics to do
> so? I guess they're paid well.
>
> On the other hand, the Republicans are demonizing Dachle. What nons
Actually, it was worse than that, as I recall. He said something
like - if revenues declined in a recession, he would see it as
an opportunity to cut fat out of the budget, just like a
private businesses do. I don't have the exact quote handy at
home, though I used it in an article for D&S last
At 1/7/2002, you wrote:
>Al Gore said during the campaign that if revenues declined in a recession,
>he'd cut spending to preserve the surplus.
>
>Doug
Wow!! That is one twisted bit of economic reasoning!! I love it!
Alan
_
Do You Yaho
Alan Cibils wrote:
>Democrats must be getting their economic "wisdom" from the IMF.
>Maybe they should look at Argentina's experience trying to balance
>its budget in a recession.
Al Gore said during the campaign that if revenues declined in a
recession, he'd cut spending to preserve the
At 1/7/2002, you wrote:
>fools! The Democrats are using the failure to balance the budget against
>Bush. Again! don't they know that it's bad economics and bad politics to do
>so? I guess they're paid well.
>
>Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
Democrats must be
23 matches
Mail list logo
