Supply-Side Forum

This is a forum to discuss Supply Side Economics and related issues.

Wednesday, August 02, 2006

Supply-Side Sells

The Club For Growth is probably the purest supply-side policy advocacy group in American politics. The good news is that they are quietly assembling a very impressive track record of winning elections by candidates that they back.

My conclusion from this is that supply-side issues sell well to the public, if they are actually explained and advocated. The Republican Party should take note of this. These ideas sell. There is no need to go to socialism-lite to attract moderates. They can be attracted with supply-side growth-promoting policies.


Blogger Henry Meers said...

Oh well, is there a spellchecker? I inevented a whole new political party for this debate. Seriously, people's votes, but not their real interests are usually the focus of elections.

In the American free-market sysgtem it has always been "put up or shut up"; we can have have as gradiose ideas as we can pay for, except in politics; there, someone else is expected to pay, so we can ask for the moon. When we get it, things like Social Security, the bill doesn't come for quite a while.

When the bill does arrive, congnitive dissonance is the result, as you can see from the from the Left screaming on TV.

7:02 AM  
Blogger Henry Meers said...

Part of what I deleted was the idea that supply-side is closer to common sense than its competition, which makes it more competitive. All we need are candidates willing to espouse it, and Republicans are closer than most.

The major difficulty for most career politicians is a lack of common sense, because they serve their apprenticeship in government, not the real world. There, it is possible to be paid for bad ideas, since taxes fund them. In the free market, the public chooses who gets paid and, then, only for goods and services that are useful to the purchaser.

The good news is that there are more outsiders, civilians, in the Republican Party than there are in its opposition, where places like Chicago are the training ground for Democrats. The pressure is always for great programs with little or no though to their cost.

8:01 AM  
Blogger Robert P. Churchill said...

There were some articles floating around today that talk about changing the accounting requirements for the federal government's reporting of its balance sheet (aka deficit). If the Social Security, Medicare, and other surpluses that are getting spent are counted correctly the deficit should be ~$720B and if the incurred/unfunded liabilities are counted (as is required of corporations) the figure rises to ~3.5T (yes, that's trillion with a T). Per year.

Lower taxes sell and growth sell, but people have to know the truth about spending and the massive time bomb that continues to tick. If most people really understood what was happening, do you think they'd advocate tax cuts to generate more growth, or tax increases? Really, it's exceptionally difficult to talk to a lot of people on these subjects. Far too many people, when you begin to discuss free market economics in place of socialism, basically accuse you of roasting babies on a spit and eating them for breakfast. More than one person went so far as to tell me it would be perfectly ok if a world governing body enacted a 30% tax on all American incomes, even if no American voted for it.

Supply-Side may sell in some places and I applaud the work of the Club for Growth, but it's an uphill battle.

9:10 PM  
Blogger Henry Meers said...


Most people see a direct link with liablities and income, raise taxes to close the gap; I suppose that is like someone's personal life.

Down a bit deeper, they don't trust the feds to pay the benefits they promise. Peter Drucker made that point years ago, that people are going into the financial markets to protect themselves from either hyper-inflation or lower benefits

Indirect concepts don't sell right away, but the public does understand them. Bush's individual Social Security accounts polled in the 80's, until his name was mentioned and the Democrats said it was a bad plan. This is important, because Americans use the supply side in their day-to-day affairs.

The big New-Deal programs were designed to create dependency, and the public goes along to the point people aren't getting something for nothing, and we're there. They aren't stupid. For example, the U.S. has a terrible savings rate until you look at people's savings which are huge and have been growing. They buy houses, stock and bonds.

We simply need more candidates offering choices.

9:55 AM  
Blogger David Wood said...

Robert, I agree that there are a lot of people beyond the reach of reason on this. But not all. It is those who can still reason, but don't have the true data about economics and markets who can change. There are a lot of ex-leftie Republicans and libertarians, and the numbers are growing.

8:06 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home