Article View: misc.headlines
Article #720Re: Boom Boom Boom Boom :)
From: Chris Holt
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 12:31
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 12:31
50 lines
3047 bytes
3047 bytes
demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes: >thompson@atlas.socsci.umn.edu (T. Scott Thompson) writes: >> >> I am always amazed at how people claim to understand business cycles >> so well when most economists are of the opinion that they are among >> the most poorly understood of economic phenomena. >> >> Let me point out some possible alternative "explanations." The >> Kennedy and Reagan tax cuts (together with the Vietnam war and War on >> Poverty during the 60s) generated large government deficits. There is > Jesusssss Christ. You post 500 lines explaining that tax cuts generate >growth (and more revenues) and someone still comes along trotting out the old >"tax cuts equals deficits". > SPENDING BEYOND REVENUE INTAKE CREATES DEFICITS. PERIOD. Jesus Christ yourself. Any economic model that resolves into a handful of slogans like the above is far too simplistic to be useful. Spending beyond revenue intake can have any of a number of effects, depending on the overall state of government finances at the time, how much slack there is in the economy, and what that spending is used for. >> I am _not_ suggesting that my alternative theories are right and >> others are wrong. Instead, I am suggesting that the evidence about >> "causality" for business cycles is pretty weak. > Hmmm, well. The evidence points to the legitimate success of >supply-side economics. Growth is spurred by putting more disposable income >into the economy. Production is spurred by providing more investment funds >(e.g., don't tax capital gains). > Competition is spurred by keeping government out of the way of >business. More matras, none of which are always true. If you remember, a counterexample for the last was the cable tv industry in Arizona (or New Mexico?), offered on the net in the past month. > There's the US in the 80s, and Mexico today. What more proof do you >want? Eastern Europe tomorrow? The US in the '80s didn't have sustainable growth. Mexico today has still got a lot of problems. Eastern Europe tomorrow I would have believed in if the Western industrialized countries had invested there enough; as it is, we'll see. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Chris.Holt@newcastle.ac.uk Computing Lab, U of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Still shone the candlelight on the empty screen, after the power went.
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<Btp1Gw.Lo6@newcastle.ac.uk>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!mcsun!uknet!newcastle.ac.uk!turing!ncmhReferences:
<1992Aug24.105003.18370@hemlock.cray.com> <thompson.714869497@daphne.socsci.umn.edu> <1992Aug27.105013.3773@desire.wright.edu>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!mcsun!uknet!newcastle.ac.uk!turing!ncmh From: Chris.Holt@newcastle.ac.uk (Chris Holt) Newsgroups: misc.headlines,talk.politics.misc,alt.activism,sci.econ Subject: Re: Boom Boom Boom Boom :) Message-ID: <Btp1Gw.Lo6@newcastle.ac.uk> Date: 28 Aug 92 12:31:43 GMT References: <1992Aug24.105003.18370@hemlock.cray.com> <thompson.714869497@daphne.socsci.umn.edu> <1992Aug27.105013.3773@desire.wright.edu> Organization: University of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK, NE1 7RU Lines: 50 Nntp-Posting-Host: turing