![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
I'm a bit confused about whether the article is about
I'm also interested in helping our readers figure out which economists or politicians have advocated trickle down. At least we might start by listing claims (or complaints?) that various politicians have advocated trickle down.
Similar claims, perhaps a bit harder to pin down, might be found in criticisms (veiled or otherwise) that a certain politician's economic policy boiled down to (or smacked of) trickle down. We might say, for example, that
Is anyone interested in helping me distinguish between (1) describing the theory and (2) describing usage of the term? -- Uncle Ed ( talk) 14:42, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
Sorry for bifurcating this thread, but I have been looking at various descriptions of 'trickle down' and am wondering which (if any) are relevant to the article. Here is one:
I marked it up a little, to emphasize the distinction the author is trying to make. -- Uncle Ed ( talk) 13:58, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
A New York Times article by Robert H. Frank refers repeatedly to "trickle-down theorists" without naming any.
Thomas Sowell denies the latter, leaving us with the quote from Stockwell. -- Uncle Ed ( talk) 17:23, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
Trickle-down economics is from people that have money to people that do not. It certainly is much wider then what this article which appears to be a criticism of Reaganomics.
It is used to describe major cash flows in many countries such as Jordan, Lebanon and Moldova which have large cashflows from outside from citizens working in foreign countries.
Volunteer Marek, you removed some content about Thomas Sowell arguing that no-one had ever advocated trickle-down economics, saying "the same thing is being repeated three damn times". Could you explain a bit more about why you removed this? The content is not duplicated elsewhere in the article that I can see. Absolutelypuremilk ( talk) 16:36, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
CFCF, you removed the paragraphs about Sowell saying "UNDUE section, the following section carries critique" - could you explain what exactly you meant here? Absolutelypuremilk ( talk) 09:54, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
There are three separate economists cited here (Jeram, Horwitz and Sowell). Please try and get consensus on the talk page for your changes as per WP:BRD, rather than just removing the content. Alternatively, feel free to open a WP:RFC. Absolutelypuremilk ( talk) 18:35, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
How am I giving it more weight? Maybe you could suggest adding content from the IMF that you think is missing, or rearranging to improve the article? Absolutelypuremilk ( talk) 21:45, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
@ Volunteer Marek: you might be interested in this discussion. Absolutelypuremilk ( talk) 15:26, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
User:Volunteer Marek, User:Ed Poor and myself are all happy for the content to be included. You are the only editor who wants to remove the content. Absolutelypuremilk ( talk) 19:37, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
"trickle-down economics" is widely used by left leaning critics as a strawman argument. whenever an argument is made that lower taxes would reduce burden on small and medium sized businesses and encourage economic growth, the strawman argument will usually come back with "we already tried trickle down economics, giving money to the rich doesn't work". nobody made the argument that giving money to the rich would grow the economy, but that's what a partisan perceives it as. i think it's very biased to refer to this term like it has any actual credence, especially when this term is used synonymous with supply side economics. which is defined as "macroeconomic theory that argues economic growth can be most effectively created by investing in capital and by lowering barriers on the production of goods and services", and not "economic policies as favoring the wealthy or privileged". A77B ( talk) 08:47, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
Perseverence does not excuse you from meeting arguments about putting extreme right-wing commentators on par with the IMF, especially so when their positions are provably false. This edit is extremely problematic: [4], refrain from reinstating such extreme non-NPOV content. Carl Fredrik talk 07:58, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
Some supply-side economists consider the term "trickle down" as a political pejorative which does not denote any specific economic theory. [1]
I still don't understand what your problem is with Sowell, or the sources he is quoted in? Absolutelypuremilk ( talk) 09:02, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
I have removed the first mention of Sowell - he is quoting someone else anyway so his name doesn't add anything. Are you now happy to reinstate the content? If there is something that the IMF has said that you think is missing from the article, feel free to suggest it. Absolutelypuremilk ( talk) 08:05, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Not sure about the other stuff, but I don't think the image in the lead is appropriate. The reference is an opinion from a bias source, but when you go to the actual source of the graph, it doesn't seem they make that argument. It looks like WP:SYN - correlation does not imply causation. There were many factors for the economic changes and the trend continues to 2012, probably continues after that. Morphh (talk) 00:08, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure about the one we have currently, but I think we should have a lead image. How about a cartoon, or Reagan talking about Reagonomics, and cutting taxes increasing growth? LK ( talk) 07:50, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
caveat: I'm an economist.
