|
OP, can you please re-phrase your question because I am a legit economics student (also, supply and demand is the bread and butter of economics no matter which school you subscribe to) and I really don't know what you're asking. You want the dictionary definition of supply-side economics but you kinda went off on a tangent and I have no idea what you want to know. Edit: I'll give you the dictionary definition anyways but a brief one: Basically, supply-side economics involves increasing production of the supply to spur economic growth. What this usually means (post-Reagan Republicans are loving HUGE at this, BTW) is lower taxes and less government intervention in the economy (they are seen as hurdles towards those that produce under this system) to spur growth. This means that the people that makes goods are able to do so, employ more people who then make money to spend on those goods. This is also known as "trickle down economics" where the money from increased business activity goes down towards the masses in the form of increased wages from increased growth. I should also warn you this is a political lightning rod as to how effective this truly is because of recent attention on income inequality over the last 30 years. Justin Godscock fucked around with this message at 00:38 on Sep 24, 2015 |
#
¿
Sep 24, 2015 00:33
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 9, 2024 12:25 |
|
|
The Canadian banking system really is the envy of the world because the government found a great balance between regulation and freedom on that one. Market failures are going to happen, it's inevitable, but having solid regulation means that the waves can crash against the rocks but nothing will happen to the house built way above. Not one Canadian bank even came close to failure back in 2009 because regulation meant they couldn't do any of the shady poo poo that American banks were up to for decades. It also helps the banks here actually like the regulation so you don't have lobbyists being paid by them to whine to Parliament about "hurt opportunities" or whatever poo poo.Xelkelvos posted:It probably also doesn't help that I know nothing about Keynesian economics other than it's based around demand. It was engineering student talking to engineering student so neither of us likely knew all that much beside the broader points on our respective sides. His arguments were largely the broad Libertarian talking points about how regulation caused the two most recent crashes due to over regulation and so forth and I basically conceded since I didn't know much myself. I agree that anyone that says the 2008-09 Great Recession was because of over-regulation is spouting an ideologue. It's a very complex topic and it's actually de-regulation that had some impact but, again, there were a lot of factors and books are going to be written about it for years to come. Paul Krugman, who was cited here, is an amazing read (he won the Nobel Prize for Economics) for anyone wanting a layman's version of economics and he wrote a lot of poo poo about the 2008-09 meltdown so seek some of that out. He can be a little political at times but only when he's shooting down politicians who don't know what they are talking about when it comes to economics. I gave the dictionary definition of supply-side so I'll give the brief definition of demand-side. Demand side basically says during a time of economic recession or depression the government should intervene by spending money on projects and basically make up for the gap in private spending until that sector gets back on its feet. This was very popular during the Great Depression of the 30s when the American government spent a lot of money on projects like the Hoover Dam. The economy improved somewhat by the end of the decade but then along came WW2 which was like dumping a barrel of gasoline onto a bonfire in terms of kickstarting the economy. Now, I'm going to dispel a huge myth: it was government takeover of ALL resources and industries putting America into a state of total war (spending went up to 120% of GDP to fund the war effort) while some ideologues like to say it was industry or the market and not the government. The pros are this generally works but does rack up debt plus some people don't like government intruding into the economy. The Great Recession saw demand side return with the Bailout (from George W Bush to prop up the banks) and the Stimulus (from Barack Obama to fund projects until the economy improved) which did work but arguably weren't enough. The con of supply side, and oh God can this be a topic unto itself, is that the income gap between rich and poor indicates the money did not go down to the poor in the forms of increased wages or opportunities. There's evidence the rich just hoarded this money and reneged on their promise 30 years ago this money would have a benefit on society. I could also go on a tangent about how cut spending and decreased taxes led to social services and other government programs only hurt the poor even more but, again, we'd be here a while. Justin Godscock fucked around with this message at 06:56 on Sep 24, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Sep 24, 2015 06:51
|
|