Thanks for proving my point. The 'soft science
Post# of 65629
Posted On: 10/10/2016 1:13:17 AM
Thanks for proving my point.
The 'soft sciences', psychology, sociology, economics are soft precisely because they attempt to account for human behavior which is always difficult to account for, let alone quantify.
When a theory is not confirmed by reality, by experience, it's usually discarded. Not so much when it pertains to what GHW Bush called 'voodoo economics'.
It's persistence in the face of manifestly negative results suggest it should be called 'Zombie Economics'.
The 'soft sciences', psychology, sociology, economics are soft precisely because they attempt to account for human behavior which is always difficult to account for, let alone quantify.
When a theory is not confirmed by reality, by experience, it's usually discarded. Not so much when it pertains to what GHW Bush called 'voodoo economics'.
It's persistence in the face of manifestly negative results suggest it should be called 'Zombie Economics'.
Quote:
Conclusion
https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/econo...economics/
Did the supply side policies of Presidents Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush work? Did they boost investment, spur growth, and cause prosperity to trickle down? The data says no.
And when President Clinton raised taxes in 1993, did the economy suffer a slowdown, as was predicted by those who believe in supply-side economics? Again, the data says no.
This data does not mean that higher taxes are always better and lower taxes are always worse for the economy. That would be making the same mistake that many supply-siders make, but in reverse.
Indeed, there were obviously other forces at work in our economy besides tax policies over this 30-year period. But it does mean that lower taxes aren’t always the answer, aren’t a magical economic cure, and that higher taxes can coexist with, and perhaps even aid, a strong economy.
Quote:
The Laffer curve illustrates a central theory of supply-side economics, that lowering tax rates may generate more government revenue than would otherwise be expected at the lower tax rate because moving off of a prohibitively high tax system could generate more economic activity, which would lead to increased opportunities for tax revenues.[10][11]
However, the Laffer curve only measures the rate of taxation, not tax incidence, which is a stronger predictor of whether a tax code change is stimulative or dampening.[12] In addition, studies have shown that tax cuts done in the US in the past several decades seldom recoup revenue losses and have minimal impact on GDP growth.
(0)
(0)