The Evidence for Supply Side Economics

Where is it? I ask this question in earnest.

I work in the financial industry in the U.S., and for many of my associates, America’s continued prosperity is due to supply-side economics that gained traction under Reagan and are even more deeply rooted today.

So I went to the most reliable source I could think of, Google. But countless search results are about the failures of this economic policy, and there is scant evidence to be seen.

For those who do believe supply-side economics have been prosperous for the country, I’m curious as to what led you to this belief? What statistics from 2020 suggest to you life for Americans has, on average, improved? What gauges/criteria are you looking at?

Is this due to the run-up, to the Elections?

Just asking for a friend…

Machine labor changed everything.

It used to go by slaves, cows, horses, etc.
Later it became fossil fuel based, which was vastly easier.
Now we live in the electronic age.
The need for labor is at an all time low,
but jobs are still being produced higher than i had expected.

So yeah, there is improvement, in that way.
However, the people that own machines and factories,
are capitalists, usually. So that is an issue.

Google is extremely politically partisan. You might as well ask the DNC for evidence that Mr Trump is a good president.

Statistics are largely worthless unless you delve deep into exactly how they were constructed and you will almost never be given that information. You will be given whatever statistics that display the publisher’s preferred narrative. Others will be suppressed if not completely deleted from the internet (just ask the CCP).

With that in mind there are questions as to what you currently believe and why.

Between 2016 and 2020 (before pandemic) How was the US economy and unemployment doing? During that time, Mr Trump’s economic strategy was in effect. If supply-side economics (tax cuts) doesn’t work why wasn’t there a sharp downturn in US economy?

No, more of a personal theory / observation that I’m seeking more support for, while to whatever extent possible addressing my own confirmation bias.

I’ll play devil’s advocate here…you say the need for labor is at an all time low. What leads you to believe this? I understand that more and more processes are being automated away, but why wouldn’t one believe this labor would be redirected into something else? Also, given that it seems as though this is the most inhabited the planet has ever been, wouldn’t more labor be needed to compensate for the volume?

Hi obsrvr. I accept that there is a lot of wiggle room and gray area in statistical analysis, which is partly what has led me on the quest to see the statistics that demonstrate supply-side economics has benefited Americans as a whole. And I’m looking more on a timescale of 40 years (1980-2020), as I don’t think four years is enough time to gauge the impact of any fiscal policy.

What has led me to believe what I believe currently is, sadly, anecdotal evidence and undoubtedly materials that my confirmation bias led me to.

It could all be redirected, in theory,
but demand for labor changed.
Demand controls or affects the job scarcity / abundance.

I think that statistical analysis is a minimal study for an incredibly complex issue, especially over a long period. The greater issues involve the politics of any one period from both within a nation and from abroad.

If tax cuts for corporations are given without also cutting off China from being used as the primary labor force, certainly it benefits only the rich. But if at the same time corporations are blocked from sending their employment overseas, the rich have no choice but to make the homeland employees richer than they were. That was exactly what Mr Trump planned and did. Everyone got wealthier because there was no alternative for the rich (they always have to be controlled).

And then suppose out of retaliation China launches a bioweapon such as COVID-19. With that consideration suddenly the rich get much wealthier and the poor get much poorer, as the communist Marxists intend - the American Democrat party (so as to promote class war and revolution).

So you really have to look closely at the political scene and contributing actions when trying to gauge which economic scheme is better. If corporate leaders have no choice but to hire and satisfy home workers then supply-side economics with all its top end tax cuts is almost certainly beneficial to the entire society (assuming a limited capitalist forum). In a socialist environment, workers have no say in the matter regardless which is why they can be so easily provoked into revolution (the Marxist plan). Tax cuts in a socialist environment merely reduces the government funded handouts to the people. So in that environment, the people are promised everything to be provided by the government, taxes are raised (mostly on the poor) and the services are reduced to minimum required to prevent revolution (which is already designed to happen regardless of what taxes or services are granted).

