That doesn't mean that there aren't more than enough people still clinging to supply-side economic theories as if their undeserved wealth depended on it. Because it does.
You disagree?
“Trickle down” was a Democratic ploy to disparage the policy of reducing tax rates. Apparently we are still talking about it despite the economic expansion of the 1980’s in contrast to the “malaise” of the 70’s.
Supply side economics is increasing the amount of available goods regardless of demand. The lagging wages are mitigated by credit, i.e. debt.
“ Supply-side economics is a macroeconomic theory that postulates economic growth can be most effectively fostered by lowering taxes, decreasing regulation, and allowing free trade”
There are many thousand ways of "giving people money". Supply-side economics prescribes exactly one way of "giving people money", that's by lowering taxes.
You cannot claim that because supply-side economics supports one way of "giving" people money that every way of giving people money is supply-side economics.
You see that, right?
I presume that actually think that this is the case and that you didn't just forget the /s.
Supply-side economics has been thoroughly debunked, again and again[0]. Just look the current state of the US.
> Give people more money and they spend it.
It depends. It depends how much money they have, how much money they already have and what your definition of 'spending' is. Not every kind of 'spending' is of economic and social value. Give a billionaire a dollar and they'll forget it with the lint in their pocket, will get thrown out with the trousers and incinerated along with the trash. Give a billionaire a million dollars and they'll put it into NFT or crypto or something else of questionable social or economical value. It's only when you give a poor person some money that they will spend it in a 'useful' way that actually increases productivity.
But "Give people more money and they spend it" not supply-side economics, actually, is it?
In all actual actuality, supply-side economics is about lowering taxes, decreasing regulation, and allowing free trade, with a heavy emphasis on lowering taxes. You could say that it's primarily about lowering taxes, because 'decrease regulation' and 'promote free trade' is not exactly a supply-side original. SSE is about lowering taxes, primarily for the 'job creators'. That's what the Laffer curve is for. And only the beginning of the issues with supply-side economics ...
> Apparently we are still talking about it despite the economic expansion of the 1980’s
What good is economic expansion if no one but a very small and exclusive group of very exclusive and already very rich people profits said economic expansion? Do larger number make you happy? if so, here's a big number for you: 10↑10.
If you are not more happy now, then you are in the same boat as most US workers since 1979. Just because there was economic expansion, it doesn't mean their lives got better. Worse, in fact. Wages stalled, living expenses increased, social support networks were cut and cut and cut again. Why exactly? Yes, exactly. Supply-side economics, or "voodoo economic policy", as George H. W. Bush famously described it. Presumably because it thrives on the corpses of exsanguinated workers.
> a Democratic ploy [...]
To my knowledge, one of the mayor reasons for the '70ies economic downturn was the "Nixon shock" where prices and wages were frozen and import taxed increased. It's named after Richard Nixon. He was a Republicant President[1].
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kansas_experiment
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973%E2%80%931975_recession
Real wages grew and unemployment was at record lows during the 80’s. Even for the lower class. Please stop getting your information from social media.
Are you saying that’s wrong?
What, no! Here, let me quote myself from the previous answer I gave you.
>> But "Give people more money and they spend it" not supply-side economics, actually, is it?
Here, have a look at what supply-side economic is[0]. Supply-side economics is basically just lowering taxes.
> Real wages grew and unemployment was at record lows during the 80’s.
Nope, they didn't. Check [1] or [2]. Here's a pretty picture of the same data, just to be sure: [3].
Here's one for unemplyment: [4]; in the early 1980 unemployment skyrocketed, only to slowly fall back towards the level it was at the beginning of the 1980. I guess you could say that you are technically correct say that is was falling for most of the time - because it shot up so much at the beginning. Technically correct; the worst way of being correct.
In fact, ever since the introduction of supply-side "economics", wages have more or less flatlined and the profit from increased productivity has gone pretty much excursively to the very small layer of scum floating on top of the economic sewage water while everyone else is eating shit.
> Are you saying that’s wrong?
I guess I am? My suggestion would be to check the data.
> Please stop getting your information from social media.
There's no need for insults, is there?
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply-side_economics
[1] https://www.epi.org/publication/swa-wages-2019/#fig-e
[2] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/AHETPI
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:United_States_real_wages_...
[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_1980s_unemployment.png
Yes unemployment skyrocketed in the early 80’s followed by the biggest economic expansion in decades.
The 70’s were a morass of stagflation. To argue Regans policies didn’t bring the economy out of that mess is just being dishonest.
It's only dishonest if I actually thought that Reagan's policies did any good, isn't it? Joking aside, I actually think Reagan's policies were a disaster for the USA in the long run and didn't accomplish much during his time in office[0]. It is however during this time that real wage growth for the middle/low-income completely decoupled from economic growth for the first time and set them up for the mess they are in today. But don't take my word for it: [1]
[0] https://people.stern.nyu.edu/nroubini/SUPPLY.HTM
[1] https://www.researchgate.net/publication/330443901_Reaganomi...
I think you have to be a bit more specific here, otherwise you're just blowing hot air without anything worth discussing. I provided several reasons and sources to why I think that the Reagan presidency failed in the long run - do you care to examine and response to any of that?
> You realize he was elected with some of the biggest pluralities
A vast majority of the US population supported going to war against Iraq in 2003. Turns out this was an unmitigated disaster that has repercussions until today. It is one of the reasons - just for example - that the U.S. and coalition actions in Afghanistan failed.
Just because a plurality of people agrees to a thing, it doesn't mean we cannot look back and find out that we were wrong.
> Clearly the voters (on both sides) benefited.
I'm not sure I follow your line of reasoning. Just because the Nigerian scammer got you to transfer the funds that doesn't mean you benefited, right?