Replies

" That's the part I can't figure out; you seem to realize on one hand that this line is not from the Supply-Side Playbook and yet you still wrote it but want me to pick a point to debate. I would not know where to start."

Maybe this is just a miscommunication. I don't know if this tax cut will impacts the spending of shaken consumers. But I'm not aware of anything inherent to supply side theory that contradicts the understanding that a shaken economy suffers from a kind of chicken or egg circle, with industry resisting hiring until consumer spending recovers and consumers resisting spending until the job market improves and around we go again. That's not the full story, but it's reasonable to believe that it's a subplot.

I don't know why a supply sider would disagree that more consumer spending is good for the economy. Internet bubble pops, democrat demagoguery and terrorism have a huge impact on behavior. Behavior of consumers as well as investors is not entirely rational, and when the confidence and activity of either is high, it's good (unless it's fanatically high).

"supply sider would disagree that more consumer spending is good for the economy"

Supply-siders don't position 'consumption' with an 'improved economy.' That is the Keynisian equivalent of suggesting public works projects to cure unemployment.

Supply-siders argue that reducing the opportunity costs on risk, is how economies grow.

Consevative supply-siders use a mix of some of your posts about budget as percentage of GNP (as Grover Nordquist does).

Bush should have argued for tax-cuts based on good government, rather than claiming his tiny meaningless tax cuts would somehow save the economy. No serious conservative could back him on this which makes him just another politician promising the world and delivering very little. This kills pulic hatred towards taxation, and demands the Bush either get more clever or perhaps pursue a program of revenue neutral tax reform.