Changes

::::Yes, but that is what the common use of the term, "supply side" is -- government actions to increase aggregate output. The classic Keynesian model is for government to increase debt and spending to stimulate demand; supply siders increase private incentives to stimulate aggregate output.  Your use of the term, applying it to the supply of labor is, shall we say, "a novel interpretation," and would be considered Original Research under Wikipedia's editorial policies.  [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 21:09, 20 January 2010 (EST)

::::Yes, but that is what the common use of the term, "supply side" is -- government actions to increase aggregate output. The classic Keynesian model is for government to increase debt and spending to stimulate demand; supply siders increase private incentives to stimulate aggregate output.  Your use of the term, applying it to the supply of labor is, shall we say, "a novel interpretation," and would be considered Original Research under Wikipedia's editorial policies.  [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 21:09, 20 January 2010 (EST)

:::::Wikipedia has done a good job of suppressing originality. All scholars of all persuasions have long agreed that the New Deal rejected growth as a solution to economic problems. Conservatives rejected no-growth that at the time [eg Terborgh, ''The Bogey of Economic Maturity'' (1943)] and since 1960 or so liberals have also rejected no-growth policies. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 21:49, 20 January 2010 (EST)

:::::Wikipedia has done a good job of suppressing originality. All scholars of all persuasions have long agreed that the New Deal rejected growth as a solution to economic problems. Conservatives rejected no-growth that at the time [eg Terborgh, ''The Bogey of Economic Maturity'' (1943)] and since 1960 or so liberals have also rejected no-growth policies. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 21:49, 20 January 2010 (EST)

::::::Thank you. The text before footnote 25 reads, "The problem with the supply-side remedies was that they cut output..."  Would you agree that use of the term "supply-side" here is unorthodox, or novel, given that in 1989, supply side generally referred to incentives, not the labor pool.  [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 22:45, 21 January 2010 (EST)

::::::Thank you. The text before footnote 25 reads, "The problem with the

supply-side remedies was that they cut output..."  Would you agree that use of the term "supply-side" here is unorthodox, or novel, given that in 1989, supply side generally referred to incentives, not the labor pool.  [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 22:45, 21 January 2010 (EST)

:::::::yes it was novel. The point is that supply side can be either positive or negative (that is, increase supply or decrease supply) and the New Deal was negative. They did that because they believed in the theory of economic maturity developed by Alvin Hansen to the effect that the economy was fully grown and would not be growing any more. Therefore pro-growth solutions, they thought, were a mistake.  Conservative economists at the time opposed this idea. The most important conservative economists  were Raymond Moley, Gotfried Haberler, George Terborgh, Frank Knight, Oskar Morgenstern, Henry Simons, Joseph Schumpeter, and William Fellner (Fellenr was my economics professor at Yale, where I took my PhD minor in economics). [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 02:01, 22 January 2010 (EST)