What is supply-side reform?

I don't know what podcasts you're listening to, DaisyAnne but that is absolutely nothing like what Truss, her free marketeers and the IEA are proposing as 'supply side' reforms.

The key feature is deregulation of everything possible, workers rights, environmental protection, planning regulations, everything that they believe stands in the way of making money.

Quick search finds me this.

Note,

There are two main types of supply-side policies.

^ Free-market supply-side policies involve policies to increase competitiveness and free-market efficiency. For example, privatisation, deregulation, lower income tax rates, and reduced power of trade unions.

^ Interventionist supply-side policies involve government intervention to overcome market failure. For example, higher government spending on transport, education and communication.^

www.economicshelp.org/macroeconomics/economic-growth/supply-side-policies/

There is no way the present tory government is interested in the Interventionist policy.

There is no way the present tory government is interested in the Interventionist policy.

Until the market isn’t doing what they expect.

Apparently Kwasi Karteng is on his way back, left the IMF meeting early!

It was mainly from the New Statesman Podcast Maizie. I tend to think their specialist journalists know more than I do.

As a description of supply-side policies, there isn't anything wrong with it. I have just caught up with the "Housing and development policies" thread. I think it shows is what Truss is planning. That, with your breakdown, answers my question. I would like to clarify exactly where the parties stand though.

We probably all believe there is a place for supply-side policy.

The left, particularly the far left, will think that this should be provided entirely by the state and "paid for" by taxing the rich. (I think - far left views would help on this)

The right, particularly the far right, will think this should be provided privately and "paid for" by those who can afford to pay directly for it. I have to say I am so far from this government in my thinking that I don't know how that works - but then I'm not sure Liz Truss does either. Knowledgeable far right views would help on this.

The centre, centre-left and centre-right will think the state should have an overall view. However, if some can provide services from private businesses, they should be able to. I would be interested to hear a Lib Dem view on supply-side policies.

So, Truss is saying that we need to do this but in a far-right way?

Actually Keynesian politics believes that what drives the economy is demand, not supply. So no, not everyone believes that supply side economics is the answer to growth.

Both demand and supply affect the economy. It's not either-or. Governments have failed over decades to get the thing right as far as growth and productivity go. One key factor is lack of working age people which obviously was forseeeable from the birth rate 20+ years ago but no-one acted to encourage larger families or encouraged immigration. Truss and Kwarteng have got it wrong too and he may be under the bus by the end of the day to save her political skin.

Whitewavemark2

Actually Keynesian politics believes that what drives the economy is demand, not supply. So no, not everyone believes that supply side economics is the answer to growth.

If you are going to have a go at me WWM, it would be nice if it was at what I said and not your own version.

Keynesian economics is demand economics, as you suggested. That is what most free countries generally followed for a period. We saw a changed away from Keynes slowly from the 1940s into more free market economics by the 1980s. Keynesian economics where thought to have no answer to the stagflation of the 1970s. I don't think it has been able to challenge the free marketeer particularly successfully since then.

I didn't say that "everyone" believes that supply-side economics is the answer to growth; you did. What I said was, We probably all believe there is a place for supply-side policy. Certainly, the far left did after the war.

This was not a thread about foot-stamping because people don't agree. I was attempting to find out where, firstly, Truss was coming from, and secondly, where the parties generally stand on this.

I don't have a problem saying "I don't know" WWM.

Grantanow

Both demand and supply affect the economy. It's not either-or. Governments have failed over decades to get the thing right as far as growth and productivity go. One key factor is lack of working age people which obviously was forseeeable from the birth rate 20+ years ago but no-one acted to encourage larger families or encouraged immigration. Truss and Kwarteng have got it wrong too and he may be under the bus by the end of the day to save her political skin.

It does look like it.

DaisyAnne

Whitewavemark2

Actually Keynesian politics believes that what drives the economy is demand, not supply. So no, not everyone believes that supply side economics is the answer to growth.

If you are going to have a go at me WWM, it would be nice if it was at what I said and not your own version.

Keynesian economics is demand economics, as you suggested. That is what most free countries generally followed for a period. We saw a changed away from Keynes slowly from the 1940s into more free market economics by the 1980s. Keynesian economics where thought to have no answer to the stagflation of the 1970s. I don't think it has been able to challenge the free marketeer particularly successfully since then.

I didn't say that "everyone" believes that supply-side economics is the answer to growth; you did. What I said was, We probably all believe there is a place for supply-side policy. Certainly, the far left did after the war.

This was not a thread about foot-stamping because people don't agree. I was attempting to find out where, firstly, Truss was coming from, and secondly, where the parties generally stand on this.

I don't have a problem saying "I don't know" WWM.

Oh well. Another dead thread...

Isn't that your intention Maizie. It appears you will do anything, including attacking something I didn't say or supporting that attack to bring about the end to posts that are not singing the praises of yours and Whitewaves thinking.

Neither of you want a discussion; you just want people to agree. How can you discuss when you believe you and your opinions are the only possible ones and that discussion with those who don't think like you is just to put down or shouted at?

shouted shout

DaisyAnne we haven't corresponded for a while. One thing most people have to learn in discussions, is that when others disagree with them and give an opposing point, that doesn't mean they are bullying you.

There are certain posters I avoid now because I know that there is no point saying anything that disagrees with what they have said, because it prompts a wee tantrum.

Make of that what you will.