Here are some interesting sources:
One questions seems to be whether anyone ever actually proposed trickle-down as a serious economic policy. If we understand that it is a journalist’s term for supply side economics, then the answer is obviously ‘yes.’ Herbert Stein ( under Nixon), Robert Mundell (Reagan) and Glenn Hubbard (GW Bush) come immediately to mind. DOR (HK) ( talk) 12:35, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
The following content is in the lead:
"Multiple studies have found a correlation between trickle-down economics and reduced growth, and that higher taxes on the wealthy are linked to economic growth.[4][5][6][7] Trickle-down economics has been widely criticised particularly by left-wing and moderate politicians and economists, but also some right-wing politicians."
This is sourced to one study from the IMF, one collection of graphs showing the income share of the top and bottom parts of the income distribution (which is very misleading, as growth can be negative, as in the above discussion), one column in the New York Times and one article about tax havens that doesn't really mention trickle-down economics. To have a statement like this in the lead, it should really be sourced by several secondary sources (I'm not including columns in that!) Absolutelypuremilk ( talk) 20:42, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
The problem with the article is that as you add references to it, you're really just still talking about supply-side economics; so any reference and text here should be added there as well and vice versa.
But that's a problem. Really the topic is the same; we've duplicated the article.
This is why you're not really supposed to have articles on terms very much, "Wikipedia is not a dictionary" and all that. Perhaps we should merge and add this terminology to the main article? GliderMaven ( talk) 22:18, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
I propose that Trickle-down economics be merged into supply side economics. I think that the content in the Trickle-down economics article can easily be explained in the context of supply side economics, and the supply side economics article is of a reasonable size that the merging of Trickle-down economics will not cause any problems as far as article size or undue weight is concerned. GliderMaven ( talk) 02:29, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
Trickle-down is the common name. Supply side means something different and is not a widely used name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.127.226.225 ( talk • contribs)
This phrase in the lead, with four references after it. I can't however see where the sources say this? Absolutelypuremilk ( talk) 13:50, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Grayfell, I think we should be much more careful, especially in the lead, about what claim we are making here. The studies use "trickle-down economics" in very different contexts. One (the IMF) says that "increasing the income share of the poor and the middle class actually increases growth while a rising income share of the top 20 percent results in lower growth", one (Levy Institute) says that most income gains are going to the wealthiest people, the NYT says that high inequality inhibits growth, while the Guardian finds that lots of money is going offshore. These all mention trickle-down economics, but very different parts of it. I don't think we can make such a broad claim in the lead. Absolutelypuremilk ( talk) 08:49, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
There is no SUPPORT whatsoever in this article for trickle down economics. It is simply a labour left wing propaganda article bashing low taxes 101.183.21.131 ( talk) 12:41, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
There is no such thing as "trickle-down theory". There is no such theory. As the article states it was entirely invented by a humorist. This article should be deleted and I'm surprised it even exists. Ergzay ( talk) 05:07, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
GIVE ME THE SOURCE which economists claim "Trickle-down economics"? It does not exist as Thomas sowell mentioned( https://www.daytondailynews.com/news/opinion/thomas-sowell-and-trickle-down-economics/Q7HaS9Sfr4KQtlhsW9sscI/) This shows how left wing leaning Wikipedia is showing propaganda and becomes a demagogue. Even Milton Friedman and Hayek never mentioned about Trickle down Why did you put Reagan on this? Top tax rate was cut initially by Kennedy ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aEdXrfIMdiU) and this is not something "voodoo" as Liberals arguing There are plenty of research and working papers about Positive effects of cutting tax rates from the high authority journals (" Marginal rate cuts lead to increases in real GDP and declines in unemployment" https://www.nber.org/papers/w19171) Please, Biased Liberals do some work before you argue with your bad emotion. Do some research I can show you tons of proven research about Tax cut effects Sigh....
