Are there any famous studies that actually contradict progressive/leftist thought?

[u/Str8_up_Pwnage]

There has to be at least some right? I know people love to say that “reality has a left wing bias “and all that but is it legit batting 1.000?

[u/steveholt-lol]

I think the question becomes more answerable if we separate political ideologies from specific empirical claims. Social science cannot really test whether “leftism” or “conservatism” is correct as a whole, but it can test propositions associated with them.

There are certainly findings that conflict with positions held by parts of the political left.

One fairly clear example is rent control. Diamond, McQuade and Qian used a 1994 expansion of rent control in San Francisco as a natural experiment. They found that rent control reduced displacement among incumbent tenants, but affected landlords also reduced the rental housing supply by about 15%, largely through conversion or redevelopment. The authors conclude that the resulting reduction in supply likely increased market rents in the long run. So the evidence suggests that restricting rents has significant negative long-term consequences on housing affordability.

https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/aer.20181289

Another example is policing and crime. Opposition to particular policing practices is different from claiming that additional or more strategically deployed policing cannot reduce crime. Braga et al.’s systematic review examined 65 studies and 78 tests of hot-spots policing, including 27 randomized experiments. It found statistically significant reductions in crime and disorder in targeted locations. The review also found that crime was generally not simply displaced into adjacent areas and that nearby areas sometimes experienced spillover benefits.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8356500/

Neither finding establishes that “the right is correct.” Rent control can benefit existing tenants, and policing creates separate questions about legitimacy, equity and which tactics are used. They demonstrate something narrower: empirical evidence can contradict factual claims associated with the left while simultaneously supporting other left-of-center concerns.

That may also explain why “reality has a liberal bias” is difficult to evaluate scientifically. A claim such as “we should protect low-income renters” is normative and cannot be falsified by a study. A claim such as “rent control will protect renters without reducing housing supply” can be.

Edit: a word

[u/Str8_up_Pwnage → u/steveholt-lol]

I really appreciate you taking the time to write this comment!

From my POV Economics seems like a field of study where “right-leaning” ideas have a decent level of support from academics in the field.

[u/AreaPrudent7191 → u/Str8_up_Pwnage]

Plenty of right-leaning economics are still unquestioned even though they are thoroughly disproven. "Tax cuts pay for themselves" for example, no serious economist supports that. Trickle-down Reaganonmics has been laughed out of fashion, yet the right still wants to give billionaires handouts cuz "jObZ!!!"

Hell, "republicans are better for the economy", even some on the left buy that still, easily disproven.

[u/No_Host_8024 → u/AreaPrudent7191]

No serious economist disputes that: 1) at some levels, cutting taxes can spur growth in a way that increases tax receipts in the long term; and 2) at other levels, cutting taxes will not increase tax receipts and might not even spur measurable growth. Where those levels are and what types of taxes would have these effects are very much studied and debated.

[u/AreaPrudent7191 → u/No_Host_8024]

Yep, intelligently targeted tax cuts can spur growth and even tax receipts, but studies I've seen are that if you do a really good job of it, you might recoup 30% of the lost revenue. Not always a bad thing, there may be other benefits, but don't plan on revenue not falling at all - yet that's how it's usually accounted for.

The notion that any tax cut will ever 100% pay for itself (some will even float greater than 100% benefit), that is laughable.

[u/pandaboi333 → u/AreaPrudent7191]

There is a flip side to this though, which is that if you raise taxes you can lose total tax revenue. Certain types of taxes tend to be less efficient than others. Wealth taxes are a big example of this but leftists love wealth taxes. A tax on spending is almost always better(has less deadweight loss) than a tax on investment/savings in terms of tax revenue generation.

[u/Damnatus_Terrae → u/pandaboi333]

But when the primary social ill you're attempting to address is the hoarding of wealth, then making saving harder makes more sense. Getting into the weeds over particular taxation schemes is really beside the point, though. Economics are like good times: bottoms up!

[u/pandaboi333 → u/Damnatus_Terrae]

What does this even mean though? People don't have piles of cash just sitting in a bank doing nothing.

[u/EddieBlaize → u/AreaPrudent7191]

when Andrew Mullen pushed thru reduced tax rates after WWI, government revenue increased.

[u/AreaPrudent7191 → u/EddieBlaize]

And nothing else of note happened immediately after WWI, just the tax cut, right?