orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) (11/11/85)
Tom Hill makes the following comment: > >> The great theorist explains all again. Phooey, Sevener, you > >> seem to have Tip O'neil's party line rhetoric down pat. > >> First, supply side economics DOES depend on consumer spending, > >> not the savings rate. > >> T. C. Wheeler > > > > Unfortunately I have no articles with direct quotes from supply-side > > advocates as to their theory and its voodoo benefits. However I > > Then why do you continue to post on topics you admit to having no knowledge > of? One wonders. Tom, I never said that I "did not know" what supply-side economics argues. What I said was *"I have no articles with direct quotes.."*** Supply-side economics has been very well-explained over and over again in good newspapers. Knowledge of the supply-side argument hence should be clear to anyone who reads a good newspaper carefully, and most especially to conservatives since it is an argument popular with conservatives. T.C. Wheeler was attempting to defend supply-side economics against the decline in the savings rate by saying that had nothing to do with supply-side economics. To my mind that shows that T.C. Wheeler has no idea what the argument in favor of supply-side economics really is. Since he obviously did not have knowledge from careful reading of newspapers and is not about to take my interpretation of it as valid (the latter is quite reasonable) I wished to back up my claim that supply-side economics is *indeed* concerned with both the savings rate and investment level by quotes from supply-side advocates themselves. My concern is to back up what I say with *facts and references* Something many people on the net seem singularly unconcerned with. It just so happened that I did not have direct quotes from supply-side advocates in my files of articles on various issues. However I did supply the quotes and references I do have which anybody can look up for themselves. I find it incredible that I should be attacked for a concern with *accuracy*. In the interests of accuracy I will post later an interesting interview with Modigliano, the latest winner of the Nobel Prize for economics, on the significance of the decline in the savings rate and the deficits and the need for increased taxes. His arguments refute my concern with the private savings rate. But in a way that has other implications. Because his argument makes sense I must admit that I was wrong. Will Mr. Wheeler admit that he was wrong in claiming that supply-side economics has nothing to do with savings and investment rates? tim sevener whuxn!orb