What has been the result of three decades of supply side economic theory?

[Wry Catcher]

Supply-Side Theory Definition | Investopedia

"An economic theory holding that bolstering an economy's ability to supply more goods is the most effective way to stimulate economic growth.

"Supply-side theorists advocate income tax reduction because it increases private investment in corporations, facilities, and equipment. "

Definition of 'Trickle-Down Theory'

An economic idea which states that decreasing marginal and capital gains tax rates - especially for corporations, investors and entrepreneurs - can stimulate production in the overall economy. According to trickle-down theory proponents, this stimulus leads to economic growth and wealth creation that benefits everyone, not just those who pay the
lower tax rates.

A contrasting theory, Keynesianism, is based on stimulating demand through government spending and other government interventions. An increase in government spending necessitates an increase in income-tax rates – the opposite of what trickle-down theory advocates. Trickle-down theory does not support government intervention in the economy.

According to the trickle-down theory, if tax rates are lower, people have an incentive to work more because they get to keep more of the income they earn. They then spend or invest that income, and either of these activities will improve everyone’s prosperity, not just the prosperity of those in the highest income brackets. What’s more, in the end, the government may actually collect more income tax despite the lower tax rates because of the additional work performed. The Laffer Curve shows how this relationship works. If the government taxes 0% of income or 100% of income, it takes in no money. In between these two extremes, tax revenues vary because different tax rates encourage people to work more or to take more leisure time.

Is Economics really a science?

The Uncertainty Of Economics: Exploring The Dismal Science

 

[TakeAStepBack]

We haven't had supply side of anything for three decades. What we've had is a mash up of keynesian failed policy of stimulus (throughout the 1900s, there are dozens of failed stimulus examples) , with the Freidman-ist monetarism. The result is what most of us here who understand refer to as corporatism. Where the government, working in concert and sometimes interchangeably with business sectors (such as energy, agri, science/tech, banking, etc) to run their sector through the legislation. Creating a favoritist and often corrupt anti-competition atmosphere that fosters larger cartels, or syndicates in a given sector. Policy is usually devised by the business community favorites of legislators (we see this in democrats on green energy the same as with republicans on oil/gas) to foster and grow their businesses while keeping competition to a minimum or destroying it entirely.

Yes, economics, is a science. It is a soft, or social science not subject to the harsh laws of natural sciences (except under central planning, of course) and is based on human action. Which is another fault we face today. Central planners have tried their absolute best to consider economics a hard science that requirtes them to control in order for optimum outcomes.

the results have been a pure disaster all around.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

I support free market capitalism because when it is allowed to happen, it works better than any central planning. And that's reall the crux of the issue. Whether or not we need our economy centrally planned or not (yes, such planning varies in scope. Our version is not the same as say, soviet russia version of planning. it's a matter of degree). No one has the authority, or ability to know what humans will do given a maximum outlet of economic freedom. What we do know is that government intervention into the ecnomy, or its take over, results in disaster. Not some of the time, but every time. This is usually where leftists get hung up because they see everyone dumping toxins int eh water, stealing from teh poor,e c.. The problem with that model, is that leftists forget (or ignore for their own reasons) that humans are social beings, and capitalism works when humans work together voluntarily, or of their own volition. Free market capitalist proponents see that people do not go out of their way to destroy themselves, their customers or the planet on an intentional basis. And that doing so means no customers. This, of course, not a perfect system as humand aren't perfect. Nothing is perfect. But it allows the maximum amount of freedom when it is protected, in the same fashion that private property is protected.

You either think humans are evil, stupid creatures (adn there is merit to that argument in ways), or you believe that on the 'general' whole, humans are inherently good and will do what lifts all above and increases standards.

 

[william the wie]

We haven't had supply side of anything for three decades. What we've had is a mash up of keynesian failed policy of stimulus (throughout the 1900s, there are dozens of failed stimulus examples) , with the Freidman-ist monetarism. The result is what most of us here who understand refer to as corporatism. Where the government, working in concert and sometimes interchangeably with business sectors (such as energy, agri, science/tech, banking, etc) to run their sector through the legislation. Creating a favoritist and often corrupt anti-competition atmosphere that fosters larger cartels, or syndicates in a given sector. Policy is usually devised by the business community favorites of legislators (we see this in democrats on green energy the same as with republicans on oil/gas) to foster and grow their businesses while keeping competition to a minimum or destroying it entirely.

Yes, economics, is a science. It is a soft, or social science not subject to the harsh laws of natural sciences (except under central planning, of course) and is based on human action. Which is another fault we face today. Central planners have tried their absolute best to consider economics a hard science that requirtes them to control in order for optimum outcomes.

the results have been a pure disaster all around.

I think he is referring to non-infrastructure macro-economics, which cannot be science. The patterns we see in the "macro-economy" are no more nor less real than the patterns we see in clouds. The parts of the macro-economy that have demonstrable existence are networks whether electronic or logistical and you can point to them. As to the rest of macro-economics so far it has been impervious to disproof.

 

[Wry Catcher]

As a non economist and one who has no more than a passing interest in learning more, I side with those whose labor produces goods and services here at home and not those who move (generally) other people's money around. Maybe the latter put their gains into funding projects which employee labor, but some must - I assume - be invested overseas in industries which pay 'slave' wages and not here at home.

I side with government spending to improve our lot in life. Building bridges, tunnels, and highways; inter and intra rail commuter rail and high speed rail to compete with airlines; and more efficient transmission of electricity as well as new means to generate it. Not only will they aid in commerce, but the jobs to renew, repair and renovate will circulate more money paid in wages into our economy creating more opportunities for small and large businesses as well as our major industries.

 

[expat_panama]

...three decades of supply side economic theory...

What, we're saying Reagan, GH Bush, Clinton, GW Bush, and Obama were all a bunch of tricklers?

 

[william the wie]

Until and unless the difference between infrastructure like building more dependable water supplies as opposed to lending money for degrees that destroy wealth even without debt service and similar stunts I think you are SOL WC.

 

[william the wie]

...three decades of supply side economic theory...

What, we're saying Reagan, GH Bush, Clinton, GW Bush, and Obama were all a bunch of tricklers?

the last four also drove up the costs of labor faster than wages.