Gransnet forums

News & politics

What is supply-side reform?

(13 Posts)
volver Sat 15-Oct-22 09:54:59

DaisyAnne we haven't corresponded for a while. wink 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.

DaisyAnne Sat 15-Oct-22 09:50:34

shouted shout

DaisyAnne Sat 15-Oct-22 09:39:08

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?

MaizieD Fri 14-Oct-22 14:40:42

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...

DaisyAnne Fri 14-Oct-22 12:21:25

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 Fri 14-Oct-22 12:19:55

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 Fri 14-Oct-22 12:14:08

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 Fri 14-Oct-22 11:27:22

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.

DaisyAnne Fri 14-Oct-22 11:23:24

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?

grannysyb Fri 14-Oct-22 10:50:05

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

Whitewavemark2 Fri 14-Oct-22 10:36:40

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

Until the market isn’t doing what they expect.

MaizieD Fri 14-Oct-22 10:32:59

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.

DaisyAnne Fri 14-Oct-22 09:32:55

I thought I would pin down this "thing" so many of us are said to be against. Warning: Most of this is from listening to podcasts.

Demand-side reform gives people more money so those people can buy more things and increase demand. So, for example, tax cuts give people more to spend, which will stimulate the economy.

Supply-side reforms are those things that enable people to work harder and make more things. Working harder and better and making more is intended to enable growth.

The key reforms, which have a general cross-party agreement, include planning reform so people can live where the jobs are. Then you would go for good infrastructure - buses and trains - to get people to those jobs. Child-care provision is also a supply-side plus as it allows more people to work more hours. Investing in skills also aids growth. Investment in health care will too. The first ensures enough people can do the jobs, the second that people are fit to work and that the ailments of the young and the old don't distract them from working. So, all the background "stuff" that keeps the economy going.

These areas are what Liz Truss's government (or just Liz Truss?) says they want to do and what she tells us we are all against [rolls eyes]

So if Truss manages to hang on, will the Tories:

Open up planning in the leafy southern suburbs?
Offer good train connections all over the country?
Extend bus services?
Keep the NHS and give it enough to continue?
Provide free child-care in the most important years 1 to 3?
Enable lifetime skills training by paying for it properly.

Or have we so much more chance of a Labour government doing that? And why, oh why, does she think telling us we are against this "growth agenda" will hit home?

I am just against gross incompetence and the arrogance that has gone with it and the plans to make the poorest pay for it.