Supply-side economics
'''Please add comments at the end of the TALK section'''
'''It improves the readability of the discussion'''
'''Its good if you put your name and a date also'''
____________________________________________________
You incorrectly stated that tax revenues declined in the 80s when in fact they doubled. Due to the cold war defense spending, spending outran the increase in revenue.
I added/modified this in to the USA section "Revenues from individual income tax increased from $244 billion in 1980 to $446 billion in 1989, and federal budget deficits exploded due to the cold war, exceding the increase in revenues." My source for this is: http://www.house.gov/jec/fiscal/tx-grwth/reagtxct/reagtxct.htm
There are other questionable demonstrations of bias, however I think it is only appropriate for me to correct factual inaccuracies instead of enter a debate.
I also have to agree with the other posters here. It does seem that you really pushed your own view a little too much in to the story. And I also agree that the Keynesian theory article is a great example.
-thegnode@gmail.com
Hi there. I don't like liars and propaganda and I really object to repetition of lies.
1. The figures are not adjusted for inflation. Anyone who argues nominal numbers in economics when real numbers are needed is lying. Tax revenues doubled in every other decade. This compares a trough (recession) year, with a peak (near top of cycle year) making sliding two well known "how to lie with statistics".
2. The excuses about the cold war are also lies. The cold war didn't start in 1980, and Carter had also had a defense build up. These aren't unexpected revenues. Further with the end of the cold war, budget deficits should have gone down under Bush - instead they went up.
3.In 1981 Stockman and Reagan promised above trendline growth in revenues. They didn't produce. Attempts to revise, post-hoc, what they promised aren't POV, they are simply lies about what was said and done. The article is a lot nicer to the pack of liars which your side is than it really deserves to be. Nextel ringtones Stirling Newberry/Stirling Newberry 16:24, 7 Sep 2004
Apart from a few non-objective wordings on the latter part of the article, I think it's well written.
- DJSupreme23
there is no way this page is 'neutral'. when you start pontificating on what caused recessions, rather than telling us what various economists think caused recessions, you have crossed the line.
just a simple rewording, like 'J T Egghead argued that clinton capital gains cut helped the boom' instead of 'clintons capital gains cut helped the boom' would make this article a lot better.
and give me a freaking break, you are trying to say that you know what theory explains q4 2003?
=
I had originally hoped that this page could offer a clear account of Supply-Side economic theory.
However others have elected to convert it into a US centric account of the Reagan era with quips about what worked and what didn't.
Whilst no theory can stand outside of its practice in reality it would be much clearer if we could logically separate explainations of the theory from debates about the effect in the USA during the 1980s.
I would prefer to see a clear account of the theory standing separate from discussions about whether the theory holds up in practice. This means that the headings covering theoretical issues would be better if they did not contain the US historical arguments.
Others seem more determined to prove the theory a failure than to clearly articulate what the theory says.
Terje. (19-JAN-2004)
==
Reality is a gang of brutal facts beating up on a beautiful theory.
You've basically admited that you have a heavy POV, and are going to push it on the article. That's a violation of wikipolicy.
Abbey Diaz Stirling Newberry/Stirling Newberry 04:21, 19 Jan 2004
==
Its not POV to want the theory to be under a different heading to the debate about whether the theory is accurate. The theories that comprise Supply-Side economics are real theories. They are not POV.
Whether the theories are correct is another issue. And there should be room in the article to discuss such matters.
If the text outlining the actual theory becomes nothing more than an opinionated critisism then it does not make the topic more accessible. It makes it less accessible.
There is a heading for criticism of the theory and I originally introduced it deliberately to allow space for reviewing the theory in light of reality. That is where theory should collide with reality, not in the introduction or it the areas of definition.
~~
One of the complexities I sense emerging within the text is that there are actually different schools of thought under the Supply-Side economics banner. Laffer and his offshoots tend to be purely focused on fiscal matters while Mundell and Wanniski seem to also have a considerable body of work devoted to monetary theory and the gold standard.
TERJE
24-JAN-2004
==
"Economic theories must be judged by their actual performance, and not their possible performance under ideal conditions."
Milton Friedman
Wanting facts to be someplace else, is POV.
===
There is a time and place to judge and a time and place to describe.
I can describe a theory in detail without agreeing that the theory is correct.
However it is very hard to acurately judge a theory if you do not properly describe it to start with.
What you seem to be saying is that WIKIPEDIA should not include descriptions of theories that you disagree with. That is pure POV.
Supply-Side Economics is first and formost a theory about how economies work. It is not first and foremost a theory about how well Ronald Reagans policies will perform.
The Supply-Side Economics model may be totally and completely wrong. However that does not mean that its an unimportant theory or should not be properly described in Wikipedia. And for me a proper description of the theory should be concluded prior to any account of how it holds up under the light of reality. Although the discussion of how it holds up under the light of reality is of course also important.
"For me"
POV by definition.
"Although the discussion of how it holds up under the light of reality is of course also important."
And it should be in the article on supply side economics, where it belongs.
If you want control over something, set up your own web page and write it.
Free ringtones User:Stirling Newberry/Stirling Newberry 18:46, 24 Jan 2004 (PST)
QUOTE: "Can you at least get your own POV right? Supply-side was not meant to encourage domestic consumption"
And nobody said otherwise. However the supply side economics is about enabling trade between the domestic factors of PRODUCTION. ie labour & capital. And PRODUCTION need not be investment.
And why take out the reference to Says law?
TERJE 26-JAN-2004
I think theory should dominate this page, with brief descriptions of implementations pointing to other pages, such as Majo Mills Reaganomics.
=
"Supply-side principles seem to explain a lot." and POV discussions of the Regan years and other things have led me to place this page in an NPOV dispute. I'm enough of an expert in economics to replace this page with something better, but I think the page should focus on the theory, its critics, and its effectiveness. For comparison, most other SSE pages encyclopedia entries with suggesting that the theory has been undercut.
Anyone, help: I can't make heads or tales of this quote from the article:
*"In 1981 supply-side economist Robert Mundell, in 1999 to win the Nobel prize for "for his analysis of monetary and fiscal policy under different exchange rate regimes and his analysis of optimum currency areas", told Ronald Reagan that theory predicted that by cutting upper bracket taxation rates, and by lowering rates on capital gains, it would be possible to raise government revenues while cutting taxes."
The phrasing is awful and I'm not sure how to fix it. :(
===
Given that the neutrality of this article is disputed could somebody paste the disputed paragraph into the discussion area so that we might discuss the lack of neutrality and get it sorted out.