The reality is even more complex in details than that but what is going on in the US today is basically what I have described. I don’t think that any statistical analysis would currently display any useful information. It is the politics that controls the outcome. Once a situation is stable (if ever) then a strictly economic analysis could be fruitful. But even then it would depend on which political setting was established.

I think that economic analyses are only good for the day they were made.

I think that economic analyses are only good for the day they were made.

Ok…Shit changes. Can you except an other’s perception that “that” may be shitty in either direction? Cam we go somewhere else?

I don’t have statistics other than vast exponential disparities of wealth and a vanishing middle class, imminent job displacement. Supply side might have worked at one point but right now it seems like UBI is needed, and tighter regulations to make sure profits from automation aren’t hoarded or shipped overseas. Cut employment tax, raise VAT tax and tax the super wealthy. Launch UBI and reign in the ridiculous margins between CEOs and employees back to the 50x multiple instead of the 500x multiple.

The rich don’t want to be taxed.
Maybe commie violence is actually necessary.
Wouldn’t that be a pain in the bum.

What led you to the conclusion that politics is the “greater issue?”

The cost of overhead would increase substantially for most companies with a likely negative impact to the bottom line, and shareholders, no? And when you say “everyone” got wealthier, are you excluding the rich?

Do you really feel this is feasible in a globalized economy? Don’t you think shareholders of these companies would suffer due to the increased costs?

So just to ensure I understand your position correctly, there is no statistical analysis that would constitute evidence in support of supply-side economics currently?

Politics strongly sways the economy. As seen just 2 days ago. Mr Trump announces that there will be no stimulus package for US citizens and immediately the stock market drops. The next day Mr Trump announces that if Ms Pelosi will send a bill that is exclusively for stimulus void of luxury gifts to left wing globalists and the stock market shoots back up. Political decisions trigger the anticipations of stock holders and corporations throughout the world.

If a corporation believes that it is going to be operating under a Marxist state, it has to guess whether it will be able to profit or even continue. If Mr Biden is put into the White House (as the stand in President for the Marxist pundits) US corporation must be able to relocate their workforce into a socialist or communist country. The managed decline from the globalists of the US threatens all US based corporations with intentional burdensome regulations and restrictions costing them too much to do business without either special favors from corrupt politicians (the most common way - Google, Amazon, Bloomberg,…) or the ability to move the workforce abroad.

No. At least not substantially and certainly not sufficiently to offset the extreme differences in wages between communist countries and capitalist countries. It depends on which country the workforce is moved into. Most countries want that workforce so they provide incentives to persuade corporations into their country. US states do the same between each other - “Give us a profitable break and we will move our jobs into your State/Country”. If it was otherwise, all of those corporations would not have moved in the first place. A few years ago House representative AOC blocked Amazon from getting a tax break from New York so Amazon simply didn’t move into New York.

No. Tax cuts increase the corporate wealth which serves the stockholders and executives first. And if the workers, and especially new future workers, are in the US, they also end up with higher wages and/or more available jobs. Tax cuts and location of workforce together determine whether workers benefit. When the workforce moves, the worker’s benefits move with it. When corporations pay higher taxes, there are fewer workers with lower benefits regardless of the workforce location (more work with less compensation because there is less usable capital - socialism).

Is what feasible? Realize that the economy is global regardless of which type of economic plan anyone incorporates. The only issues are which country’s workers are suffering the greater burden of production and which are reaping the most profit from that work. Of course in a high tax or over regulated environment, there is no incentive to start a business to begin with.

None that could be trusted either for or against it. Statistics on such matters are just not trustworthy. You just can’t know enough about the actual process used to create them (much like a Google search that skips disfavored websites due to a mysterious, never revealed “algorithm”) and additionally they only offer temporal, situational information at best (again whether for or against). The purpose of statistics has become to persuade people, not to accurately inform people - just like the news media. Try to get accurate statistics on COVID deaths or on who is ahead in the US presidential race. Everything is politicized and monetized.