Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Bill USA

(6,436 posts)
Fri Aug 10, 2012, 05:49 PM Aug 2012

The Spectacular Failure that is Supply-Side Economics - Center for American Progress

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2012/08/failure_supply_side_econ.html

Three Decades of Empirical Economic Data Shows That Supply-Side Economics Doesn’t Work

Adherents of the economic theory known as supply-side economics contend that by cutting taxes on the rich we will unleash an avalanche of new investment that will spur economic growth, and boost job creation, leading to economic improvements for everyone. For most of the past 30 years this idea has dominated the economic debate, resulting in two sustained eras of tax cuts aimed at the wealthy, separated by a brief respite in the 1990s.

Now, as our economy struggles to emerge from the deepest recession in generations—and as we argue over what to do with the expiring Bush-era tax cuts—it is more important than ever to understand one simple fact: When put to the test in the real world, supply-side policies did not deliver as promised. In fact, by every important measure, our nation’s economic performance after the tax increases of 1993 significantly outpaced that of the periods following the tax cuts of the early 1980s and the early 2000s.

Supply-side economics starts from the generally accepted economic insight that tax policy can influence private-sector decisions by changing the incentives to work and invest. But supply-side acolytes take this relatively mundane observation to an extreme conclusion. They argue that lowering taxes for people, especially for those who have a lot of money to invest, will always lead to better economic results, and furthermore, that lower taxes is the single most critical intervention the government can undertake to stimulate growth.

This assertion—that lower taxes for the rich will lead to improved economic results—is testable. Of course, pure natural experiments in economics are few and far between, but over the last 30 years the United States alternated between economic policies that were heavily influenced by supply-side ideas, then were not, then were again. This variation allows us to compare economic performance in the various eras. If proponents of supply-side theory are correct, then the supply-side eras should outperform the non-supply side era. But that’s not what happened.


<more>
4 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
The Spectacular Failure that is Supply-Side Economics - Center for American Progress (Original Post) Bill USA Aug 2012 OP
Supply-side is demonstrably false... Lefty Thinker Aug 2012 #1
Keynes actually has held up fairly well unc70 Aug 2012 #2
Yes, Keynes is better than those Lefty Thinker Aug 2012 #3
Keynes' theories are not neo-liberal. eomer Aug 2012 #4

Lefty Thinker

(96 posts)
1. Supply-side is demonstrably false...
Sat Aug 11, 2012, 12:31 AM
Aug 2012

even more so than other neo-liberal (I'm looking at you, Keynes) theories. Supply-side refuses to accept that there could ever be a demand shortage, which leads to the laughable conclusion that people are only ever unemployed by choice -- that they value leisure more than the money they could earn working. With the amount of effort I've seen unemployed people putting in to find a job, I'd say supply-side is proven false by contradiction.

unc70

(6,115 posts)
2. Keynes actually has held up fairly well
Sat Aug 11, 2012, 12:48 AM
Aug 2012

Supply side, Chicago economics, market economics, Libertarian variations are all complete nonsense. All of it.

Lefty Thinker

(96 posts)
3. Yes, Keynes is better than those
Sat Aug 11, 2012, 02:15 AM
Aug 2012

But Keynes was slightly inconsistent with his models, which gives Keynesian economics a kind of fuzzy feeling -- it's difficult to know if you've actually accounted for the significant factors. Chicago school and that ilk are consistent, but consistently wrong. Modern Monetary Theory, on the other hand, actually makes relatively accurate predictions and has academic rigor. But much like Quantum Electrodynamics, you may have to abandon much of what you thought you knew about the world to grasp the paradigm.

eomer

(3,845 posts)
4. Keynes' theories are not neo-liberal.
Sat Aug 11, 2012, 09:22 AM
Aug 2012

Last edited Sat Aug 11, 2012, 10:14 AM - Edit history (1)

Neo-liberalism advocates that free markets are all we need, that the market will take care of itself without regulation or intervention.

Keynesian theory advocates the opposite, that active government intervention is necessary and desirable.

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Editorials & Other Articles»The Spectacular Failure t...