I don't know why Wikipedia abstract this as purely negative term when the credible research from top journals (that is what we call real "educated") say lots of positive benefits from cutting marginal income tax and Corporate tax rates And if you guys really wanna describe this you should mention It was KENNEDY who implemented this policy First! When I see the picture of Reagan, I can clearly figure out Wikipedia starts to be a demagogue machine again
Why is the term trickle-down given a page on it's own when it has little if any reason to exist. TheDarkMaster2 ( talk) 15:59, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
@DOR (HK) I noticed that you reverted my change stating that in recent history, there is little belief among economists that trickle-down economics improves an economy and it is now mainly used to characterise similar policies under the heading of "trickle-down". Could you provide one or two sources of recent economists supporting trickle-down economics? I couldn't seem to find any. I am also curious about the second part of my edit, which was specifically backed up with 3 examples of economic policies being classified as "trickle-down" to discredit them. Iron filings ( talk) 23:30, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
This set of policy positions has been so compromised over the years that I have a hard time finding any credible sources willing to stake their professional reputations on it. DOR (HK) ( talk) 21:53, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
We say, "Whereas general supply-side theory favors lowering taxes overall, trickle-down theory more specifically advocates for a lower tax burden on the upper end of the economic spectrum." Question: does anyone have any hard evidence of any mainstream economist ever advocating a supply-side approach that wholly focuses on lowering taxes on the less well-off? The entire point of supply-side fiscal policy is to generate more capital investment, which suggests that lowering taxes only works for the investor class. If this is the case, then the sentence I quote here should be deleted. DOR (HK) ( talk) 17:16, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
Revert in question
Discussion over this revert removing this cited information and whether to include this information on the page.
Helper201 (
talk)
19:01, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
Taking this here as asked. The source does not state that it is an editorial. Perhaps it could be moved to criticisms if it is found to be one but much of the information added and included in the article is data from a report, so I think it fits better in this section. Its complete removal I think is unjustified.
Helper201 (
talk)
15:26, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
A huge study of 20 years of global wealth demolishes the myth of 'trickle-down' and shows the rich are taking most of the gains for themselves.Yuck. There is a thriving scholarly literature on inequalities and wealth concentration. Cite that. JBchrch talk 20:59, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
— Let's be clear about one thing: trickle down economics is far more important as a political issue than as an economic one. As such, we should be using citations and crafting the article as if this were about a political issue. It doesn't matter if serious economists believe in it or not: politicians (at least some) do, and media commentators as well. So, from here on in, may I politely request that we stop debating the quality of economic support for this topic, and focus on its political impact? DOR (HK) ( talk) 22:34, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
the economic proposition that taxes on businesses and the wealthy in society should be reduced as a means to stimulate business investment in the short term and benefit society at large in the long term. Whether
serious economists believe in it or notis a very relevant topic. JBchrch talk 23:50, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
— JBchrch, This article is about the POLITICAL proposition that taxes on businesses and the wealthy in society should be reduced as a means to stimulate business investment in the short term and benefit society at large in the long term. Serious economists have already made it clear that as an ECONOMIC theory, it is severely lacking . DOR (HK) ( talk) 01:41, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
Good afternoon,
The current image description is "...dubbed "Reaganomics", included large tax cuts and were characterized as trickle-down economics." Leaving this as "characterized" begs the question, by whom to avoid wiki voice.
I made this update earlier which was reverted, so I'm bringing it to the talk page. The revert editor said it was "clearly David Stockman" which could be a fair change since he was one of the earliest advocates of that term. However, the very next sentence is that Reagan's political opponents seized on the term. I think the political opponents language is more apt given that they popularized the characterization. However, if editors would rather it be more limited to Stockman, that would be a good edit as well.
