|
|
|
| Current Issue |
|
|
| Resources |
|
|
|
Introduction: Should Supply-Side Economics Be U.S. Policy?
| Article
# : |
10454 |
|
|
Section : |
MODERN THOUGHT
|
| Issue
Date : |
2 / 1993 |
238 Words |
| Author
: |
Editor
|
Back in the years of the Reagan administration, the term supply-side economics was charged with emotion and was at the center of public debate and government praxis. It was a shibboleth that separated friend from enemy, a battle cry, a holy mark that (to its advocates) defined the "saved" and set them apart from the "unsaved."
But with the ascendancy of George Bush, the term fell into disuse--and not only the term but the practice as well. Bush abandoned economic ideology for economic pragmatism. The final sundering of his bonds with the Reagan era occurred when he cut a budget deal with the Democratic congressional leadership that involved a tax increase and the watershed abandonment of his "Read my lips" pledge.
Now, as Bill Clinton adjusts the reins of presidential power to fit his grip, the debate over supply-side shows every sign of resurging.
Clinton is an ardent proponent of increased government spending and state intervention in the economy, policies that are anathema to supply-siders. Advocates of supply-side argue that the effectiveness of their economic philosophy is clear from history: Reagan embraced supply-side and gave the country years of unparalleled economic growth; Bush spurned it and gave the nation a brutish recession. Thus, the stage appears to be set for a pitched battle between the two sides in the coming years. The following articles present a defense and a critique of supply-side economics.
...
Read Full Article
Look for this article in Ask.com
|
|
