3 ms·
This is exactly right. Not many people understand the Austrian School of Economics, whatever you want to call it, "supply side", "tax cuts", not even the politi
by curt 15y ago
This is exactly right. Not many people understand the Austrian School of Economics, whatever you want to call it, "supply side", "tax cuts", not even the politicians that campaign for it. Not all tax cuts are created equal and the goal is not to get people to spend money but invest. The only tax cuts that work are across the board cuts that change long-term behavior. All these credits and "targeted" cuts don't do anything and might even hurt. The goal of tax cuts are to spur investment by lowering the required return on investment allowing capital to flow into more productive projects (manufacturing, startups, etc).
- curt 15y agoReally, down voting a post that tries to explain the Austrian School of Economics. Trying to suppress a view point are we?
- william42 15y agoReally, down voting a post that tries to explain the Geocentric School of Astronomy. Trying to suppress a view point are we?
- oconnore 15y agoPhysics is far more empirical than economics, which is actually saying something, considering how little we actually know about physics. Economics is more like politics, if politicians were any good at math.
- arethuza 15y agoPhysics has proven itself again and again to be very useful - can't say I've noticed economics being anything like as effective.
- deleted 15y ago[deleted]
- paganel 15y ago> It's as boring as having a resident Marxist posting the party-line Marxist take on any given economic problem, and has the same sanctimonious tone that claims to have the economy figured out, but without empirical data to back it up. Before making any such broad assumptions please do read some of the Austrians and, why not, even Marx? First of all, like any true Marxist would be first to tell you, there is no "true Marxist". The reason being that people are still in doubt, was Marx preaching for a sudden proletarian revolution (so, no support for the bourgeois economy and social doctrines, and under this light Keynes is as far from Marxism as Adam Smith himself), or for a gradual improvement of the workers' living conditions, followed by a voluntary surrender of power by the bourgeois middle-class to the lumpen-proletariat? Nobody knows. And don't get me started on what socialist believes might have convinced Lenin that the capitalist-looking NEP (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Economic_Policy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Economic_Policy) was an acceptable thing in order to support the proletarian revolution.