Economics has been, until 2008, as much political as scientific. I label this posting as "Off-topic" because it is only marginally related to physics and alternative energy. (i.e. future funding of these two more noble pursuits will depend on avoiding a recession, and smart economics may be able to pull this off)
Sure there have always been statistics, piles and piles of them - and that is ostensibly where "science" could have been used effectively in economic policy -- that is, if the stats had actually been used as the base for policy... but these numbers can be easily manipulated, ignored or spun for political gain. ... spin? yup, as in the case of Reagan's fondly remembered eponymous rescue - where - yes, there was a indeed a positive effect which was attributed to his controversial policy of tax breaks to the rich ... BUT when analyzed later with real science and sophisticated computer models - it was found that the success was NOT related strongly to the tax code (except in its spin). I hope I am not misspeaking here, as I am not an economist, but that episode in history was the only arguable success of "supply-side" despite it being a pillar of many more years of neocon policy. Perhaps it was right for the time, and for that time only. Did the terrible failure of the "W" Bush version of supply-side economics, and the trickle-down coddling of the petro-rich, finally eliminate this glorified falsehood from the landscape of American Economics? Probably, but that assumes that Obamanomics has a better answer. From what has been published, going back to the geniuses at the University of Chicago - I am almost positive that the B-team does have an answer which has a strong backing in supercomputer modeling. In the end, it is "what works and what doesn't work" that matters and not the "socialist" label or whatever other moral or spiteful tag you want to put on it. Supply-side is "out" maybe forever, simply because it doesn't work well, and that actually has nothing to do with its unfairness to the middle class and poor. Except for the brief flush of apparent success with Reagan where it did appear to work for a while, it probably has never worked well enough to offset the growing deficits, which invariably accumulate until they start a recession. Which is where we are today. Is it too late to matter? Maybe someone else on Vortex - Jack or some other contributor here who has a background in economics will add an educated opinion. I think Obamanomics will work because I tend to trust the computer modeling which will be behind it. Unfortunately, that will not keep politics out of the equation - and that is what worries me most. Comedian, author and possible US Senator, Al Franken lampooned supply-side economics in his 2004 book "Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them - A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right," and it may have cost him that election as it was a little too true. Too close to call that election for now. Franken's opponent reportedly said that an Obama win would cost every MD and wealthy entrepreneur in America an average of $25,000 per year in increased taxes, on average. That could be close to true in four years, in fact it may be on the low side -- but it will be gradual. Is it unfair to high earners? Not if it works. The tax code is all about redistribution of wealth because wealth-accumulation is unfair to begin with. IOW take Doctors, for instance. The AMA is nothing more than the world's best Union, in one view, which guarantees doctors in large cities a quarter-mil in annual salary which would never happen in a totally free market. Thus, if the earnings themself are not unfair to begin with, then it is not unfair that they should pay a much higher percentage in taxes - so that there is a semblance of overall balance. BTW - There is a comic book style chapter in Franken's book illustrated by "Dandy Don" Simpson (Megaton Man) entitled "The Gospel of Supply Side Jesus." The neocons want so badly to convince us that this lie of trickle-down economics works, that of course they have always tried to tie it directly into religion - ergo, in the parody: "turnaround" (using JC's name in vain, so to speak) is fair play, as they say. Go Al (Franken) ! Yes, you are a doofus ... but ... at least you are the lesser of two doofi. And like Reagan, you have a sense of humor. A good sense of Humor is the most important trait for a Pol, by far, and it is the reason that I am proud to say that I voted for RR, and would again - even if supply-side doesn't work. Jones
