What is this kind of school of thought?
Looked it up on wikipedia: school of macroeconomic thought that argues that economic growth can be most effectively created by lowering barriers for people to produce (supply) goods and services, such as lowering income tax and capital gains tax rates, and by allowing greater flexibility by reducing regulation.
So im assuming that the supply side economists will agree a lot with the austrians then?
Am i getting it right?
What exactly is supply-side economics? It’s a term coined by the media and politicians, and is not a school of thought whatsoever.
Supply Side economics isn’t exactly a school as much as an emphasis of certain principles of neo-classical economics, namely focusing on free markets and capital formation to help move LAS to the right and increase the amount that society can produce. In terms of method and much of their beliefs it has nothing to do with the Austrian school, although it’s closer than most economic schools of thought to its policy prescriptions.
Check out the links at the Mises Wiki article.
And there’s these:
Supply-side & trickle-down economics
(Supply-Side vs. Demand-Side) vs. Austrian
Austrian economics opinion of Trickle down and supply side economics
I want to hear the libertarian’s opinion on ‘Trickle-down theory’
Is the Austrian School a supply-side school?
:EDIT:
Tax Cuts, "Trickle-Down"Economics, & Graph Refutation.
Thomas Sowell [although not an Austrian] states Trickle-Down Theory is a strawman of Supply-Side Economics.
What is the Austrian view on ‘trickle down’ economics? Aside from moral arguments, what negative consequences would redistributing more income from higher to lower wage earners have (assume for argument’s sake it is a closed economy)?
@The Bomb19:
[edit: see above]
I think this one really answered it:
Thanks John james.
This one answered it:
thanks john james
Also i think that supply siders think that the economy is best run by production, while austrians just think that the free market will decide how much demand/supply there should be.
Thoughts?
It seems to me that the whole supply side vs. demand side conception accepts Keynes’ supposed refutation of Say’s law, i.e. that supply and demand are not just the flipside of eachother. From an Austrian point of view, then, there is no need to divorce these two concepts and create such a dichotomy.
John James
The evidence posted in the links points to higher total tax rates not impeding job growth. So then does the question whether to redistribute become purely a moral rather than economic one?
Aside from moral arguments
Austrian economics doesn’t make moral judgments on taxation, come on.
“The evidence posted in the links points to higher total tax rates not impeding job growth.”
Actually AE doesn’t say that taxes or government spending will necessarily kill off jobs, that depends upon the type of intervention. What AE does say is that taxation and spending will prevent private job growth under most situations and will reduce real living standards from what they would have been. There are also situations in which government spending will radically increase uncertainty and will therefore kill off jobs, or prevent them, which is one thing that someone could claim is going on now.
From an empirical point of view it’s also difficult to actually measure the rate of taxation in America sinc there’s state, local, and federal, and all of these focus on various income brackets.