MAGA MAN
Let's go Brandon!
Apparently you've never written a policy statement. There, alone with your thoughts, is your true intent
Debate Thread
- Thread starter Seahawk
- Start date
Apparently you've never written a policy statement. There, alone with your thoughts, is your true intent
Billy Batts
Verified User
You are really getting hung up on this, obviously you are a big fan of the late Doctor Friedman, so was Reagan, George Bush Jr,and many others. Weather his Nobel work was strictly limited to "cost push theory", or it also touched on supply side economics is not the point. Friedman was a staunch supporter of supply side economics, that is well documented. Reagan tried it in 1981 and abandoned it a year later in favor TEFRA which raised taxes.
Read my posts again. He was an OPPONENT of the cost push theory of inflation.
You said...
That is the opposite of Friedman's theories and I have provided several sources, primary and secondary, showing that your understanding of Friedman is very wrong. You don't know what you are talking about.
Last edited:
cawacko
Well-known member
This his whole campaign is a lie if his supposed true thoughts are on his website and they're supposedly ideas just like Reagan's.
Billy Batts
Verified User
Friedman supported supply side economics. Weather you believe it does not Jive with his opposition of the cost push theory of inflation is of no relevance. Now is it your position, Milton Friedman did NOT support the theory of supply side economics? Yes or no?
He did not. You are just lumping all free market economists into one pile that you call supply side. You don't know what you are talking about.
It's relevant. If it is not then why did you make the false claim about it?
My point is not that "it does not jive," it's that you are grossly misrepresenting his theories.
Friedman refuted the Phillips curve (the idea that higher inflation reduces employment and vice versa) and I don't think there is an economist in the world that does not now know that he was right. He argued that inflation and unemployment could be best addressed through hard targets on the money supply (this idea is not well regarded by orthodox economists) and not through fiscal policy (which is what you claimed above and what the supply siders argue).
You should watch this whole thing but at the 9:50 mark you will hear a question to which his answer will include the statement that "there is no such thing as cost push inflation."
Billy Batts
Verified User
Wrong - he supported supply side economics, it is that simple. It takes very little research on the internet to see that.
Here is the one mention of Milton Friedman in wikipedia's article on supply side. My comments will be noted with an underline.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply-side_economics
Before President Bush signed the 2003 tax cuts, the Economic Policy Institute (EPI) released a statement signed by ten Nobel prize laureates entitled "Economists' statement opposing the Bush tax cuts", which states that:
Passing these tax cuts will worsen the long-term budget outlook, adding to the nation’s projected chronic deficits. This fiscal deterioration will reduce the capacity of the government to finance Social Security and Medicare benefits as well as investments in schools, health, infrastructure, and basic research. Moreover, the proposed tax cuts will generate further inequalities in after-tax income.[60]
Nobel laureate economist Milton Friedman agreed the tax cuts would reduce tax revenues and result in intolerable deficits, though he supported them as a means to restrain federal spending.[61] Friedman characterized the reduced government tax revenue as "cutting their allowance".
....
And as a monetarist, he certainly did not believe, as the supply siders do, that inflation could be best controlled through fiscal policy.
...
IBID
Furthermore, in response to inflation, supply-siders called for indexed marginal income tax rates, as monetary inflation had pushed wage earners into higher marginal income tax brackets that remained static; that is, as wages increased to maintain purchasing power with prices, income tax brackets were not adjusted accordingly and thus wage earners were pushed into higher income tax brackets than tax policy had intended.
...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monetarism
They made famous the assertion of monetarism that 'inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon'. Many Keynesian economists initially believed that the Keynesian vs. monetarist debate was solely about whether fiscal or monetary policy was the more effective tool of demand management. By the mid-1970s, however, the debate had moved on to other issues as monetarists began presenting a fundamental challenge to Keynesianism.
