Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Neocon who wrote (36275)	9/12/2000 4:29:48 PM
From: Brumar89	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769667

What burdensome regulations were reduced? We deregulated the airline industry, the S&L industry, natural gas prices, maybe some other things - I'm not sure any of this was significant enough to have any influence on the overall economy. Re. the failure of inflation to rise as the economy improved - the nation was pursuing two economic policies - monetarism & fiscal Keynesianism - simultaneously. You noted One of the things that is supposed to happen in Keynesianism is that once the stimulus has taken hold, one edges back . . . That's true, but that never happened in real life due to the nature of politics. The experience of the '80's would seem to show that both monetarism and Keynesianism "work". One of the things about Lafferism I find strange is that no one ever seemed to be interested in figuring out where we might be on the famous Laffer curve - either before or after Reagan's tax cuts. According to Laffer, if tax rates were high enough to be on the right side of the curve, a cut in taxes would produce a big incentive effect. So big, that a tax cut alone could bring in higher tax revenues. But if tax rates were on the left side of the curve, the incentive effect would be very small. I wonder why no one tried to estimate what the Laffer curve actually was for the American economy?