Is there any data that proves supply side economics works in practice?

Question

Proponents of conservative economic thinking advance theories that sound nice and elegant, but I have never seen any data that backs up the idea that giving more wealth to the wealthy stimulates the economy and makes everyone better off. Does anyone have iron-clad evidence that this social experiment has done anything other than advance the fortunes of the fortunate?

Zak, see your response and followed the link. GDP per capita is going up here. No argument there. I have data that shows all the incremental wealth since 1950 has gone to those that already have it. Still hoping someone can produce data that shows otherwise. Remember, GDP per capita could be going up as all incremental value is retained at the top. So, I don't think that study proves anything.

Point taken on use of the word "fortunate." You are right, many wealthy people work very hard to get where they are, and luck has nothing to do with it.

Do not suffer from envy. Doing fine myself. Just concerned about fairness, and also about theory versus empirical proof.

Answer 1

You would do well to stick to basic anecdotal evidence because your understanding of regression analysis is pitiful.

Answer 2

There is no evidence that the long term growth is effected by supply side tax cuts. The US economy grew much faster in the 50's and 60's than over the last 20 years, even with a 90% top marginal tax rate. Supply siders will argue that the high growth rate was due to other reason and I would agree, but growth fluctuations in an economy always have many reasons, and changes in tax rates seem to have only short term stimulative effects. Our economy is now 80% services so the standard economic analysis based on increases in productivity growth now relies on making service more efficient which is much more difficult that improving manufacturing. It also means that what we can buy with our wages is increasingly dependent on the wages of others and less dependent on the price of goods.

Answer 3

Supply sided economy is a temperamental beast much like some of the answers you've drawn. Currently referred to as Neo-classical, the idea is an old car with a new paint job. Classical model failed in the depression, Keynes failed to predict stagflation. On your supply and demand scale, as you deal with prices at varied levels on a graph, you will run into deadwt. This represents a loss to society, the greater the deadwt, the less to society. Single handed evidence is it failed.

Answer 4

http://www.timbro.com/euvsusa/

What you suffer from is something known as:
ENVY - occurs when a person lacks another’s superior quality, achievement, or possession and either desires it or wishes that the other lacked it

This can be clearly demonstrated in your using of the word "fortunate" to describe rich people. You would never say hard-working, dedicated, or good decision makers. No, they are just lucky.

"sound nice and elegant"
>there is nothing that sounds more nice and elegant than "Social Justice", but it means nothing

"this social experiment"
>like the 40 years failed "War on Poverty"
----
Oh yeah, Bill Clinton signed a huge capital gains tax cut in 1997. I did not hear one liberal/progressive complain about the economy that followed.

So where is your iron clad proof that confiscating people's private property is good for the economy. (That is what high taxation is, but it just doesn't sound nice and elegant so those words would never be used.)
.

Answer 5

Yes, and there is evidence that high tax rates and "redistributing" wealth results in lower growth and high unemployment.


See: EU