...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply-side_economics
The term "supply-side economics" was thought, for some time, to have been coined by journalist Jude Wanniski in 1975, but according to Robert D. Atkinson's Supply-Side Follies,[4] the term "supply side" ("supply-side fiscalists") was first used by Herbert Stein, a former economic adviser to President Nixon, in 1976, and only later that year was this term repeated by Jude Wanniski. Its use connotes the ideas of economists Robert Mundell and Arthur Laffer. Supply-side economics is likened by critics to the theory of trickle-down economics,[5][6][7] which may, however, not actually have been seriously advocated by any economist in that form.
...
You see the supply siders are fiscalists not monetarists, as was Friedman.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply-side_economics
Before President Bush signed the 2003 tax cuts, the Economic Policy Institute (EPI) released a statement signed by ten Nobel prize laureates entitled "Economists' statement opposing the Bush tax cuts", which states that:
Passing these tax cuts will worsen the long-term budget outlook, adding to the nation’s projected chronic deficits. This fiscal deterioration will reduce the capacity of the government to finance Social Security and Medicare benefits as well as investments in schools, health, infrastructure, and basic research. Moreover, the proposed tax cuts will generate further inequalities in after-tax income.[60]
Nobel laureate economist Milton Friedman agreed the tax cuts would reduce tax revenues and result in intolerable deficits, though he supported them as a means to restrain federal spending.[61] Friedman characterized the reduced government tax revenue as "cutting their allowance".
....
And as a monetarist, he certainly did not believe, as the supply siders do, that inflation could be best controlled through fiscal policy.
...
IBID
Furthermore, in response to inflation, supply-siders called for indexed marginal income tax rates, as monetary inflation had pushed wage earners into higher marginal income tax brackets that remained static; that is, as wages increased to maintain purchasing power with prices, income tax brackets were not adjusted accordingly and thus wage earners were pushed into higher income tax brackets than tax policy had intended.
...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monetarism
They made famous the assertion of monetarism that 'inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon'. Many Keynesian economists initially believed that the Keynesian vs. monetarist debate was solely about whether fiscal or monetary policy was the more effective tool of demand management. By the mid-1970s, however, the debate had moved on to other issues as monetarists began presenting a fundamental challenge to Keynesianism.
...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply-side_economics
The term "supply-side economics" was thought, for some time, to have been coined by journalist Jude Wanniski in 1975, but according to Robert D. Atkinson's Supply-Side Follies,[4] the term "supply side" ("supply-side fiscalists") was first used by Herbert Stein, a former economic adviser to President Nixon, in 1976, and only later that year was this term repeated by Jude Wanniski. Its use connotes the ideas of economists Robert Mundell and Arthur Laffer. Supply-side economics is likened by critics to the theory of trickle-down economics,[5][6][7] which may, however, not actually have been seriously advocated by any economist in that form.
...
You see the supply siders are fiscalists not monetarists, as was Friedman.
According to you he was a fiscalists (argued that inflation could be beaten with fiscal policy) that promoted the cost push theory of inflation. But you are full of shit and have not provided a single source to support your claims.
Here is another article that might help you to understand the differences. But I doubt it. You seem content to spread misinformation.
https://www.questia.com/library/jou...nesian-monetarist-and-supply-side-policies-an
https://www.questia.com/library/jou...nesian-monetarist-and-supply-side-policies-an
Billy Batts
Verified User
Knock it off you sound silly. You are confusing inflation (monetarist theory) with tax cuts,and deregulation. Friedman supported Tax cuts and deregulation (Supply side). His obituary clearly explains that:
(Friedman, who won the Nobel Prize in 1976, helped interpret and popularize so-called supply-side economics, which came to dominate much of U.S. public policy in the second half of the 20th century.
Supply-side economics holds that minimally regulated markets offer the most efficiency in the distribution of goods and services. The theory was prevalent until it fell out of favor during the Great Depression, when Keynesian economics became popular.)
Just one question; getting back to my point. Did supply side economics fail in 1981?
I have not confused anything. YOU claimed that Friedman argued that inflation could be handled with tax cuts and/or deregulation.
