Isn’t it obvious that if there is a supply side economics, there must be a demand side economics?
I take supply side economics to mean that when supply is not adequate to meet demand, you want to work on increasing supply harder than working on decreasing demand. I think that makes an awful lot of sense.
The proponents of a single prescription that works for all diseases fail to ask if there might be a different prescription for a different disease. If there is supply side economics to cure one disease, isn’t it natural to ask if there is demand side economics to act on a different disease?
I take demand side economics to mean that when demand is not adequate to meet supply, you want to work on increasing demand harder than working on decreasing supply. I think that makes an awful lot of sense.
It didn’t take much to come up with demand side economics. All I had to do was to swap the words demand and supply.
The problem with adherents of supply side economics is not that their is a flaw in the theory. The problem is not knowing when that theory applies, and not knowing the obvious theory to apply when the situation changes.
There is no contradiction in being a proponent of supply side emphasis when it is needed and demand side emphasis when it is needed.
To me, it seems so obvious that I don’t know why more people aren’t saying this, and why it has taken me so long to write this.