Terje 6-JUN-2004
Given the complete lack of response to my last discussion point I have removed the NPOV status on this article.
If you think that it should be NPOV please post reasons in the discussion area.
TERJE.
19-JUN-2004
==
The phrase:-
'''Critics of supply-side economics, such as Paul Krugman, argue that this rhetoric is merely "a trojan horse for upper bracket tax cuts without economic justification."'''
Seems to have created some discent. Some people think that the opening section needs to contain this phrase multiple times.
I think that having it as the closing phrase for the opening section is quite sufficient.
^^^ comment abover were by TERJE
I'm sending this to mediation. Mosquito ringtone User:Stirling Newberry/Stirling Newberry
Protected
Whatever the reason, it's protected now. Please work things out as per Sabrina Martins Dispute resolution. (Also read Nextel ringtones m:The wrong version. It'd be best if it didn't get as far as Abbey Diaz Lamest edit wars ever too.) Thanks. - Free ringtones David Gerard/David Gerard 16:06, 27 Jun 2004
TERJE 28 JUNE 2004
It never would have needed mediation is somebody had been willing to discuss things in the talk section. However its here now so lets hope somebody can bring themselves to the discussion table.
My view is that the Krugman comments belong at the end of the opening section. Where they appear the first time at the moment seems disjointed.
The comment is:-
'''Critics of supply-side economics, such as Paul Krugman, argue that this rhetoric is merely "a trojan horse for upper bracket tax cuts without economic justification."'''
The context at the end of the section is about tax cut rhetoric used by supply siders. This is where the Krugman comment makes the most sence.
At present the comment follows on from an explaination of supply-side economics focus on production. To lead directly into Krugmans disquite about tax cut rhetoric is disjointed.
In any case if somebody wishes to keep on adding the comment back again adjacent to the production theory they should at least remove the duplication at the end. I don't think Krugmans criticism needs to be mentioned twice.
Thats my 2 cents worth.
Majo Mills User:Terjepetersen/Terjepetersen
I am taking this to mediation. Your statements above are inaccurate: you have repeatedly violated wiki standards on NPOV writing, and were the first to invoke formal review mechanisms. I am now merely following through on this. Cingular Ringtones Stirling Newberry/Stirling Newberry 12:04, 28 Jun 2004
The view that I have repeatedly violated wiki standards is purely subjective. It is your point of view but that does not make it a fact. Are you going to actually put a case as to why the Krugman phrase should be in the middle of the section rather than at the end? I would like to hear some reasons why you think its better in the middle. national joy User:Terjepetersen/Terjepetersen
That's why I am taking this to mediation. Holding a discussion with you is impossible. smash in Stirling Newberry/Stirling Newberry 13:55, 29 Jun 2004
==
To quote that old Lady from the 80's Wendy's commercials, "Where's the beef?"
It would be interesting to see the proof for and against Supply Side Economics so we can tell if either side is valid. The only thing that comes close to proofs is this sentence in the criticisms "These criticisms point to the explosion in deficits, the failure of the 'Laffer Curve' to materialize and the conversion of price volatility to currency volatility as proofs that supply side economics does not work." Rather than say it, link to some articles that prove it. Show us charts and graphs. Yes I know "everyone" knows that the deficit grew, but what proof do we have that supply side economics caused it and not something else? Also while the economy grew under Ronald Reagan, how do we know that supply side economics caused it and not the Computer Technology Boom or something else? I am trying to learn Economics, and while it is good to understand the theories, it is hard when there is not much proof to back those theories up. I too can make theories based on observations if I wanted to. If we are gambling the future of the economy on a theory, doesn't it make sense to show some proof that we are taking the right steps? Could it be that supply side economics only works under certain conditions, and giving tax breaks to the poor only works under certain conditions as well (Robin Hood Economics? Take from the rich and give to the poor, like Robin Hood.)?
As far as the mediation, work things out but make sure that both sides are properly represented. We are all adults here, I think, and we should be able to reason things out logically and following the rules of order.
feet cherry User:OrionBlastar/OrionBlastar 08:45, 29 Jun 2004 (CST)
The article does discuss the disputes between theory. Not enough, but far more than the other party to this dispute would like. I refer you to the talk sections above where TJ complains bitterly about *any* balancing material. I hope, in future, you will read disputes more carefully before making comments on them. more vexing Stirling Newberry/Stirling Newberry 14:38, 29 Jun 2004
==
'''Are you going to actually put a case as to why the Krugman phrase should be in the middle of the section rather than at the end? I would like to hear some reasons why you think its better in the middle. Terjepetersen 1-JULY-2004'''
P.S. It was me who originally created the section on criticisms and first populated it. I have no problems with criticism of SS economics. I just don't want the criticism to obscure what the theory actually says. The standard SS argument about the Reagan deficits is that they were caused predominately by a blow out in spending, not a decline in tax revenue. Of course that can be argued back and forth also. '''Terjepeteresen 1-JULY-2004'''.
I am sick and tired of your lies, your original statement was that the article was about supply side, and you bitterly resented any criticisms, except those stuck in a ghetto at the bottom. that beanie User:Stirling Newberry/Stirling Newberry
===
Details on the book that Wanniski wrote: https://www.supplysideinvestor.com/07-30-98.html
To deny he wrote it is just stupid. I own a copy so I am confident that it exists.
TERJE 1-AUG-2004
===
Garbled sentence
: However the monetary policies that prevailed at the time under Federal Reserve chair Paul Volcker were based on a monetarist variant of Keynesian theory,
Is this assertion really relevant in this paragraph? Even if it were true, why is this here? The presence of this sentence is patently meant to assuage someone's discomfort over what appear to be uncomfortable facts. I learned this kind of stuff in becoming master secondary school. It's called selling watches apologetics.
Moreover, shouldn't someone explain which monetarist variant they are referring to?silks and CSTAR/CSTAR 16:33, 16 Aug 2004
:P.S. The explanatory sentence, is hardly convincing:
::i.e., that persistent low money-supply growth and high interest rates would cause high unemployment and "disinflation."
:This is clearly a variant of something, but it is not clear that this is a monetarist variant of keynesianism.discuss options CSTAR/CSTAR 16:37, 16 Aug 2004
The original argued simply that Paul Volker implemented the well known "disinflation scenario" of raising interest rates to squeeze out inflation, and that the results, in terms of unemployment, interest rates and GDP followed that model. id est there is no discernable difference between what happened and the baseline scenario, calling into question whether there was a significant "supply side economics effect" to the 1983-1985 rebound above and beyond "crude Keynesianism".
