/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.9797345]

>supply side economics

[Anonymous No.9797357]

>>9797345
that's a pop-economics term

[Anonymous No.9797364]

>>9797345
Repeatedly shown not to work.
Sam Brownback promised to show what it could do.
He's damn near ruined the state.

[Anonymous No.9797367]

>>9797345
>supply side economics
is a politically expedient framing for plutocrats

[Anonymous No.9797371]

>>9797345 (OP)
It's a scam, repeatedly shown not to work.
Sam Brownback promised to demonstrate what it could do.
He's damn near ruined the state of Kansas.

[Anonymous No.9797434]

>>9797345
is one of the only macroeconomic policies that doesnt directly cause inflation. its fine

[Anonymous No.9797651]

>>9797434
>everybody is poor, but at least inflation is ok

[Anonymous No.9797876]

>>9797434
>inflation is bad
No Uncle Joe, your mattress is not a safe store of money.

[Anonymous No.9797916]

>>9797357
let me just pull out my whiteboard and tell you why you're wrong in a simple 15 minute video. economics is easy!

[Anonymous No.9797924]

>>9797371
>Put trust into a politician who knows nothing about economics.
>uses pop econ terms no economist uses.
Next you'll start spewing trickle-down econ.

[Anonymous No.9797932]

Dems and Republicans are both Keynesians. Keynesian economics died in the 70s.

[Anonymous No.9797933]

>>9797924
morons like you are so easily triggered its fucking laughable. you didnt refute anything. you didnt post statistics proving him wrong or a quote or anything - all you did is get triggered and post your little retard hissy fit.
supply side = trickle down
you dumb ass fucking inbred hick
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply-side_economics

[Anonymous No.9797935]

>>9797371
If high taxes and government spending dictated economic success. Then the Soviet union would be alive and a utopian nation.

[Anonymous No.9797940]

>>9797371

The United States has proven that supply side economics works

the USSR has proven the opposite

you fags take a little cut of the economic pie and dribble in some regulations and think we aren't supply side anymore

[Anonymous No.9797942]

>>9797933
>Wikipedia article
HAHA anon. oh man. this is great.

Quite literally zero academic economists use these buzz terms you use. are are attacking a figment of your imagination.
>inbred hick
LOL keep throwing those buzzwords like im you're enemy, anon.

[Anonymous No.9797945]

>>9797942
cont.
look i'll give you the benefit of the doubt. you probably heard about economics from politicians all your life. that's understandable you would be so butthurt.

[Anonymous No.9797946]

>I'm insecure, feel like the bottom of the hierarchy (those scare me!), and my father neglected to raise me properly so I opt to put my full faith and trust in the Big State to be my father, protector, and provider since I will surely be unable to cut it in the free market and provide for myself
>I deflect by acting like I'm doing this out of interest in poor people (who I never interact with)

[Anonymous No.9797954]

>>9797924
Every politician does it, even when some of them are economists. As a result, the masses actually think this 'pop-econ' is legitimate. In my country (Australia), the ruling party treats trickle-down as axiomatic, obviously true. Of course, that's just a cover for giving tax cuts to their corporate overlords and friends. As a result, soon our wealth inequality will be similar to the USA's, I think we're just behind atm. Yet people actually defend them in this. I don't really get it. Outside of this meme liberalism, politicians of other political persuasions do it too. Lies and oversimplification. And my country isn't even that bad in this regard when you compare it to most. No legitimate economic discussion or thought appears to occur in politics, whatsoever. Indeed, no legitimate discussion or thought at all appears to occur in politics, whatsoever. The whole thing is a mess.

[Anonymous No.9797971]

>>9797954
The reason why it doesn't get used by academics is because we know what causes economic growth. Solving inefficiencies in the marketplace doesn't have any affect on the rate of how economies grow. If it did, solving the problems in developing economies internationally (and individually) would be easy as naval gazing at them and telling them how they could improve.
To be quite frank, solving economic inefficiencies only improves the y-intercept, not the rate of growth.
This is seen in comparison between more socialistic economies and economies with more market liberalism. The trend is the socialistic countries have less wealth overall, but the rates of growth are the same.
If you were to go to a graduate seminar on economic growth, the commanding variable you will hear about is the z-score which is an index number on technological productivity in any economy.
the reason why inequality is on the rise in many nations is because of a lack of supply in highly educated work. There is a premium on education that is not being fulfilled. This is based on work by Claudia Goldin and Laurence Katz. Our educational system is having a hard time catching up, and keeping pace, to the rate at which technology is progressing. Education matters.

