l****z
发帖数: 29846 | 1 linkedin上看到的一个评论,写的很好.
Kerem Oner commented on a discussion in TED: Ideas Worth Spreading -
Unofficial.
Charles Mcgivney Economics Supply side or Demand side. Who is correct?
Kerem Oner
Before I criticize Michael Josefowicz' post above, let me answer the
original question posed.
Demand siders, or Keynesian types (mainly neoclassicists), are blind to all
but their god: aggregate demand!.
What is aggregate demand? It is the total amount of goods and services
demanded in the economy at a given overall price level and in a given time
period. Does aggregate demand exist, say, in N. Korea or Cuba? How about
Zimbabwe? You get the point.
Aggregate demand does not equal production, neither does it equal effective
demand. It has to be accompanied by the means to acquire the products and
services before an economy can take off.
That means good jobs. What are jobs? Something created for the sake of
people? No. Jobs are a byproduct of entrepreneurial profit. Labor, as you
should all know, is one of the four factors of production. Without labor
being optimally utilized, profits are a pipe dream.
Therefore, there has to be innovation and production in order for jobs to
exist. So, as we can easily deduce, demand and supply are not a matter of
which came first (chicken or egg). Without effective demand, there is no
production, therefore no jobs.
On the other hand, with an incentivized private sector, we have record
growth and job creation as we did 1983-2000). Supply side encourages the
producer through fiscal and regulatory incentives (like low taxes and fewer
barriers to entry).
Demand side holds that the consumer has to be empowered first in order to
create demand, therefore economic growth. Now, observe what has been going
on in this country and ask yourselves. Will demand side policies work if
there is no sufficient incentive or confidence on the part of businesses?
The obvious answer is NO if you take in to account our current circumstances
1) the huge full time job deficit just broke even last year with 2007 highs)
;
2) 75% of jobs created being low paying part-time jobs (thus explaining the
lousy full time non-farm payrolls) ;
3) 37 year low labor participation rate;
4) 15% decline in real incomes since 2007;
5) I(nvestment) component of GDP being stagnant;
6) Average GDP growth of 2% since the end of the recession (compare that to
the average 7.1% of real growth during the first 6 years of post-Volcker
recession recovery)
7) velocity being at very depressed levels despite record money supply -
over $5 trillion in liquidity injected by the Fed, record amounts spent by
government, and much improved consumer sentiment;
8) more businesses closing than the ones forming (the first prolonged period
since Great Depression that has happened)
Are we working despite record government spending and Fed actions? Based on
the above, no!! What we have accomplished since 2001 has been the failure of
Keynesianism.
Under GWB, supply side policies were betrayed. His tax cuts were superficial
and had sunset provisions. They were not supply side cuts either.
Under Obama, even those superficial demand side cuts mostly went away while
government spending spiked significantly (causing $7.5 trillion in added
debt just in 6 years).
Face it Keynesianism and demand side failed as predictable. Business
confidence has been low for almost a decade now. Fiscal and regulatory
barriers to production has seen to it that our recoveries have been lousy by
historical standards.
So, you now have businesses sitting on top of well over $2 trillion in cash,
or in some cases buying their stock back, rather than innovating, producing
, and creating well-paying jobs.
So do not fall for the old Keynesian arguments. The proof is in the pudding.
Supply side incentivizes businesses to innovate and produce, therefore
creates jobs and prosperity. Demand side depresses business willingness (see
NFIB and NAM surveys for the past 5 years) to produce as is the case now.
You decide what works better. The 1980s and 1990s? Or the 2000s? |
|