I'd be happy if someone could write a better explanation than exists in the article.
and boycotting Stirling Newberry/Stirling Newberry 17:38, 16 Aug 2004
: As an outsider reading this article for the first time, the facts for instance the historical fact you just mentioned, get lost. Actually, if you put in what you just said, the whole paragraph would make a lot more sense. (I know absolutely nothing about this period having lived outside the US at the time. It's foreign territory to me)these traditions CSTAR/CSTAR 17:56, 16 Aug 2004
I really don't know anything about this topic, so I came to this page to check it out. No offense to the people who have contributed their time, but as an encyclopedia entry, this stinks. The organization, writing, and content all stink. Instead of being anything remotely close to NPOV, it reads like two POV people yelling at each other, with the supply-side critic side getting in the most numerous and most blatantly POV barbs. Does this sound like something you'd read in an encyclopedia? "One of the reasons that "Supply Side" economics does not have credibility in the mainstream of economics is the tendency of its adherents to simply lie when the facts fall against them." And what's with the sudden addition of quotation marks and capitalization to the topic's name in that sentence? I don't mean to pick on one side here. A calm, rational supply-sider and a calm, rational critic should get together, scrap this whole article, and plan its organization from scratch. I'd help, but I didn't know anything about supply-side when I came to this page, and I feel like I still don't, after reading the entry. Make it sound like a neutral encyclopedia article. And tell me what it is, don't waste space quibbling over Reagan's tax cuts or Clinton's tax increases. Save those battles for another page. Check out the mckenna and Keynesian economics page for an example of this kind of subject being handled much better. Just some advice from a Wikipedia reader; take it or leave it. outfield just 68.43.122.246/68.43.122.246 01:46, 5 Sep 2004
I agree with much of what you said; I have avoided this article like the plague. One of the reasons I devoted considerable effort the articles on threads all model_(economics)/economic models and of laxity model_(abstract)/models in general, is to present the issue of falsifiability. Unfortunately supply side economics is one of those theories that does not seem to have any falsifiability criteria.fec has CSTAR/CSTAR 02:01, 5 Sep 2004
Some incorrect, obviously biased entries in this article
The following items are not disputable, since they are easily obtained facts/figures:
Tax Revenue almost doubled during Reagan's term. Whether or not you personally attribute it to Reaganomics is up to you, but this article not only refutes this fact, it also tries to move any credit away from Supply-Side and over to Volcker.
Spending increased heavily, both in the areas of defense and entitlement.
So, while our revenue increased, so did our debts and yearly deficits.
Also, the author shows his bias by stating that the plan was to "cut taxes on the wealthy". Again, easily researched. Tax rates for all brackets were cut. When you consider that some high brackets had more than 50% tax rates, you would expect those to come down in line with a realistic percentage. Does anyone believe that more than half of ones income should be taxed?
This article needs to be overhauled in a neutral voice. Facts need checking, and attempted nudging of opinion needs to be eliminated
Matt
Rewrite
Since this dispute seems to be over, or at least for the moment, I hope there will be some effort to rewrite this article. There are a lot of things here which might be POV, and as an encyclopedia article it really doesn't explain supply side economics very well at all. I don't know enough about this to rewrite it, so I'm listing it on pages needing attention. had linked Scheming Eyebrows/Scheming Eyebrows 11:27, Oct 29, 2004
Did Keynes Refute Says Law
Dictionary.com offers the following defintions for the word refute
''re·fute''
1. To prove to be false or erroneous; overthrow by argument or proof: refute testimony.
2. To deny the accuracy or truth of: refuted the results of the poll.
So I think its fair to say that the second definition is appropriate in the context of the article. Keynes did deny the accuracy of says law.
Although it might be clearer to simply say that "Keynes denied the accuracy of says law". Or as one editor suggested "Keynes challenged says law".
''^^ TERJE 2005-01-03''
He did. Get used to it. It's why we have General Equilibrium rather than Say's Law. pacing his Stirling Newberry/Stirling Newberry 22:26, 2 Jan 2005
~~
Well you can do wikipedia a big favour then. The section on "Says Law" and the section on "General Equilibrium" do not make any reference to eachother. Perhaps you could improve these articles by cross referencing them with some appropriate text.
''^^^TERJE 2005-01-05''
That's because General Equilibrium isn't derrived from says law, but from IS-LM. General Equilibrium is a permissive state of a market in clearing, that is, it says it is possible for there to be a free market that always clears given certain conditions, Say's Law is restrictive - it stated that markets had to generally clear. Go read some Hicks and Keynes, or even Stiglitz and Walsh, it would be good for you. governance of Stirling Newberry/Stirling Newberry 15:08, 5 Jan 2005
tone with User:Terjepetersen/Terjepetersen
Once again I am astounded by your utter superiority in all things.
''^^^TERJE 2005-01-09''
The "author" of this "article" seems to enjoy calling people liars simply because their facts are right and his are wrong. Tax revenues did not double in the 1920s or the 1930s, therefore Stirling Newberry is a liar. Carter did not have a defense buildup. Defense spending fell from 24.1% of federal government outlays and 5.1% of GDP in 1976 to 22.7%/4.9% in 1980. Therefore, Stirling is a liar here too. These numbers were 27.3%/5.8% in 1989.
Here are constant-dollar revenue and outlays:
1979 .................................... 1,017.8 1,107.3
1980 .................................... 1,028.3 1,175.1
1981 .................................... 1,077.4 1,219.4
1982 .................................... 1,036.9 1,251.7
1983 .................................... 961.7 1,294.4
1984 .................................... 1,016.8 1,299.5
1985 .................................... 1,082.6 1,395.7
1986 .................................... 1,107.3 1,425.7
1987 .................................... 1,196.1 1,405.7
1988 .................................... 1,235.6 1,446.5
1989 .................................... 1,298.9 1,498.7
1990 .................................... 1,309.3 1,589.9
I also note that revenue growth from 1960-1982 was 3.1% annually. From 1983-1990 it was 4.4% annually. I guess it was above the trendline, which makes the supply-siders right and Stirling Newberry a liar yet again. I've never seen such a defensive lying liar write such a lying article. ArminTamzarian/ArminTamzarian 22:10, 21 Jan 2005
:Trough to peak fallacy. Flunks econ 101. User:Stirling Newberry/Stirling Newberry
:: Trough was 1982. Flunks dictionary 1. Author is free to propose other periods for comparison; he has declined to do so. Simply calling something a fallacy does not necessarily makes it so. Also ignores possible stimulative effects of 1982 tax cuts - author makes unwarranted ceteris paribus assumption, another fallacy. ArminTamzarian/ArminTamzarian 23:33, 21 Jan 2005
Okay, here's another one:
"Supply-siders proceed to blame Clinton and Osama bin Laden, despite the lack of any rigorous model which explains the long drought in hiring that can be attributed either to the bubble bursting of 2000, or the September 11th attacks of 2001."
