Politically, the answer is no because she was totally brilliant.
Economically the answer could be yes or no or maybe and at any length up to doctorate thesis depending on the economist.
It could also be argued that if oil had remained under the dead hand of the state, as it had been pre-1979, it would not have been such a revenue and tax generator.
What a loaded question! That's like saying "Would the Duke of Westminster have been a bankrupt if he hadn't inherited the Grosvenor Estates?" Of course - if he still spent like the Duke of Westminster!
She would have also bankrupted the country without the revenue from cigarettes or without income tax!