Pending thoughts, Squatch347 ( talk) 22:19, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
Squatch347, regarding this edit, just need to keep in mind that WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY. Great that you are open to having the reference in the body, but it's actually a requirement. Citations should not solely appear in the lead. Perhaps a shorter version of this in the lead would be fine, but I would first work on integrating the citation and specific definition into the body. -- GoneIn60 ( talk) 18:12, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
Additionally, once resolved, I'd like to add this source to the revised final wording: [8] Squatch347 ( talk) 19:26, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
The article claims that Will Rogers created the phrase, but the link at the end of that sentence (#7) leads to an opinion piece from the National Review that has nothing to do with the origin of the term, nor does it offer a reliable definition of "trickle-down" economics. Kaylamolander ( talk) 06:40, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
We start off by saying "Trickle-down economics is a colloquial term for supply-side economic policies." There's an amazing number of problems in that, for such a short sentence. First, it's entirely unsourced. Whose view is that, or what set of views is it summarising? Second, it's a logical impossibility, as the supposed "colloquial term for" was coined decades earlier than the other. Third, it sets the scene for an ongoing muddle about the scope of the entire article. Are the two indeed supposedly synonymous? Free-marketeers get very huffy that their "supply-side reforms" don't simply amount to trickle-down. (Which indeed sounds unlikely to me, as they invariably amount to unfunded tax cuts for the rich, corporate deregulation, and kneecapping anything resembling workers' rights, but my opinion's not what matters here.) 109.255.211.6 ( talk) 23:14, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Hi @ Andrevan, why should we include a working paper in this article [9]? 2A01:4B00:9D42:6E00:FCE7:AC6D:CFC5:3126 ( talk) 19:17, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
I think the best bet to move forward is to post each suggested change here for discussion. I agree that working papers do not belong in this topic, but some of the other edits seem less clear cut to me. Squatch347 ( talk) 05:43, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
A 2020 working paper by London School of Economics and Political Science researchers... No mention of 'trickle down', at least by a 'control-f' search. Bonewah ( talk) 14:41, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
Overall, there is ample empirical support for and against tax cuts as means of spurring economic growth.should be cut, along with most the material below that, not including the 'politics' section. Again, if trickle-down is a turn of phrase, then empirical evidence is meaningless.
we need to strip out all scientific material which claims that 'trickle-down' does or does not work, as trickle-down is not a scientific theory or term that has any meaning to economists in a formal sense.That's definitely false. Andre 🚐 19:27, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (
link)
Andre
🚐
13:49, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
But it is not necessary for a source to say, "trickle down economics is a real economic term," for it to be one, or for Wikipedia to have an article about the usage of the term and studies about it.It is if you want Wikipedia to say it is, or if you want the Wikipedia article to treat it as if it was. Thats the point, we cant site scientific fact for or against an economic theory if it isnt actually an economic theory. And we cant say or act like its an economic theory if we dont have reliable sources that say it is an economic theory. Citing articles where an economist simply uses the term is not sufficient because economists can and do also use the term as a pejorative or in the context of politics or law as you say. Bonewah ( talk) 16:44, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
I still disagree. There are people who treat it as an economic theory, and there are those who do not. There are many usages of the term, so, I still don't agree. Andre 🚐 20:14, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
I did notice a working paper in the body of the text that I've removed related to our discussion here and the consensus that working papers, at least, don't meet WP:PRIMARY standards. Squatch347 ( talk) 10:30, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
The Washington Post piece [12]at the end of the Economics section is inaccurately described to "find" something. In fact, it summarises research by others. The authors on the linked page [13] are careful to state that their research "has yet to be peer reviewed". Even if we were to include a non-peer reviewed paper without proper attribution ("find" is far too strong), we should at least get the description of that paper right. 2A01:4B00:9D42:6E00:39E9:1410:E537:EE46 ( talk) 22:57, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
The "trickle-down" theory cannot be found in even the most voluminous scholarly studies of economic theories. Bonewah ( talk) 15:23, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
I think maybe there are two distinct issues here.
So in essence I am saying that yes, we have to have both articles but we must be even-handed in our treatment. It must be clear to readers that they are two equally valid expressions of the same (IMO, flawed) concept. That would be much easier if they were combined into one article but (unless the consensus has changed), that is not realistic. So there will be a great deal of duplication and WP:fork violation. Unfortunately I don't have the time to develop the articles along those lines so it can only be left on the table as a plea for even-handedness and equality of treatment. -- 𝕁𝕄𝔽 ( talk) 21:42, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
References
Abstract: This paper uses data from 18 OECD countries over the last five decades to estimate the causal effect of major tax cuts for the rich on income inequality, economic growth, and unemployment. First, we use a new encompassing measure of taxes on the rich to identify instances of major reductions in tax progressivity. Then, we look at the causal effect of these episodes on economic outcomes by applying a nonparametric generalization of the difference-in-differences indicator that implements Mahalanobis matching in panel data analysis.
We find that major reforms reducing taxes on the rich lead to higher income inequality as measured by the top 1% share of pre-tax national income. The effect remains stable in the medium term. In contrast, such reforms do not have any significant effect on economic growth and unemployment.