Ignoring the petulant, childish, and mostly inaccurate accusations made in this "article," there is rigorous evidence that the "long drought in hiring" is attributable to the 2000 stock market collapse. Perhaps Stirling Newberry has heard of Ray Fair. Fair's research shows that the low unemployment rates of the late 1990s were entirely a result of high stock prices, and that after 2000, unemployment merely returned to the level it would have been absent a stock market bubble.
See chapter 6 in Ray C. Fair, ''Estimating How the Macroeconomy Works''
http://fairmodel.econ.yale.edu/rayfair/pdf/2003A.PDF
I am therefore also flagging this as disputed.
::Whoa, that's some pretty nasty accusation there! Ray Fair's model is one statistical model; he also says "what is not simple is finding a reason for the stock market boom in the first place".
Lying liar? C'mon please be civil.
::I will concede that this article could use rewriting, possibly with a more conciliatory tone based on what at one time in the distant past may have been considered supply side economics, namely theory of economic growth ala Swan-Solow-von Neumann-Samuelson etc. CSTAR/CSTAR 22:42, 21 Jan 2005
::: I was only responding in the same tone the author uses while defending his turf from all disagreement. ArminTamzarian/ArminTamzarian 23:33, 21 Jan 2005
-
:Fair's model isn't a supply side model. It's a non-rational expectation neo-classical synthesis model based on monetary rule rates. But, using his model, the prolonged hiring drought is the result of rate decisions made post, not pre 2000. Stirling Newberry/Stirling Newberry 22:39, 21 Jan 2005
::Is it really? Now, unlike the author, I do not have several doctorate degrees in economics and econometrics, but I don't see why whether the model is a supply-side model or not is relevant to its usefulness in examining the effects of exogenous variables on the US economy. Dumb people can only observe that the unemployment rate stays between 5.5% and 6.0% in the period 1995-2000 in the counterfactual scenario, which is also where it was for much of the period 2001-2004, leading to the hypothesis that the growth in employment according to the establishment servey has been slow because we are already at the same level of full emplyoment we would have had in 1995-2000 absent the bubble. Author is free to test and refute the hypothesis, but it is hardly "no evidence."ArminTamzarian/ArminTamzarian 23:33, 21 Jan 2005
Since both objections have been refuted, and the poster placing them is making personal attacks and trolling, I am removing the tags. Stirling Newberry/Stirling Newberry 22:39, 21 Jan 2005
: I was under the impression that comments like these are "personal attacks."
::Hi there. I don't like liars and propaganda and I really object to repetition of lies.
::1. The figures are not adjusted for inflation. Anyone who argues nominal numbers in economics when real numbers are needed is lying. Tax revenues doubled in every other decade. This compares a trough (recession) year, with a peak (near top of cycle year) making sliding two well known "how to lie with statistics".
::2. The excuses about the cold war are also lies. The cold war didn't start in 1980, and Carter had also had a defense build up. These aren't unexpected revenues. Further with the end of the cold war, budget deficits should have gone down under Bush - instead they went up.
::3.In 1981 Stockman and Reagan promised above trendline growth in revenues. They didn't produce. Attempts to revise, post-hoc, what they promised aren't POV, they are simply lies about what was said and done. The article is a lot nicer to the pack of liars which your side is than it really deserves to be. Stirling Newberry/Stirling Newberry 16:24, 7 Sep 2004
"Trolls" usually don't provide evidence. In fact, I am curious why anyone who challenges the author is expected to provide evidence while the author is not. I am restoring the flags.ArminTamzarian/ArminTamzarian 23:33, 21 Jan 2005
Tags removed. Please stop violating wiki policy by name calling, and insistence on your POV. The article documents the, rather harsh, critiques of supply side economics. Which is why, despite having a Republican President, a Republican Congress and massive revenue reductions, the words aren't heard in the public discussion. You should think on why this is so. Stirling Newberry/Stirling Newberry 23:59, 21 Jan 2005
Mr. Newberry, are all three of these your statements?
I don't like liars and propaganda and I really object to repetition of lies.
The article is a lot nicer to the pack of liars which your side is than it really deserves to be.
Please stop violating wiki policy by name calling, and insistence on your POV.
Please tell me that you didn't say all of those things. I'm hoping that some evil genius edited this discussion to make you and other supply-side opponents look very inconsistent.Rroser167/Rroser167 21:34, 26 Jan 2005
Irrelevant paragraphs.
I'm removing several paragraphs which are nothing more than attacks on the proponents of supply side theory. If you wish to add them back in, defend yourself. user:rotten/rotten
: The reason for your deletion would suggest that the removed paragraphs were ad-hominem attacks (e.g. ''nothing more than attacks on the proponents of supply side theory''). However, it is quite clear these paragraphs refer to statements or beliefs of supply-side supporters; how is it possible to discuss supply-side without making references to these statements or beliefs? You may argue or disagree about their factual accuracy, but that is another matter entirely.CSTAR/CSTAR 22:30, 20 Feb 2005
:: I don't agree or disagree at all concerning their factual accuracy, but they were opinion, not fact. user:rotten/rotten
::: I've lost track of the level of referential nesting here(e.g. the level of nestings in phrases such as "X said (Y said Z ...)").
::: I'm not sure which one of the following you are referring to:
:::* "critics say supply-siders say X" is not a fact but an opinion, or
:::* "supply-siders say X" is not a fact but an opinion, or
:::* X is not a fact but an opinion
::: The phrases you removed were of the form "critics say supply-siders say X", which I think can be easily checked by looking at quotes of notable supply-side critics (e.g. say look at Paul Krugman's Op Ed pieces for the last few years). Thus, I don't see the fact that these quotes were made is a matter of opinion, even though their content may very well be somebody's opinion and maybe even false. But in an article such as this, aren't opinions of the various proponents a key issue? CSTAR/CSTAR 19:46, 28 Feb 2005
'''It improves the readability of the discussion'''
'''Its good if you put your name and a date also'''
____________________________________________________
You incorrectly stated that tax revenues declined in the 80s when in fact they doubled. Due to the cold war defense spending, spending outran the increase in revenue.
