Monetarism vs Supply-Side Economics
Monetarism and Supply-Side Economics are two Economic Systems & Schools of Thought concepts in AP Economics that students often mix up. Monetarism holds that the money supply is the main driver of inflation and economic activity, so central banks should control money growth steadily. Supply-side economics argues that lower taxes and less regulation boost growth by increasing the incentive to work, save, and invest. Here is how they compare side by side.
Led by Milton Friedman, it argues 'inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon' and favors stable, rules-based money growth over discretionary policy. It builds on the quantity theory of money.
It focuses on shifting long-run aggregate supply right rather than managing demand. The Laffer curve suggests tax cuts can sometimes raise revenue by expanding activity. Critics question the size of those effects and warn of larger deficits.
Monetarism vs Supply-Side Economics: Two Cures for the Same Inflation
| Monetarism | Supply-Side Economics | |
|---|---|---|
| The lever | Growth rate of the money supply | Marginal tax rates and regulatory burden |
| How inflation comes down | Slow nominal spending by slowing money growth | Raise real output so the same nominal spending buys more goods |
| Key identity or curve | The equation of exchange, with velocity treated as stable | The Laffer curve and the labor supply response to after tax wages |
| Effect on long run real GDP | None, money is neutral and output is set by real factors | Higher, because those real factors are the target |
| Preferred rule | A steady money growth rule instead of discretion | A permanent cut in marginal rates rather than a one-off rebate |
| Short run cost of the cure | A recession while expectations adjust to slower money growth | A wider deficit until the tax base responds |
| Diagram it acts on | Aggregate demand, through the money market | Short run and long run aggregate supply |
Both promise lower inflation by attacking opposite sides of the equation of exchange
Write the equation of exchange as money times velocity equals the price level times real output and both programs become visible at once. Take a hypothetical economy with a money stock of 150 billion dollars and velocity of 4, so nominal spending is 600 billion. If real output is 300 units, the price level is 2. Now let money grow 10 percent to 165 billion with velocity steady, lifting nominal spending to 660 billion. On a 3 percent real growth path output reaches 309 units and the price level rises to about 2.14, inflation near 7 percent, which is money growth minus real growth. The monetarist cure attacks the left side: hold money growth near 3 percent and inflation falls toward zero. The supply-side cure attacks the right side: if lower marginal rates lift real growth to 6 percent, output reaches 318 units, the same 660 billion of spending implies a price level near 2.08, and inflation lands under 4 percent with no change in money growth at all. Same target, opposite side of the equals sign.
Monetarism denies the very thing supply-side economics promises
Monetarists hold that money is neutral in the long run, so nothing a central bank does changes real output once expectations adjust. Potential output is set by real factors, the capital stock, the labor force and technology. Supply-side economics accepts that and then makes a further claim, that fiscal policy can move those real factors by changing the after tax return to working and investing. The two schools therefore agree on a vertical long run aggregate supply curve and disagree about whether policy can shift it. That disagreement is empirical rather than theoretical. It turns on the size of two elasticities, how much extra labor a given rise in the after tax wage brings out, and how much extra investment a given rise in the after tax return finances. Nothing in either school's theory settles those numbers, which is why the argument is about magnitudes rather than mechanisms. The one line summary: monetarism is a theory of the price level, supply-side economics is a theory of the level of output.
Whether a supply-side tax cut turns into inflation depends on the monetary rule sitting behind it
Put both programs in one economy and the monetarist reading of a supply-side tax cut is not the one students expect. Suppose the central bank holds money growth at 3 percent and velocity is steady, so nominal spending grows at 3 percent whatever the treasury does. A deficit financed tax cut then cannot raise the price level path, because the left side of the equation of exchange did not move. What it does instead is add government borrowing to an unchanged pool of loanable funds, pushing the real interest rate up and crowding out private investment. The tax cut has to buy more capital and labor through incentives than the higher interest rate destroys, which is a harder test than the Laffer curve sets. Change one assumption and the answer flips. If the central bank abandons the rule and buys the new debt, money growth rises, nominal spending rises with it, and the same tax cut shows up as inflation rather than as a higher interest rate. The two programs are complements on paper and rivals inside a budget, and a question naming both a tax cut and a money growth target is asking which of those worlds you are in.
Frequently asked questions
Can a government run monetarist and supply-side policies at the same time?
Monetarist money rules and supply-side tax cuts act on different sides of the equation of exchange, so a government can run both and the combination is coherent. A steady money growth rule pins down nominal spending and therefore the price level path, while lower marginal rates work on real output. Nothing in either program contradicts the other, since monetarists already treat potential output as set by real factors and simply doubt that tax rates move those factors much. The argument between them is about magnitudes, not about which lever belongs to whom.
Does the equation of exchange support supply-side economics?
The equation of exchange, money times velocity equals the price level times real output, is an identity, so it supports neither school on its own. Monetarists add two assumptions to turn it into a theory, that velocity is stable and that real output is set by real factors, and inflation then tracks money growth. Supply-side economists dispute the second assumption, arguing that tax policy moves real output. The identity is the shared ground, the assumptions are the argument.
What happens to monetarist predictions if velocity is unstable?
Velocity instability is the standard objection to monetarism, and it bites directly. If velocity moves, a steady money growth rule no longer delivers steady nominal spending, so the rule loses the property that made it attractive. In the equation of exchange a fall in velocity cancels the money growth the rule delivered, and nominal spending sags anyway. Supply-side arguments are untouched by this objection, since they never rested on velocity being stable.
Live AD/AS Model graph. Drag the curves, or open the full version.
Related comparisons
Get AP Econ exam tips in your inbox
Occasional emails with study tips, new interactive graphs, and exam-season reminders. Free, no spam.
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime. Read our privacy policy.
Keep track of what you have studied
A free EconLearn account adds progress tracking, your quiz history, and achievements. Studying here is free either way, and there is nothing to pay for as a student.
Create a free accountAlready have one? Sign in
Last updated