12 of 39

Yes

Write now Article Tools

Page 3 of 4

flawed "see-saw theory" of "whatever goes up must come down, so, inversely, whatever goes down must also come up." The flaw is obvious when the concept is simplified.

Keynes, as did many economists of the day, devised theories on the problem with the American economy during the Great Depression. Keynes determined that the economy was in perfect balance: there was no demand; no supply was being met. Profound, indeed, as Keynes was telling us universal laws of physics apply to economies! Keynes theorized that "an outside force of 'small artificial supply' would suffice to create true demand, which, in turn, would result in true supply."

It worked! Then, our leaders concluded, as most fools might conclude, "if small is good, large is better!" They seem to not understand "if small is sufficient, more is excessive."

Keynes tried desperately to convince President Roosevelt that "too much is counter-productive." I have never taken an economics course, but I suspect, based on my observations of the number of economists today who summarily dismiss Keynes' theory, they don't teach "the counter-productive part" in school. It seems most economists believe it is more important to focus on the symptoms individually, rather than to take into account the entire picture.

Imagine, if you will, a child in a swing that is not moving. A simple nudge is sufficient to help the child achieve "full swing" PROVIDED we allow the child to use his or her own shifts in balance to achieve full swing. We may, however, also achieve "artificial full swing," and even "beyond full swing," if we continue pushing with greater force on each swing as it occurs.

One who wonders what a child swinging has to do with an economy (a) does not understand the universal nature of physical laws, (b) does not understand that economies in this universe are in this universe, or (c) prejudicially and erroneously concludes the only way two and two are four is through addition.

BACK TO SHALLOWER WATERS

We are blitzed by "supply-side marketing." It makes sense to do it with some products, but not others. For example, we may be enticed to buy three new cans of corn for the price of two; from our perspectives, "there will eventually be demand for an extra can of corn."

It is not as enticing for consumers to be offered three new cars for the price of two. From our perspectives, "three new cars exceeds demand."

We may consider leaving one job with "higher per-unit rate of pay, but with low demand for hours," for a job with "lower

• << previous page
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• next page >>

Add your voice

Know something about Supply-side economics: Do lower taxes increase a country's economic health??
We want to hear your view. Write now!