I added/modified this in to the USA section "Revenues from individual income tax increased from $244 billion in 1980 to $446 billion in 1989, and federal budget deficits exploded due to the cold war, exceding the increase in revenues." My source for this is: http://www.house.gov/jec/fiscal/tx-grwth/reagtxct/reagtxct.htm
There are other questionable demonstrations of bias, however I think it is only appropriate for me to correct factual inaccuracies instead of enter a debate.
I also have to agree with the other posters here. It does seem that you really pushed your own view a little too much in to the story. And I also agree that the Keynesian theory article is a great example.
-thegnode@gmail.com
Hi there. I don't like liars and propaganda and I really object to repetition of lies.
1. The figures are not adjusted for inflation. Anyone who argues nominal numbers in economics when real numbers are needed is lying. Tax revenues doubled in every other decade. This compares a trough (recession) year, with a peak (near top of cycle year) making sliding two well known "how to lie with statistics".
2. The excuses about the cold war are also lies. The cold war didn't start in 1980, and Carter had also had a defense build up. These aren't unexpected revenues. Further with the end of the cold war, budget deficits should have gone down under Bush - instead they went up.
3.In 1981 Stockman and Reagan promised above trendline growth in revenues. They didn't produce. Attempts to revise, post-hoc, what they promised aren't POV, they are simply lies about what was said and done. The article is a lot nicer to the pack of liars which your side is than it really deserves to be. Nextel ringtones Stirling Newberry/Stirling Newberry 16:24, 7 Sep 2004
Apart from a few non-objective wordings on the latter part of the article, I think it's well written.
- DJSupreme23
there is no way this page is 'neutral'. when you start pontificating on what caused recessions, rather than telling us what various economists think caused recessions, you have crossed the line.
just a simple rewording, like 'J T Egghead argued that clinton capital gains cut helped the boom' instead of 'clintons capital gains cut helped the boom' would make this article a lot better.
and give me a freaking break, you are trying to say that you know what theory explains q4 2003?
=
I had originally hoped that this page could offer a clear account of Supply-Side economic theory.
However others have elected to convert it into a US centric account of the Reagan era with quips about what worked and what didn't.
Whilst no theory can stand outside of its practice in reality it would be much clearer if we could logically separate explainations of the theory from debates about the effect in the USA during the 1980s.
I would prefer to see a clear account of the theory standing separate from discussions about whether the theory holds up in practice. This means that the headings covering theoretical issues would be better if they did not contain the US historical arguments.
Others seem more determined to prove the theory a failure than to clearly articulate what the theory says.
Terje. (19-JAN-2004)
==
Reality is a gang of brutal facts beating up on a beautiful theory.
You've basically admited that you have a heavy POV, and are going to push it on the article. That's a violation of wikipolicy.
Abbey Diaz Stirling Newberry/Stirling Newberry 04:21, 19 Jan 2004
==
Its not POV to want the theory to be under a different heading to the debate about whether the theory is accurate. The theories that comprise Supply-Side economics are real theories. They are not POV.
Whether the theories are correct is another issue. And there should be room in the article to discuss such matters.
If the text outlining the actual theory becomes nothing more than an opinionated critisism then it does not make the topic more accessible. It makes it less accessible.
There is a heading for criticism of the theory and I originally introduced it deliberately to allow space for reviewing the theory in light of reality. That is where theory should collide with reality, not in the introduction or it the areas of definition.
~~
One of the complexities I sense emerging within the text is that there are actually different schools of thought under the Supply-Side economics banner. Laffer and his offshoots tend to be purely focused on fiscal matters while Mundell and Wanniski seem to also have a considerable body of work devoted to monetary theory and the gold standard.
TERJE
24-JAN-2004
==
"Economic theories must be judged by their actual performance, and not their possible performance under ideal conditions."
Milton Friedman
Wanting facts to be someplace else, is POV.
===
There is a time and place to judge and a time and place to describe.
I can describe a theory in detail without agreeing that the theory is correct.
However it is very hard to acurately judge a theory if you do not properly describe it to start with.
What you seem to be saying is that WIKIPEDIA should not include descriptions of theories that you disagree with. That is pure POV.
Supply-Side Economics is first and formost a theory about how economies work. It is not first and foremost a theory about how well Ronald Reagans policies will perform.
The Supply-Side Economics model may be totally and completely wrong. However that does not mean that its an unimportant theory or should not be properly described in Wikipedia. And for me a proper description of the theory should be concluded prior to any account of how it holds up under the light of reality. Although the discussion of how it holds up under the light of reality is of course also important.
"For me"
POV by definition.
"Although the discussion of how it holds up under the light of reality is of course also important."
And it should be in the article on supply side economics, where it belongs.
If you want control over something, set up your own web page and write it.
Free ringtones User:Stirling Newberry/Stirling Newberry 18:46, 24 Jan 2004 (PST)
QUOTE: "Can you at least get your own POV right? Supply-side was not meant to encourage domestic consumption"
And nobody said otherwise. However the supply side economics is about enabling trade between the domestic factors of PRODUCTION. ie labour & capital. And PRODUCTION need not be investment.
And why take out the reference to Says law?
TERJE 26-JAN-2004
I think theory should dominate this page, with brief descriptions of implementations pointing to other pages, such as Majo Mills Reaganomics.
=
"Supply-side principles seem to explain a lot." and POV discussions of the Regan years and other things have led me to place this page in an NPOV dispute. I'm enough of an expert in economics to replace this page with something better, but I think the page should focus on the theory, its critics, and its effectiveness. For comparison, most other SSE pages encyclopedia entries with suggesting that the theory has been undercut.
Anyone, help: I can't make heads or tales of this quote from the article:
*"In 1981 supply-side economist Robert Mundell, in 1999 to win the Nobel prize for "for his analysis of monetary and fiscal policy under different exchange rate regimes and his analysis of optimum currency areas", told Ronald Reagan that theory predicted that by cutting upper bracket taxation rates, and by lowering rates on capital gains, it would be possible to raise government revenues while cutting taxes."
The phrasing is awful and I'm not sure how to fix it. :(
===
Given that the neutrality of this article is disputed could somebody paste the disputed paragraph into the discussion area so that we might discuss the lack of neutrality and get it sorted out.