Friedman argued that inflation was all about money supply. He rejected that cost push inflation existed. He rejected the supply siders arguments that inflation could be handled through fiscal policy and he rejected the Laffer curve. He did agree with them on many things but often for different reasons.
Your source, at least you finally offered one, is an inaccurate old obituary that you had to dig up. LOL.... Several of the sources I provided you were economic/academic journals or from authors with training in the field. Then I gave you the man himself clearly and unambiguously refuting your claim.
The obituary even claims that supply side was dominant prior to the great depression, which is absurd. Supply side did not and could not have existed until after the Great Depression and Keynes, as it was a response to Keynes' views on the Great Depression.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply-side_economics#Historical_origins
Supply-side economics developed during the 1970s in response to Keynesian economic policy, and in particular the failure of demand management to stabilize Western economies during the stagflation of the 1970s.[19]
https://www.britannica.com/topic/monetarism
Monetarism, school of economic thought that maintains that the money supply (the total amount of money in an economy, in the form of coin, currency, and bank deposits) is the chief determinant on the demand side of short-run economic activity. American economist Milton Friedman is generally regarded as monetarism’s leading exponent. Friedman and other monetarists advocate a macroeconomic theory and policy that diverge significantly from those of the formerly dominant Keynesian school. The monetarist approach became influential during the 1970s and early ’80s.
MAGA MAN
Let's go Brandon!
That's not logical at all
Supply Side isn't merely tax cuts, it is a tax cut of the marginal and capital gains variety combined with monetary stability in the form of a gold-anchored dollar. Supply Side fails when it's not anchored with a stable monetary unit- printing money isn't an anchor.
Billy Batts
Verified User
1) No. I did not. I said he was an avid supporter of "supply side economics. See post #251.
2) No. He rejected the Phillips Curve not the Laffer Curve. Supply side was also supposed to slow inflation, while lowering Taxes,and unemployment,and increase tax revenue. So you see the two theories are compatible. He agreed with all of it not some of it. Read the links you posted.
3) The links you provided were mostly Wikipedia, and your links buttressed my position; no need to be redundant. None of the links you provided said "Milton Friedman Opposed Supply Side economics" Anyone can go to Wiki to check for accuracy. The fact Friedman is a supply sider, is so obvious no citation is needed. His own daughter was interviewed for the obituary, I am sure she knows more about her fathers work than you.
4) Wrong, it was not called Supply side prior to the depression. It was a macroeconomic theory (Read the entire Wiki link you posted, don't just Cherry pick). (As in classical economics, supply-side economics proposed that production or supply is the key to economic prosperity and that consumption or demand is merely a secondary consequence. Early on, this idea had been summarized in Say's Law of economics, which states: "A product is no sooner created, than it, from that instant, affords a market for other products to the full extent of its own value." John Maynard Keynes, the founder of Keynesianism, summarized Say's Law as "supply creates its own demand." He turned Say's Law on its head in the 1930s by declaring that demand creates its own supply.)
5) That quote answers itself. Who was President in the early 80's, and what macroeconomic theory and policy did this President along with Friedman believe in?
Really you have side tracked this thread long enough, and I have a feeling this economic discussion bores most reader. Whom by the way is not going to read all the links you posted, and sift through it to see if one sentence in a post I wrote is 100% accurate. In short stop making an ass of yourself.
1. Yes, you did claim that Friedman argued that inflation could be handled with tax cuts and/or deregulation.. Here it is again.
That's not at all what Friedman suggested. In fact he said that tax cuts for the rich, so long as interest rates were low, would be squirreled away rather than invested.
This is the primary point, not whether he was a supply sider. He was not, but I can see how you would be confused on that with the company he kept and your shallow understanding. That you thought he favored a cost push theory of inflation or that he thought inflation could best be tamed with fiscal policy exposes you as a fraud.
2. He rejected the Phillips curve, as I told you, and the Laffer curve. I quoted him stating that Bush's tax cuts would reduce revenues and increase the deficit.
3. Several of the sources were economics journals, just as i said, and I also showed him clearly and unambiguously refuting your claim.