[Anonymous No.9797976]

>>9797971

The rate of technology is outpacing the rate of human evolution. We are literally not smart enough to fill the demand.

Innovation is driven by the 1% and 0.1%ers, it would make sense that eventually "high level work" would be beyond the scope of the majority of humans

The United States spends a fuckton of money on students and it does fuck all. In fact scores have been going the other way. There are serious diminishing returns with that kind of investment because at the end of the day kids are going to learn as much as they can naturally learn.

[Anonymous No.9797986]

>>9797345
>supply side economics
I can only see this working on a state level and only in a state where most work is done to produce goods that get sold to other states. Even then, it'd probably create a larger wealth disparity.

[Anonymous No.9797992]

>>9797954
Taxes and welfare doesn't solve wealth inequality. You just subsidize the poor. So it sucks less. Inequality is often a sign of healthy growing economies.

Japan has very low inequality and not much welfare. This is of course because of their declining economy.

[Anonymous No.9797993]

>>9797434
>he uses currency as a long-term store of wealth and not as a means to quickly transfer wealth
Brainlet.
>b-but, what about the people carrying around wheelbarrows full of money just to buy bread!!!!
lol

[Anonymous No.9798001]

>>9797932
Keynesian economics was proven right so it changed its name to economics in the 70s.*

[Anonymous No.9798002]

>>9798001
Stagflation

Which Keynes said could not happen.

[Anonymous No.9798055]

>>9797992
This is too perfect. I don't think you even realize how badly you just shot yourself in the face.

To hell with your fucking "economic growth".

[Anonymous No.9798091]

>>9798055
Read some Adam Smith.

[Anonymous No.9798112]

>>9798091
>Adam smith
ahhh yes, the holy book of the modern sellout
Is Ayn rand your new testament as well?
Read some fucking malthus you bloated fuck

[Anonymous No.9798253]

>>9797976
>The United States spends a fuckton of money on students and it does fuck all. In fact scores have been going the other way. There are serious diminishing returns with that kind of investment because at the end of the day kids are going to learn as much as they can naturally learn.
Its true the US tops out at per capita public education spending, problem being that americans dont actually care about public education so there is apparent and/or effective quality control or consistency across legislatures. Kids will learn as much as you properly teach them.

[Anonymous No.9798257]

>>9797992
> healthy growing economies
Lol this is the power of the political narrative of economics in America.

[Anonymous No.9798448]

>>9798112
malthus was a brainlet

[Anonymous No.9798476]

>>9798112
>Is Ayn rand your new testament as well?
I remember when this was becoming hot thing in the tech world few years back.
People gobble this shit up.

[Anonymous No.9798497]

>>9798257
Ignore economic growth at your own peril. I'll be there to say "I told you so" when you have to start practicing mandarin because that's the only language your boss speaks (if you're employed at all that is).

[Anonymous No.9798545]

>>9797651
>>9797993
ok yeah, watch your wages increase slower than inflation and make you poorer. Things dont work all the time everywhere but doesnt make it stupid.

[Anonymous No.9798567]

>>9798002
keynes never said such a thing. in fact keynes has been misinterpreted and misrepresented since day 1. that's why post-keynesian economics is a thing.
the 70s brought an end to what was called Phillips's curve (not keynes's idea) which was purportedly a macroeconomic """law""" which showed an inverse relationship between inflation rate and unemployment rate. stagflation obviously wasn't contemplated by this model.
this in turn triggered what was called lucas critique which basically states that relying on this macroeconomic statistical correlations alone and treating them as laws was naive and economics theories and models should be rooted in solid microeconomics foundations instead.

[Anonymous No.9798573]

This may be a foolish thing to ask, but has there ever been a thorough survey of the evidence and research regarding supply-side economics? Preferably written as an adversarial collaboration between supporters and critics.

[Anonymous No.9798581]

>demand side economics

LITERALLY RETARDED

[Anonymous No.9798585]

>>9797932
>Keynesian economics died in the 70s.
No it didn't.
We are literally living the result of keynesian economics.