Simply because the economic theory is often attacked for being inaccurate empirically, does not make it not an economic theory.No, what makes it not an economic theory is the lack of reliable sources saying it is an economic theory (not to mention reliable sources explicitly saying it is not an economic theory). Bonewah ( talk) 15:20, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981 and in the Tax Reform Act of 1986. These two acts instituted clas- sic, trickle-down economics , by largely replacing the principle of pro- gressive taxes with the principle of proportional taxesDugger, William M. (1990). "The Wealth Tax: A Policy Proposal". Journal of Economic Issues. 24 (1): 133–144. ISSN 0021-3624.
neoliberal policies such as trickle-down economics , tax breaks for upper-income brackets or the removal of social safety netsWrenn, Mary V. (2015). "Agency and neoliberalism". Cambridge Journal of Economics. 39 (5): 1231–1243. ISSN 0309-166X.
Andre 🚐 15:27, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
I concur with both other editors here. Even with your examples, all we have are instances where the term is being used as a pejorative (none of those articles advocate for a policy) or where they put it in quotes indicating they are using a colloquial phrase, not a technical term. I would argue we are pretty close to consensus here. And, honestly this isn't really about consensus,the article is currently a blatant violation of WP:Synth and so WP:Burden is on the user wishing to override policy. Squatch347 ( talk) 05:49, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
The term Voodoo economics currently redirects to Reaganomics. Maybe it needs a "request to merge", but a similar arrangement can provide the off-ramp here? Meanwhile, here is another respected economist ( Robert Reich) referring to S-SE/T-DE as "gonzo economics" 𝕁𝕄𝔽 ( talk) 07:47, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
Almost 40 years ago, during the 1980 presidential primary, Bush famously characterized the agenda of then-rival Ronald Reagan as “voodoo economics.” [para] Bush was referring to supply-side policies that claimed tax cuts for the rich would unleash so much growth that they’d generate enough revenue to fund themselves.109.255.211.6 ( talk) 23:44, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
It seems that this thesis is so precious that visitors must not be permitted to see any evidence that falsifies it, demonstrating that it is ideology, not economics. Can anyone provide a rational argument why these links should not be given?
Abstract: This paper uses data from 18 OECD countries over the last five decades to estimate the causal effect of major tax cuts for the rich on income inequality, economic growth, and unemployment. First, we use a new encompassing measure of taxes on the rich to identify instances of major reductions in tax progressivity. Then, we look at the causal effect of these episodes on economic outcomes by applying a nonparametric generalization of the difference-in-differences indicator that implements Mahalanobis matching in panel data analysis.
We find that major reforms reducing taxes on the rich lead to higher income inequality as measured by the top 1% share of pre-tax national income. The effect remains stable in the medium term. In contrast, such reforms do not have any significant effect on economic growth and unemployment.
The authors of these articles are academics with a professional reputation to protect and consequently have tagged them for now as working papers open to review, so [assuming for sake of progress that the MOS applies to this article] we can't use them as in-body citations, BUT there is nothing in the MOS or other policy that precludes their being included in External Links. There I can only conclude that those editors who seek to cancel them do so because of fear that they will expose the thesis as the evidence-free political ideology that it is and not serious economics. This obstruction is a serious violation of WP:NPOV. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 ( talk) 23:42, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
1: the site should not merely repeat information that is already or should be in the article.Yes the information should be in the body and these articles cited in support of it, but for the moment that method does not have consensus. But they certainly belong at least in "Further reading" or "External links" because information they contain is highly relevant to the topic because they show clearly that this concept is not evidence-based and is certainly not good economics. Nothing in any policy says otherwise. So your objection resolves to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Unless you can produce cogent reasons for their exclusion, they will be reinstated. Also, please post under your regular user-name. -- 𝕁𝕄𝔽 ( talk) 09:11, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
This article has a problem with
WP:OR and
WP:SYNTH. Before i get to the specifics, lets review what OR and SYNTH say: Wikipedia does not publish original thought. All material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source. Articles must not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not clearly stated by the sources themselves.
… This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding original research, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented.
. SYNTH goes further to say Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source.
So everything in this article must be directly related to 'Trickle-down" and must not reach or imply any conclusions not stated in those sources. For us, that means anything that does not at least say trickle-down cannot be used as we would be implying the text of a reference relates to trickle-down without the citation itself saying so.