Terje 6-JUN-2004
Given the complete lack of response to my last discussion point I have removed the NPOV status on this article.
If you think that it should be NPOV please post reasons in the discussion area.
TERJE.
19-JUN-2004
==
The phrase:-
'''Critics of supply-side economics, such as Paul Krugman, argue that this rhetoric is merely "a trojan horse for upper bracket tax cuts without economic justification."'''
Seems to have created some discent. Some people think that the opening section needs to contain this phrase multiple times.
I think that having it as the closing phrase for the opening section is quite sufficient.
^^^ comment abover were by TERJE
I'm sending this to mediation. Mosquito ringtone User:Stirling Newberry/Stirling Newberry
Protected
Whatever the reason, it's protected now. Please work things out as per Sabrina Martins Dispute resolution. (Also read Nextel ringtones m:The wrong version. It'd be best if it didn't get as far as Abbey Diaz Lamest edit wars ever too.) Thanks. - Free ringtones David Gerard/David Gerard 16:06, 27 Jun 2004
TERJE 28 JUNE 2004
It never would have needed mediation is somebody had been willing to discuss things in the talk section. However its here now so lets hope somebody can bring themselves to the discussion table.
My view is that the Krugman comments belong at the end of the opening section. Where they appear the first time at the moment seems disjointed.
The comment is:-
'''Critics of supply-side economics, such as Paul Krugman, argue that this rhetoric is merely "a trojan horse for upper bracket tax cuts without economic justification."'''
The context at the end of the section is about tax cut rhetoric used by supply siders. This is where the Krugman comment makes the most sence.
At present the comment follows on from an explaination of supply-side economics focus on production. To lead directly into Krugmans disquite about tax cut rhetoric is disjointed.
In any case if somebody wishes to keep on adding the comment back again adjacent to the production theory they should at least remove the duplication at the end. I don't think Krugmans criticism needs to be mentioned twice.
Thats my 2 cents worth.
Majo Mills User:Terjepetersen/Terjepetersen
I am taking this to mediation. Your statements above are inaccurate: you have repeatedly violated wiki standards on NPOV writing, and were the first to invoke formal review mechanisms. I am now merely following through on this. Cingular Ringtones Stirling Newberry/Stirling Newberry 12:04, 28 Jun 2004
The view that I have repeatedly violated wiki standards is purely subjective. It is your point of view but that does not make it a fact. Are you going to actually put a case as to why the Krugman phrase should be in the middle of the section rather than at the end? I would like to hear some reasons why you think its better in the middle. national joy User:Terjepetersen/Terjepetersen
That's why I am taking this to mediation. Holding a discussion with you is impossible. smash in Stirling Newberry/Stirling Newberry 13:55, 29 Jun 2004
==
To quote that old Lady from the 80's Wendy's commercials, "Where's the beef?"
It would be interesting to see the proof for and against Supply Side Economics so we can tell if either side is valid. The only thing that comes close to proofs is this sentence in the criticisms "These criticisms point to the explosion in deficits, the failure of the 'Laffer Curve' to materialize and the conversion of price volatility to currency volatility as proofs that supply side economics does not work." Rather than say it, link to some articles that prove it. Show us charts and graphs. Yes I know "everyone" knows that the deficit grew, but what proof do we have that supply side economics caused it and not something else? Also while the economy grew under Ronald Reagan, how do we know that supply side economics caused it and not the Computer Technology Boom or something else? I am trying to learn Economics, and while it is good to understand the theories, it is hard when there is not much proof to back those theories up. I too can make theories based on observations if I wanted to. If we are gambling the future of the economy on a theory, doesn't it make sense to show some proof that we are taking the right steps? Could it be that supply side economics only works under certain conditions, and giving tax breaks to the poor only works under certain conditions as well (Robin Hood Economics? Take from the rich and give to the poor, like Robin Hood.)?
As far as the mediation, work things out but make sure that both sides are properly represented. We are all adults here, I think, and we should be able to reason things out logically and following the rules of order.
feet cherry User:OrionBlastar/OrionBlastar 08:45, 29 Jun 2004 (CST)
The article does discuss the disputes between theory. Not enough, but far more than the other party to this dispute would like. I refer you to the talk sections above where TJ complains bitterly about *any* balancing material. I hope, in future, you will read disputes more carefully before making comments on them. more vexing Stirling Newberry/Stirling Newberry 14:38, 29 Jun 2004
==
'''Are you going to actually put a case as to why the Krugman phrase should be in the middle of the section rather than at the end? I would like to hear some reasons why you think its better in the middle. Terjepetersen 1-JULY-2004'''
P.S. It was me who originally created the section on criticisms and first populated it. I have no problems with criticism of SS economics. I just don't want the criticism to obscure what the theory actually says. The standard SS argument about the Reagan deficits is that they were caused predominately by a blow out in spending, not a decline in tax revenue. Of course that can be argued back and forth also. '''Terjepeteresen 1-JULY-2004'''.
I am sick and tired of your lies, your original statement was that the article was about supply side, and you bitterly resented any criticisms, except those stuck in a ghetto at the bottom. that beanie User:Stirling Newberry/Stirling Newberry
===
Details on the book that Wanniski wrote: https://www.supplysideinvestor.com/07-30-98.html
To deny he wrote it is just stupid. I own a copy so I am confident that it exists.
TERJE 1-AUG-2004
===
Garbled sentence
: However the monetary policies that prevailed at the time under Federal Reserve chair Paul Volcker were based on a monetarist variant of Keynesian theory,
Is this assertion really relevant in this paragraph? Even if it were true, why is this here? The presence of this sentence is patently meant to assuage someone's discomfort over what appear to be uncomfortable facts. I learned this kind of stuff in becoming master secondary school. It's called selling watches apologetics.
Moreover, shouldn't someone explain which monetarist variant they are referring to?silks and CSTAR/CSTAR 16:33, 16 Aug 2004
:P.S. The explanatory sentence, is hardly convincing:
::i.e., that persistent low money-supply growth and high interest rates would cause high unemployment and "disinflation."
:This is clearly a variant of something, but it is not clear that this is a monetarist variant of keynesianism.discuss options CSTAR/CSTAR 16:37, 16 Aug 2004
The original argued simply that Paul Volker implemented the well known "disinflation scenario" of raising interest rates to squeeze out inflation, and that the results, in terms of unemployment, interest rates and GDP followed that model. id est there is no discernable difference between what happened and the baseline scenario, calling into question whether there was a significant "supply side economics effect" to the 1983-1985 rebound above and beyond "crude Keynesianism".