We got off the gold standard and we are all keynesians now.

[Anonymous No.9798587]

Why do stupid people think we don't need to increase the SUPPLY of resources to be prosperous?

I mean how fucking retarded can you possibly be?

How are we going to increase living standards?
Magic?
By printing more money?

Holy shit you people need to be killed.

[Anonymous No.9798596]

>>9798001
Imagine lying to people this much.

>>9798567
>that's why post-keynesian economics is a thing.
Krugman is a joke and refuses to debate Robert Murphy because he would get btfo.

[Anonymous No.9798599]

>>9798567
keynes btfo

[Anonymous No.9798638]

>>9798573
no because as it's been pointed out supply side economics is pop economics buzz word that means nothing.
what you're talking about here is policies to improve macroeconomic variable and there just isn't a one and only magical silver bullet that works for all occasions, unlike what some politicians and ideologues would have you believe

[Anonymous No.9798643]

>>9798585
the gold standard is retarded m8 give it up

[Anonymous No.9798649]

>>9798596
>krugman
>post-keynsian

[Anonymous No.9798661]

>>9798643
>the gold standard is retarded m8 give it up
Then why did we have massive increases in living standards for workers while under the gold standard in the late 1800s?
I don't care what it is, gold, fiat, crypto. We clearly need sound money because this ponzi scheme we live under and you people defend needs to die.

>>9798649
how is he not?

[Anonymous No.9798662]

>>9798638
Ok, the way I understand it is that all policy is basically multiobjective optimization in some way.
But I really find it hard to figure out what the impacts of various regulations and tax policies are, based on what I read. Discussions about policy are such ridiculous clusterfucks and it's hard for brainlets and impatient people like me to wade through all the bullshit. I don't know what books to read to 'get' all of this shit.

[Anonymous No.9798679]

We need to dramatically cut taxes and spending so economic growth will happen and the middle class will thrive.

[Anonymous No.9798732]

>>9798055
Why is wealth inequality bad

[Anonymous No.9798755]

>>9798732
Because I, as a NEET, am entitled to as much money as the CEO of a major corporation of course

[Anonymous No.9798944]

>>9798567
>keynes never said such a thing. in fact keynes has been misinterpreted and misrepresented since day 1.
You sound like a cultist, and no he wasn't.
The reasons why we don't use old-school keynes models is because of expectation theory. Not because lucas went "nee ner nee ner, macro models need to be based on micro foundations."
Expectation theory tells us people will catch on to however the government is trying to manipulate the economy. If you're someone who believes in pure rationalism, you think this adaptation comes very rapidly (and it potentially can if there is sufficient competition and communication is open), if you're a new-keysian, you think there is a short-term leeway before people start to catch on.
To put it simply: Suppose you want to make American football players punt the ball less. If you ask a keyensian economist how to change the rules to accommodate this, they'll tell you to remove the 4th down - only have 3 downs - since most teams, statistically speaking, punt the ball on 4th down.
Of course this is rediculous, but it's rediculous because old keynes models didn't incorporate how people might change their behavior in response to what the government is doing.
This is why Game Theory is used, to make sure the incentives are correct with changes in tax code, for example. It's juggling the fact that: Govmnt knows that the people will adapt their behavior. They also know that the people know that the govmnt knows that the people will adapt their behavior and so on. So if you want long-run stable growth, you need to have a consistent government with consistent policies. People don't like to try and re-map things every year - it leads to instabilities.

[Anonymous No.9799247]

>>9798944
>You sound like a cultist
lmao wut?
>no he wasn't
why has his work been reinterpreted in so many different ways and given rise to different school of thought then?
since you're at it why don't you give us the quote of keynes affirming inflation and unemployment can't coexist?
why are you trivializing lucas critique as a kind of temper tantrum lmao? yes expectation theory was one of the biggest developments in economics in the past century and that was one of the underpinnings of lucas critique.
>sports analogy
pls
>need to have a consistent government with consistent policies.
absolutely

[Anonymous No.9799296]

>>9798497
Its you people that set the requirement that we need a "globalized economy", and that's again primarily thanks to "economic growth". It's pieces of shit like you that'll be speaking mandarin. The rest of us will be dead.

