On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 1:57 PM, David Shemano <[email protected]>wrote:
> I stand partially corrected. Bush’s argument was explicitly a Keynesian > type demand argument and not a supply side argument, so you are correct. > I appreciate your willingness to acknowledge facts even when they do not support your initial position. > I stand by my point that it is not analytically useful to call > “supply-siders,” who believe tax rates affect the willingness to take risk > and produce, are effective Keynesians simply because deficits may correlate > with lowering tax rates at any given time. Because of the nature of > democratic politics, it is all but impossible to see a true supply-side > experiment – a significant drop from a high marginal tax rate and a > correlative cut in spending. > I'd suggest that there is an even more difficult analytical problem: we only know what people *say*, not what they *think* or believe. I'd agree with you that most right-wing public figures (which is the group that claim to be "supply-siders") are not Keynesians. I think their true political philosophy is not something that they would ever admit to - because of Democratic politics as you point out. Their true political philosophy is to keep the mass of humanity impoverished to maintain the power of the plutocratic class. -raghu.
_______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