I'd be happy if someone could write a better explanation than exists in the article.
and boycotting Stirling Newberry/Stirling Newberry 17:38, 16 Aug 2004
: As an outsider reading this article for the first time, the facts for instance the historical fact you just mentioned, get lost. Actually, if you put in what you just said, the whole paragraph would make a lot more sense. (I know absolutely nothing about this period having lived outside the US at the time. It's foreign territory to me)these traditions CSTAR/CSTAR 17:56, 16 Aug 2004
I really don't know anything about this topic, so I came to this page to check it out. No offense to the people who have contributed their time, but as an encyclopedia entry, this stinks. The organization, writing, and content all stink. Instead of being anything remotely close to NPOV, it reads like two POV people yelling at each other, with the supply-side critic side getting in the most numerous and most blatantly POV barbs. Does this sound like something you'd read in an encyclopedia? "One of the reasons that "Supply Side" economics does not have credibility in the mainstream of economics is the tendency of its adherents to simply lie when the facts fall against them." And what's with the sudden addition of quotation marks and capitalization to the topic's name in that sentence? I don't mean to pick on one side here. A calm, rational supply-sider and a calm, rational critic should get together, scrap this whole article, and plan its organization from scratch. I'd help, but I didn't know anything about supply-side when I came to this page, and I feel like I still don't, after reading the entry. Make it sound like a neutral encyclopedia article. And tell me what it is, don't waste space quibbling over Reagan's tax cuts or Clinton's tax increases. Save those battles for another page. Check out the mckenna and Keynesian economics page for an example of this kind of subject being handled much better. Just some advice from a Wikipedia reader; take it or leave it. outfield just 68.43.122.246/68.43.122.246 01:46, 5 Sep 2004
I agree with much of what you said; I have avoided this article like the plague. One of the reasons I devoted considerable effort the articles on threads all model_(economics)/economic models and of laxity model_(abstract)/models in general, is to present the issue of falsifiability. Unfortunately supply side economics is one of those theories that does not seem to have any falsifiability criteria.fec has CSTAR/CSTAR 02:01, 5 Sep 2004
Some incorrect, obviously biased entries in this article
The following items are not disputable, since they are easily obtained facts/figures:
Tax Revenue almost doubled during Reagan's term. Whether or not you personally attribute it to Reaganomics is up to you, but this article not only refutes this fact, it also tries to move any credit away from Supply-Side and over to Volcker.
Spending increased heavily, both in the areas of defense and entitlement.
So, while our revenue increased, so did our debts and yearly deficits.
Also, the author shows his bias by stating that the plan was to "cut taxes on the wealthy". Again, easily researched. Tax rates for all brackets were cut. When you consider that some high brackets had more than 50% tax rates, you would expect those to come down in line with a realistic percentage. Does anyone believe that more than half of ones income should be taxed?
This article needs to be overhauled in a neutral voice. Facts need checking, and attempted nudging of opinion needs to be eliminated
Matt
Rewrite
Since this dispute seems to be over, or at least for the moment, I hope there will be some effort to rewrite this article. There are a lot of things here which might be POV, and as an encyclopedia article it really doesn't explain supply side economics very well at all. I don't know enough about this to rewrite it, so I'm listing it on pages needing attention. had linked Scheming Eyebrows/Scheming Eyebrows 11:27, Oct 29, 2004
Did Keynes Refute Says Law
Dictionary.com offers the following defintions for the word refute
''re·fute''
1. To prove to be false or erroneous; overthrow by argument or proof: refute testimony.
2. To deny the accuracy or truth of: refuted the results of the poll.
So I think its fair to say that the second definition is appropriate in the context of the article. Keynes did deny the accuracy of says law.
Although it might be clearer to simply say that "Keynes denied the accuracy of says law". Or as one editor suggested "Keynes challenged says law".
''^^ TERJE 2005-01-03''
He did. Get used to it. It's why we have General Equilibrium rather than Say's Law. pacing his Stirling Newberry/Stirling Newberry 22:26, 2 Jan 2005
~~
Well you can do wikipedia a big favour then. The section on "Says Law" and the section on "General Equilibrium" do not make any reference to eachother. Perhaps you could improve these articles by cross referencing them with some appropriate text.
''^^^TERJE 2005-01-05''
That's because General Equilibrium isn't derrived from says law, but from IS-LM. General Equilibrium is a permissive state of a market in clearing, that is, it says it is possible for there to be a free market that always clears given certain conditions, Say's Law is restrictive - it stated that markets had to generally clear. Go read some Hicks and Keynes, or even Stiglitz and Walsh, it would be good for you. governance of Stirling Newberry/Stirling Newberry 15:08, 5 Jan 2005
tone with User:Terjepetersen/Terjepetersen
Once again I am astounded by your utter superiority in all things.
''^^^TERJE 2005-01-09''
The "author" of this "article" seems to enjoy calling people liars simply because their facts are right and his are wrong. Tax revenues did not double in the 1920s or the 1930s, therefore Stirling Newberry is a liar. Carter did not have a defense buildup. Defense spending fell from 24.1% of federal government outlays and 5.1% of GDP in 1976 to 22.7%/4.9% in 1980. Therefore, Stirling is a liar here too. These numbers were 27.3%/5.8% in 1989.
Here are constant-dollar revenue and outlays:
1979 .................................... 1,017.8 1,107.3
1980 .................................... 1,028.3 1,175.1
1981 .................................... 1,077.4 1,219.4
1982 .................................... 1,036.9 1,251.7
1983 .................................... 961.7 1,294.4
1984 .................................... 1,016.8 1,299.5
1985 .................................... 1,082.6 1,395.7
1986 .................................... 1,107.3 1,425.7
1987 .................................... 1,196.1 1,405.7
1988 .................................... 1,235.6 1,446.5
1989 .................................... 1,298.9 1,498.7
1990 .................................... 1,309.3 1,589.9
I also note that revenue growth from 1960-1982 was 3.1% annually. From 1983-1990 it was 4.4% annually. I guess it was above the trendline, which makes the supply-siders right and Stirling Newberry a liar yet again. I've never seen such a defensive lying liar write such a lying article. ArminTamzarian/ArminTamzarian 22:10, 21 Jan 2005
:Trough to peak fallacy. Flunks econ 101. User:Stirling Newberry/Stirling Newberry
:: Trough was 1982. Flunks dictionary 1. Author is free to propose other periods for comparison; he has declined to do so. Simply calling something a fallacy does not necessarily makes it so. Also ignores possible stimulative effects of 1982 tax cuts - author makes unwarranted ceteris paribus assumption, another fallacy. ArminTamzarian/ArminTamzarian 23:33, 21 Jan 2005
Okay, here's another one:
"Supply-siders proceed to blame Clinton and Osama bin Laden, despite the lack of any rigorous model which explains the long drought in hiring that can be attributed either to the bubble bursting of 2000, or the September 11th attacks of 2001."