[Anonymous No.9799323]

>>9799296
>reminder there's nothing wrong with a better allocation of resources globally

[Anonymous No.9799336]

>>9798599
this is true only for balanced budget fiscal multipliers

[Anonymous No.9799346]

>>9799323
You people live in a literal fantasy world where resources are effectively infinite because of magical creatures called scientists/engineers who always appear just in time to make your every dream of continued consumerism and economic growth come true for ever and ever and ever.

[Anonymous No.9799389]

>>9799346
>resources are effectively infinite
no retard the very first assumption all economists agree on is resources are scarce that's why allocation matter

[Anonymous No.9799413]

>>9799389
how exactly do estimated reserves of whatever resource go into your equations?

[Anonymous No.9799426]

>>9797345

>when /sci/ tries to do economics

"Just give the poor people free money, duh."

[Anonymous No.9799429]

>>9799389
>economists agree
that the best way to grow the economy moving forward is to recycle the deceased back into the food system

literally no one with half a brain gives a rats ass what economists think.

[Anonymous No.9799430]

>>9799426
ahh a drank fan/economist... SO COOL

[Anonymous No.9799431]

>>9799426
It always turns into a political argument without people even realizing it. /sci/ is completely incapable of having any worthwhile discussion of econ

the economics stack exchange is what people who actually know economics look like when they talk about economics

[Anonymous No.9799434]

>>9799389
>economists agree
that the best way to grow the economy moving forward is confine women to breeding pens where they can produce the maximal amount of offspring.

[Anonymous No.9799445]

>>9799389
>economists agree
that the best way to grow the economy moving forward is to remove valuable ores from the mountains and to grind the mountain gorillas themselves into tiny pellets for sustenance.

[Anonymous No.9799448]

>>9799413
a better question would be how don't they? never heard of any models that considers resources as infinite

[Anonymous No.9799452]

>>9799448
You're the "economist" aren't you... why don't you tell me?

[Anonymous No.9799467]

>>9799389
>economists agree
that the best way to grow the economy moving forward is to seize the little children for specialized camps where their tiny hands can be used optimally as they are made to compete for gorilla pellet sustenance by assembling the maximal number of units per 16 hour daily shift.

[Anonymous No.9799472]

>>9799452
you're the one telling me resources are infinite according to economists. so i would like to see those models

[Anonymous No.9799473]

>>9799467
... and of course the less competitive children would be recycled back into the food system.

economists agree that this is the optimal way of growing the economy moving forward

[Anonymous No.9799476]

>>9799472
take your fucking pretend science to /x/ or just shove it up your ass for all I care.

[Anonymous No.9799482]

>>9799476
that's what i thought you're just one of 'em cockcsuckers

[Anonymous No.9799498]

>>9799482
pretty weak post, desu

[Anonymous No.9799501]

>>9799498
>make a false claim
>get called on it
>get butthurt

[Anonymous No.9799507]

>>9799501
alright fine. let me connect the dots for you, you retarded fool

economists' goal is economic growth forever, is it not?

how is this possible without infinite resources?

[Anonymous No.9799514]

>>9799507
i cant wait to see how the deluded whackjob shifts the goal posts now to save face. its like trying to talk sense into someone who is literally insane, or addicted to crack.

[Anonymous No.9799564]

>>9799429
>>9799434
>>9799445
>>9799467
>>9799473
>when no one cares about your sperging out and you resort to replying to yourself
sad

[Anonymous No.9799566]

>>9799507
>economists' goal is economic growth forever,
Source?

[Anonymous No.9799621]

>>9799507
>economists' goal is economic growth forever, is it not?

no you tard, its how to get the most efficient use out of finite resources. scarcity is like the first thing they teach you in econ 101. The reason people say we need sustained growth is because the need for resources keeps growing with the world population

please, just read a fucking book on something before you try to argue about it.

/sci/ is absolutely shit tier when it comes to these threads

[Anonymous No.9799630]

>>9797345
>economics

[Anonymous No.9799655]

>>9799621
what board is good for econ threads? i don't think there's any

[Anonymous No.9799659]

>>9797940
>He thinks the US economy will survive another 100 years
The absolute state of /sci/

[Anonymous No.9799671]

>>9799621
>its how to get the most efficient use out of finite resources
Source?