Definitive Proof Supply Side Economics IS TOTAL BS

[Zynx]

I got into an argument with a Republican type about whether or not our economic growth rates were above or below average since the recession in 2001. Here are some very simple numbers for us to work with:
2002 Economic Growth: 1.6%, yuck, stagnation
2003 Economic Growth: 2.7%, still not good, Europeanesque growth
2004 Economic Growth: 4.2%, pretty good
2005 First Half Growth: 3.6% on average, normal long term growth rate

Now let us average this all together and assume, even though it will likely be lower, that the total 2005 growth rate is 3.6%.

1.6 + 2.7 + 4.2 + 3.6 = 12.1/4 = 3% or 3.025 if you want to be picky. Average long term US growth is around 3.5% so after years of huge deficits and large tax cuts we have below average economic growth with another recession likely within the next year and a half or two years.

BUT WAIT, it gets worse. In the two years following the "end" of the recession we should have had an average growth rate of 5% or greater so if we had done an average recovery:
5 + 5 + 4.2 + 3.6 = 4.45% which is what our growth rate should have been in any normal economic cycle.

Now the supply side argument is even worse off when you consider that it is not just that they say tax cuts will spur economic growth, which they might, but that they will produce more government revenue than we otherwise would have had because our growth will be SO MUCH higher. Given the fact that the past three and a half years have been below average economic growth, much less post-recession recovery growth, it is difficult to argue that.

So in short, even using official government numbers we can disprove supply side economics with fifth grade math.

EDIT: Changed the title to clarify the point a bit more.

[texpatriot2004]

1. Tsk Tsk, math again, you know how the Rethugs are with that

FUZZY MATH. Plus, I don't think Georgie made it to 5th grade.

[Zynx]

2. If Bush saw this he would just look at the 4.2% and say....

"See! See! That's a big number!"

[texpatriot2004]

3. yeah that's a big number it's 2 over 4 n/t

[Wordie]

4. From what I've read, most of the growth in the economy has come from the

housing market, growth in which has been spurred by unbelievably low interest rates, not tax cuts, anyway. So what if some math type was able to filter out that...then where are we? (Or maybe I don't really want to know.)

[Zynx]

5. Without the spurt that housing has given consumer spending...

it runs more in the 1-2% area. This housing market is historically very strong, but it is more speculative than realistic in the markets that area showing strong appreciation rather than the 5%ish type that is historical.

[Wordie]

6. So much for supply side, huh? n/t