4 ms·

Short summary of the difference between supply-side (Milton Friedman) economics vs demand-side (John Maynard Keynes) economics: https://www.investopedia.com/as

Short summary of the difference between supply-side (Milton Friedman) economics vs demand-side (John Maynard Keynes) economics: https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/012615/what-difference-between-keynesian-economics-and-monetarist-economics.asp https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/012615/what-differe... My main experience with this on a microeconomic level was during the housing bubble and recovery. I tried working at home flipping used Macintosh computers to sell on eBay and found that as money got tighter and tighter around the country, prices kept falling from $300-500 in the course of a year to $150-300 and eventually I couldn't make any money at it. Part of this was the natural drop in price of electronics but part of it was also the fact that everyone was broke so demand for computers fell. I think we could do a lot for the US economy by putting more money in the hands of consumers and raising demand. We could also think about what people are buying, and start investing in projects that pay off in the long run (renewable energy, permaculture, automation etc) vs projects that are unsustainable (coal, monocropping, the service economy). The fact that most people have never really heard of these sorts of government-driven public works since roughly the late 70s tells me that supply-side economics won. But I think on a local level, we might see a resurgence in demand-side economics with recycling, cooperatives, some level of universal basic income - things that make life easier for working people. At least, I thought that before the last presidential election. But if people are looking for hope in these times, Keynesian economics is a great place to start.

jeffreyrogers 8y ago
I think you need those programs to start at the federal level rather than the local level if you want to avoid bankrupting the more local governments. I would like to see more of those programs by the way.
nickik 8y ago
I'm sorry but your comment and the post you link to is complete nonsense economically and worse applied to Keynes and Friedman is utterly wrong. The article you linked is an honestly an embarrassment. Furthermore nothing in the actual economics of either of these two people puts them squarely in the supply-side/demand-side 'camp' and furthermore those terms are used competently wrongly to the point of meaninglessness in public discussion anyway. I don't want to get into a long post here, but your way oversimplifying the issue economist discuss to a point where it borders on satire. To get a somewhat better understanding in a short time: - https://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/KeynesianEconomics.html https://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/KeynesianEconomics.html (written by Alan S. Blinder) If you are further interested in the history of economists long dead, consider: - https://www.mruniversity.com/courses/great-economists-classical-economics-and-its-forerunners https://www.mruniversity.com/courses/great-economists-classi...
- zackmorris 8y ago
  So you're a Friedman fan I take it? ducks
  - nickik 8y ago
    I'm a fan of R. G. Hawtrey
cynicalkane 8y ago
The "Friedman vs. Keynes" split exists to a small extent, but the imagination that's a deep divide between neocon and neoliberal (or whoever) is almost entirely a fiction of op-ed writers and armchair economists. Both are considered foundational to modern economics. Liberal economists took a lot from Friedman and many prominent conservative economists (Mankiw for one) consider themselves Keynesians. And "supply-side vs demand-side" is not at all the axis that divides the two; that's another fight far more fascinating to the armchair crowd than practicing economists.

jeffreyrogers 8y ago

I think you need those programs to start at the federal level rather than the local level if you want to avoid bankrupting the more local governments. I would like to see more of those programs by the way.

nickik 8y ago

I'm sorry but your comment and the post you link to is complete nonsense economically and worse applied to Keynes and Friedman is utterly wrong. The article you linked is an honestly an embarrassment. Furthermore nothing in the actual economics of either of these two people puts them squarely in the supply-side/demand-side 'camp' and furthermore those terms are used competently wrongly to the point of meaninglessness in public discussion anyway. I don't want to get into a long post here, but your way oversimplifying the issue economist discuss to a point where it borders on satire. To get a somewhat better understanding in a short time: - https://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/KeynesianEconomics.html https://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/KeynesianEconomics.html (written by Alan S. Blinder) If you are further interested in the history of economists long dead, consider: - https://www.mruniversity.com/courses/great-economists-classical-economics-and-its-forerunners https://www.mruniversity.com/courses/great-economists-classi...

zackmorris 8y ago
So you're a Friedman fan I take it? ducks
- nickik 8y ago
  I'm a fan of R. G. Hawtrey

cynicalkane 8y ago

The "Friedman vs. Keynes" split exists to a small extent, but the imagination that's a deep divide between neocon and neoliberal (or whoever) is almost entirely a fiction of op-ed writers and armchair economists. Both are considered foundational to modern economics. Liberal economists took a lot from Friedman and many prominent conservative economists (Mankiw for one) consider themselves Keynesians. And "supply-side vs demand-side" is not at all the axis that divides the two; that's another fight far more fascinating to the armchair crowd than practicing economists.