Ignoring the petulant, childish, and mostly inaccurate accusations made in this "article," there is rigorous evidence that the "long drought in hiring" is attributable to the 2000 stock market collapse. Perhaps Stirling Newberry has heard of Ray Fair. Fair's research shows that the low unemployment rates of the late 1990s were entirely a result of high stock prices, and that after 2000, unemployment merely returned to the level it would have been absent a stock market bubble.
See chapter 6 in Ray C. Fair, ''Estimating How the Macroeconomy Works''
http://fairmodel.econ.yale.edu/rayfair/pdf/2003A.PDF
I am therefore also flagging this as disputed.
::Whoa, that's some pretty nasty accusation there! Ray Fair's model is one statistical model; he also says "what is not simple is finding a reason for the stock market boom in the first place".
Lying liar? C'mon please be civil.
::I will concede that this article could use rewriting, possibly with a more conciliatory tone based on what at one time in the distant past may have been considered supply side economics, namely theory of economic growth ala Swan-Solow-von Neumann-Samuelson etc. CSTAR/CSTAR 22:42, 21 Jan 2005
::: I was only responding in the same tone the author uses while defending his turf from all disagreement. ArminTamzarian/ArminTamzarian 23:33, 21 Jan 2005
-
:Fair's model isn't a supply side model. It's a non-rational expectation neo-classical synthesis model based on monetary rule rates. But, using his model, the prolonged hiring drought is the result of rate decisions made post, not pre 2000. Stirling Newberry/Stirling Newberry 22:39, 21 Jan 2005
::Is it really? Now, unlike the author, I do not have several doctorate degrees in economics and econometrics, but I don't see why whether the model is a supply-side model or not is relevant to its usefulness in examining the effects of exogenous variables on the US economy. Dumb people can only observe that the unemployment rate stays between 5.5% and 6.0% in the period 1995-2000 in the counterfactual scenario, which is also where it was for much of the period 2001-2004, leading to the hypothesis that the growth in employment according to the establishment servey has been slow because we are already at the same level of full emplyoment we would have had in 1995-2000 absent the bubble. Author is free to test and refute the hypothesis, but it is hardly "no evidence."ArminTamzarian/ArminTamzarian 23:33, 21 Jan 2005
Since both objections have been refuted, and the poster placing them is making personal attacks and trolling, I am removing the tags. Stirling Newberry/Stirling Newberry 22:39, 21 Jan 2005
: I was under the impression that comments like these are "personal attacks."
::Hi there. I don't like liars and propaganda and I really object to repetition of lies.
::1. The figures are not adjusted for inflation. Anyone who argues nominal numbers in economics when real numbers are needed is lying. Tax revenues doubled in every other decade. This compares a trough (recession) year, with a peak (near top of cycle year) making sliding two well known "how to lie with statistics".
::2. The excuses about the cold war are also lies. The cold war didn't start in 1980, and Carter had also had a defense build up. These aren't unexpected revenues. Further with the end of the cold war, budget deficits should have gone down under Bush - instead they went up.
::3.In 1981 Stockman and Reagan promised above trendline growth in revenues. They didn't produce. Attempts to revise, post-hoc, what they promised aren't POV, they are simply lies about what was said and done. The article is a lot nicer to the pack of liars which your side is than it really deserves to be. Stirling Newberry/Stirling Newberry 16:24, 7 Sep 2004
"Trolls" usually don't provide evidence. In fact, I am curious why anyone who challenges the author is expected to provide evidence while the author is not. I am restoring the flags.ArminTamzarian/ArminTamzarian 23:33, 21 Jan 2005
Tags removed. Please stop violating wiki policy by name calling, and insistence on your POV. The article documents the, rather harsh, critiques of supply side economics. Which is why, despite having a Republican President, a Republican Congress and massive revenue reductions, the words aren't heard in the public discussion. You should think on why this is so. Stirling Newberry/Stirling Newberry 23:59, 21 Jan 2005
Mr. Newberry, are all three of these your statements?
I don't like liars and propaganda and I really object to repetition of lies.
The article is a lot nicer to the pack of liars which your side is than it really deserves to be.
Please stop violating wiki policy by name calling, and insistence on your POV.
Please tell me that you didn't say all of those things. I'm hoping that some evil genius edited this discussion to make you and other supply-side opponents look very inconsistent.Rroser167/Rroser167 21:34, 26 Jan 2005
Irrelevant paragraphs.
I'm removing several paragraphs which are nothing more than attacks on the proponents of supply side theory. If you wish to add them back in, defend yourself. user:rotten/rotten
: The reason for your deletion would suggest that the removed paragraphs were ad-hominem attacks (e.g. ''nothing more than attacks on the proponents of supply side theory''). However, it is quite clear these paragraphs refer to statements or beliefs of supply-side supporters; how is it possible to discuss supply-side without making references to these statements or beliefs? You may argue or disagree about their factual accuracy, but that is another matter entirely.CSTAR/CSTAR 22:30, 20 Feb 2005
:: I don't agree or disagree at all concerning their factual accuracy, but they were opinion, not fact. user:rotten/rotten
::: I've lost track of the level of referential nesting here(e.g. the level of nestings in phrases such as "X said (Y said Z ...)").
::: I'm not sure which one of the following you are referring to:
:::* "critics say supply-siders say X" is not a fact but an opinion, or
:::* "supply-siders say X" is not a fact but an opinion, or
:::* X is not a fact but an opinion
::: The phrases you removed were of the form "critics say supply-siders say X", which I think can be easily checked by looking at quotes of notable supply-side critics (e.g. say look at Paul Krugman's Op Ed pieces for the last few years). Thus, I don't see the fact that these quotes were made is a matter of opinion, even though their content may very well be somebody's opinion and maybe even false. But in an article such as this, aren't opinions of the various proponents a key issue? CSTAR/CSTAR 19:46, 28 Feb 2005
posted at 6:12 PM
0 comments
