A little outnumbered I'd say:

Willem · February 12, 2003, 19:34

Bush's economists

DuncanK · February 12, 2003, 19:41

Milton Freidman is just corrupt. Since when does he support budget deficits.

Imran Siddiqui · February 12, 2003, 20:06

Quote:

But the letter also called on the government to show spending restraint to keep the deficit under control.

Thank you Duncan for reading your own biases in

.

DuncanK · February 12, 2003, 20:13

The fact is that he supports the budget which calls for supply side deficits. Why even stating in the letter that they support a ballanced budget. All they really care about is the supply side tax cuts.

Imran Siddiqui · February 12, 2003, 20:15

It's not a supply side budget. As DanS has consistently pointed out to you, demand side of the budget is about 3/4ths while supply side is 1/4th. To call it a supply side budget is dishonest.

DuncanK · February 12, 2003, 20:20

The 3/4ths demand side is dishonest. That's just ridiculous. That would mean that Bush is the most liberal president of our time. Do you really think Freidman would support him if that were true?

Imran Siddiqui · February 12, 2003, 20:23

Um... there is such a thing as demand side tax cuts, Duncan. I suggest you go back to your economics textbook and you'd see MOST tax cuts are based on increasing demand.

I guess you'd consider Kennedy, and every other person that has cut taxes, a supply sider then?

DuncanK · February 12, 2003, 20:29

Quote:

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Um... there is such a thing as demand side tax cuts, Duncan. I suggest you go back to your economics textbook and you'd see MOST tax cuts are based on increasing demand.

I guess you'd consider Kennedy, and every other person that has cut taxes, a supply sider then?

Don't be ridiculous, of course there are such things. The Bush budget isn't even close to being demand-side. There is a tiny increase in unemployment benefits. The tax cuts are all supply side trickle down crap.

edit: change supply side to demand side. I'm messing up today

Imran Siddiqui · February 12, 2003, 20:45

Just because you keep saying it doesn't make it true.

When DanS posted his breakdown, you had nothing to contest that.

A general tax cut is not always supply side. Supply side is based on trickle down, that if you cut the highest rates, the increased business profits will lead to more jobs and thus increase tax revenue. Only the most unknowledgable would consider Bush's tax cut plan to kowtow to that belief. Bush's tax cut is very much based on the demand side because it is based on people having more money to CONSUME. It is not based on the fact that supply would increase, leading to an increase in demand (ie, Say's Law)

DuncanK · February 12, 2003, 20:58

Quote:

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Just because you keep saying it doesn't make it true.

When DanS posted his breakdown, you had nothing to contest that.

I was skeptical, but I didn't want to say anything until I looked into it further.

Quote:

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
A general tax cut is not always supply side. Supply side is based on trickle down, that if you cut the highest rates, the increased business profits will lead to more jobs and thus increase tax revenue. Only the most unknowledgable would consider Bush's tax cut plan to kowtow to that belief. Bush's tax cut is very much based on the demand side because it is based on people having more money to CONSUME. It is not based on the fact that supply would increase, leading to an increase in demand (ie, Say's Law)

maybe you should look into it further. The tax cuts are aimed at people who save their extra money not those use spend it. Therefore its supply side.

Imran Siddiqui · February 12, 2003, 21:06

Actually it's very consumption based, with MINOR supply side effects thrown in there. Like I said, look at DanS's numbers. Dividend Tax, etc are very minor compared to cutting rates on taxes designed to stimulate consumption.

Ribannah · February 12, 2003, 21:12

Hmm, doesn't work that way. What the people do with their extra net income - spend it, save it, or (you forgot) 'buy' free time (work less hours) - is in no way influenced by the administration's intentions, except when the tax cuts change price ratios.

Imran Siddiqui · February 12, 2003, 21:14

Actually depending on the tax cuts, the government can influence how that extra money is utalized. Not exactly, but to a great degree.

Ribannah · February 12, 2003, 21:18

Only if the cuts make one thing cheaper / more expensive than something else. For instance, reducing wage taxes can potentially increase the demand for labour.

Main_Brain · February 12, 2003, 21:22

Take two Economist's -get two positions :P
Nuttin new.

DanS · February 12, 2003, 21:23

You know, having 13 Nobel Prize-winning economists duke it out on policy is an incredible luxury that our country has.

Ribannah · February 12, 2003, 21:25

And usually, all 13 of them are dead wrong.

DuncanK · February 12, 2003, 22:03

Only Milton is dead wrong all the time. The rest are just mostly wrong.

Lawrence of Arabia · February 12, 2003, 22:17

I used to respect Milton. Not anymore.

Urban Ranger · February 13, 2003, 04:00

Quote:

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Actually depending on the tax cuts, the government can influence how that extra money is utalized. Not exactly, but to a great degree.

If you give tax cuts to the lower income classes instead of the rich, it is a lot more likely that they spend the money.

Ribannah · February 13, 2003, 05:47

That is an existing theory, but one that is contradicted by the facts. The rich and the middle class can and will often spend more than they earn, while the poor normally have no such option.

Urban Ranger · February 13, 2003, 08:12

What are you talking about? That's not the case here.

Drogue · February 13, 2003, 08:32

Quote:

Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia
I used to respect Milton. Not anymore.

This reminded me of a quote I heard a while ago. It was by Matthew Parris about Tony Benn, but works for Friedman too IMO. It was something like:

Quote:

He is an incredibly intelligent man, with many wonderful and radical ideas. However his standing is slightly diminished by the fact that he has been wrong on just about everything over tha last 50 years.

DuncanK · February 13, 2003, 14:58

Quote:

Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia
I used to respect Milton. Not anymore.

After he figured out that he was the laughing stock of economics he just decided to support making rich people richer.

DuncanK · February 13, 2003, 15:03

Quote:

Originally posted by Ribannah
That is an existing theory, but one that is contradicted by the facts. The rich and the middle class can and will often spend more than they earn, while the poor normally have no such option.

What you are saying is also interesting, but I'm sure its not true. Since poor people have an even harder time saving money than borrowing it, it is safe to say that it is the higher income classes that save the money.

Hueij · February 13, 2003, 15:04

Wasn't Friedman the guy who worked with Pinochet?

DuncanK · February 13, 2003, 15:12

Yes. The policies didn't work out too well for the working class there in Chile. Still the World Bank tries to do the same thing all over the world that Friedman and Pinochet did in Chile, and they fail disaterously everywhere.