4. Yes, they borrowed from classical economics just as they borrowed from Friedman, Hayek and Keynes. But they are not at all the same things.
5. You are conflating fiscal and monetary policy again.
The monetarist approach became influential during the 1970s and early ’80s.
It became influential with the Fed. That has nothing to do with Reagan's fiscal policies.
You apparently missed the part that stated clearly that monetarism is focused on demand side.
Last edited:
Billy Batts
Verified User
1. I said post #251 after you kept whining, not the original before you were whining. The fed did keep interest rates low in the 80's that was the fiscal policy. Fraud? Fuck you! Now is as good a time as any to ignore you. This will be my last reply to your misunderstanding.
2) It does not matter if it is all. He supported it, Reagan based it on his theory. Bush tax cuts were different as night and day. Coolidge, Hoover, Kennedy all cut taxes too, but each was different, and produced different results. No he did not reject the Laffer curve, no matter what you think, or copy and paste out of context.
3) No - only if you cherry picked the articles, can you draw that conclusion.
4) Exactly so I am right,and so was the obituary that you disputed.
5) No I am not you say one is in opposition to the other, that is wrong.
1. Sorry, it does not matter if you backtracked and mentioned interest rates (Friedman's real influence) you claimed that Friedman argued that inflation could be best tamed through FISCAL policy and that the fiscal policy could cure cost push inflation. He did not. He stated clearly in the video I linked (or rather meant to 
) that "there is no such thing as cost push inflation."
In #255 you disagreed that Friedman rejected cost push and you are just now seeming to back off of that nonsense while holding on to your general claim that he promoted a fiscal solution to inflation. Again, it's like saying Keynes was a supply sider.
2. Nope, Friedman never promoted the idea that inflation could be cured with fiscal policy. He did support tax cuts and less government but for much different reasons than your bullshit synopsis of his theories.
3. What cherry picking? He said, "there is no such thing as cost push inflation."
I screwed up the video link in my original post on that. Here it is...
Note" keep watching and you will hear him say that taxes don't matter. The supply siders would have a cow.
4. No, you are not right. Classical economics is not supply side economics because supply siders borrowed from it anymore than Keynesian economics is supply side economics because the supply siders borrowed from it.
Again, I don't really care about this point. Labels are usually imperfect. If you want to call him a supply sider, okay. But if you are going to argue that he suggested that inflation could be cured with fiscal policy (as you did) that's where I am going to call you on it.
5. Yes, you are. When you argue that inflation can best be tamed by fiscal policy then you most certainly conflict with monetarism.
EDIT: Actually, I misspoke in some points above. He did not reject the Laffer curve. He rejected some of the predictions made by those using the Laffer curve, due to the effect of interest rates.
) that "there is no such thing as cost push inflation." In #255 you disagreed that Friedman rejected cost push and you are just now seeming to back off of that nonsense while holding on to your general claim that he promoted a fiscal solution to inflation. Again, it's like saying Keynes was a supply sider.
2. Nope, Friedman never promoted the idea that inflation could be cured with fiscal policy. He did support tax cuts and less government but for much different reasons than your bullshit synopsis of his theories.
3. What cherry picking? He said, "there is no such thing as cost push inflation."
I screwed up the video link in my original post on that. Here it is...
Note" keep watching and you will hear him say that taxes don't matter. The supply siders would have a cow.
4. No, you are not right. Classical economics is not supply side economics because supply siders borrowed from it anymore than Keynesian economics is supply side economics because the supply siders borrowed from it.
Again, I don't really care about this point. Labels are usually imperfect. If you want to call him a supply sider, okay. But if you are going to argue that he suggested that inflation could be cured with fiscal policy (as you did) that's where I am going to call you on it.
5. Yes, you are. When you argue that inflation can best be tamed by fiscal policy then you most certainly conflict with monetarism.
EDIT: Actually, I misspoke in some points above. He did not reject the Laffer curve. He rejected some of the predictions made by those using the Laffer curve, due to the effect of interest rates.
Last edited: