I started Bruce Bartlett's The New American Economy: The Failure of Reaganomics and a New Way Forward.  Bruce Bartlett served in the administrations of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush.
To
 be honest with you, there is a lot in this book that I do not 
understand.  But I'll blog about what I do understand, as I understand 
it.
The main point that I got out of my latest reading is that different economic approaches work in different contexts.  Keynesianism
 was appropriate during the time of the Great Depression, for that was 
when there was serious deflation, plus people were not spending much 
money.  Within that context, the Keynesian approach of printing more 
money (to elevate prices) and government spending was a panacea.  But 
Keynesianism did not work that well in the 1970's, when the United 
States was having a serious inflation problem.  In that period of 
stagflation, supply-side economics was beneficial, and Ronald Reagan helped to enact supply-side policies in the early 1980's.  Monetary policy needed to be much tighter to fight inflation, and Reagan accomplished that with Paul Volker of the Federal Reserve.  And
 the dramatic tax cuts under Reagan stimulated the economy.  According 
to Bartlett, the tax cuts were especially appropriate for that time 
because inflation was subjecting many people to a higher tax burden by 
putting them into the upper-income levels, even though they were not 
exactly rich and prosperous.  Their income only appeared that way due to inflation.
Bartlett
 is critical of the current Republican obsession with tax cuts, and he 
states that Republicans don't even consider the sorts of tax cuts that 
can stimulate spending, such as the Investment Tax Credit, which would 
encourage "business spending on capital equipment" (page 7).  Bartlett 
believes that Republicans push the same old tax cuts "out of dogma" and 
not because they have "any rational reason to believe that they would 
stimulate the economy" (page 7).
And yet, while my impression is 
that Bartlett holds that Keynesianism would be a good approach to the 
current financial crisis----that the government should spend money to 
stimulate the economy because people aren't doing so themselves, thereby
 contributing to deflation----he does believe that there will come a 
time for "fiscal retrenchment" (which probably means austerity), for 
increased government spending is inflationary, and there will come a 
time when inflation will be harmful rather than helpful.  But Bartlett 
has fears in the government-spending department on account of ballooning
 entitlement spending.  Bartlett maintains that a Value Added Tax (a 
sort of consumption tax) will be an effective way to "raise a lot of 
revenue at a very low cost in terms of lost output" (page 11).  
Bartlett----at least in this book----does not appear to support taxing 
businesses and entrepreneurs at higher rates, for that can be 
deleterious to the economy.  But Bartlett maintains that the VAT is a 
preferable alternative, which can raise revenue for the government.
 
 
 Posts
Posts
 
 
 
