Supply-side Economics Quotes

From now on, depressions will be scientifically created.

Gerald Ford's economics is the worst thing that's happened to this country since pantyhose ruined finger-fucking.

If you want more of something, subsidize it; if you want less of something, tax it.

Since 1981, when President Ronald Reagan took office promising to scale back the federal government, Republican leaders have promised to cut regulation and taxes, and to return power to individuals to arrange their lives as they see fit. But they have never entirely managed to eradicate the New Deal government.

I'm a conservative and I believe if you tax something more you get less of it.

I am sure future historians will say the biggest and most astonishing change in politics has been the embracing of all the tenets of Thatcherism by the party of Keir Hardie: trade union legislation, Europe, the replacement of Trident, 10 per cent tax for people who have made millions from their companies.

With each step away from communist constructivism to Hayekian capitalism, China has been richly rewarded.

One of the key principles of Trumponomics is that faster economic growth can help solve a multitude of other social and economic problems, from poverty to inner-city decline to lowering the national debt.

I'm a pro-growth, small-government conservative with a background in free enterprise.

Neoconservatism had the philosophy that you go in with a supply-led approach to impose democratic values from the top down. Whereas Islamists and far-right organizations, for decades, have been building demand for their ideology on the grassroots.

Since the end of the 1970s, free-market capitalism has been in, and socialism has been out.

My decision to leave applied mathematics for economics was in part tied to the widely-held popular belief in the 1960s that macroeconomics had made fundamental inroads into controlling business cycles and stopping dysfunctional unemployment and inflation.

Trickle down economics says that the best way to feed the birds is to give oats to the horse.

I am not a monetarist, and I am not a Keynesian. On certain points I agree with each.

Unlike China's growth story, which has been built on the strategy of creating excess supply, the Indian growth story has been built on the strategy of responding to incentives generated by excess demand. Which is why a certain degree of inflation is built into the Indian growth process.

I'm a conservative. I was an avid supporter of Ronald Reagan; I thought he was fabulous.

Here's the problem if you keep raising tax rates: You slow down economic growth.

Reagan proved deficits don't matter.

As president, Reagan worked very well with Democrats to do big things. It is true that he worked to reduce the size of government and cut federal taxes and he eliminated many regulations, but he also raised taxes when necessary.

When I was younger, I remember families like mine who had to deal with the disastrous policies of the 1970s.

It's not about the pace, it's about the direction we've set. The pace is of course a function of many factors, including the magnitude of the supply shock. But what's probably more important is the probability of the supply shock translating into sustainable embedded inflation.

Reagan was no neocon.

After 2003, we lowered taxes across the board. And by 2004, revenue to the federal government grew. In the 1980s, Ronald Reagan cut taxes dramatically. And by the end of the decade, revenue coming in the federal government had doubled.

Stoutly pro-tax-cut and libertarian on social issues like abortion, Trump is a Republican with the business know-how to turn the country's economy around.

The stagflation of the 1970s blessed us with damaging wage and price controls and the utterly counterintuitive supply-side notion - famously drawn on a napkin - that cutting taxes would lead to higher tax revenues.