This is true irrespective of the outcome of the above RfC. Even if someone produces a reliable source that states "trickle-down" is X,Y and Z" we still cannot go find an example of X and put it here if that example does not explicitly say it is about Trickle-down. Again, we cannot reach or imply a conclusion not clearly stated by the sources themselves.
So let me next detail some examples of OR/SYNTH from this article.
While running against
Ronald Reagan for the
Presidential nomination in 1980,
George H. W. Bush had derided the trickle-down approach as "voodoo economics".
[1]
References
The problem? The cited source does not say anything about "the trickle-down approach" as we claim. We are implying that "the trickle-down approach" is what was meant when the source said "George Bush senior famously called Mr Reagan's ideas "voodoo economics" before he became vice-president of the United States. While challenging Mr Reagan in the Republican presidential primaries, he said he did not believe that supply-side reforms like ending regulation would be enough to rejuvenate the economy."
This is OR because we are the ones claiming that Bush was referring to trickle-down.
There are many more examples, and that is what needs to be addressed. Bonewah ( talk) 14:38, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
The tax plan’s “trickle-down” approach was popularized in the 1980s during the Reagan administration,....“Voodoo economics” was the derisive term George H.W. Bush applied to it in his failed 1980 bid for the Republican presidential nomination against Ronald Reagan, a supply-side enthusiast. The liberal economist John Kenneth Galbraith in 1982 likened the trickle-down idea to horse manure: “If you feed the horse enough oats, some will pass through to the road for the sparrows.”Andre 🚐 19:03, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
<- As usual, the barest mention of trickle down somewhere is held up as seen as sufficient for User:Andrevan. How about this one:
A 2020 study by economist
Anil Kumar of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas found that "The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) of 2017 is the most extensive overhaul of the U.S. income tax code since the Tax Reform Act of 1986. Existing estimates of TCJA's economic impact are based on economic projections using pre-TCJA estimates of tax effects. Following recent pioneering work of Zidar (2019), I exploit plausibly exogenous state-level variation in tax changes and find that an income tax cut equaling 1 percent of GDP led to a 1 percentage point higher nominal GDP growth and about 0.3 percentage point faster job growth in 2018."
[1]
References
{{
cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help)
Control-f for 'trickle' in the source? 0 results. Bonewah ( talk) 20:12, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
Our results therefore provide strong evidence against the influential political–economic idea that tax cuts for the rich ‘trickle down’ to boost the wider economy.Andre 🚐 20:56, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
Laffer occupies a position of prominence in the history of trickle-down economics. In 1974, he famously sketched a diagram on a restaurant napkin to illustrate his belief that the government could cut taxes and, contrary to economic assumptions, end up producing more revenue, not less. Economic growth would accelerate, and income would slosh downhill from corporations and the wealthy to ordinary Americans. [para] Over the years, the concept — also known as supply-side economics — has frequently drawn ridicule. [para] “Voodoo economics” was the derisive term George H.W. Bush applied to it in his failed 1980 bid for the Republican presidential nomination against Ronald Reagan, a supply-side enthusiast."It" is very clearly TDE, which it's explicitly equating with SSE, and indeed with VE. (For me VE carries the slightly different nuance of "unfunded because it'll pay for itself real soon", whereas TDE/SSE is in principle compatible with old-school "slash public spending" fiscal conservatism, but that's by the by.) 109.255.211.6 ( talk) 22:19, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
Analysis published in 2012 by the
Congressional Research Service found that reductions in top tax rates were not correlated with economic growth but were associated with income inequality. The CRS later withdrew the analysis after Senate Republicans objected to its findings and wording.
[1]
[2]
References
Here are ungated copies of both the WSJ articles used as citations and the CRS report itself. My check reveals no mention of 'Trickle-down'
Bonewah ( talk) 18:59, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
Although "trickle-down" is commonly mentioned in reference to income,
Arthur Okun has used it to refer to the flow of the benefits of
innovation, which do not accrue entirely to the "great entrepreneurs and inventors", but trickle down to the masses.
[1] More precisely,
William Nordhaus, a winner of the
Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences, estimates that innovators can capture only an extremely low 2.2 percent of the total surplus from innovation.
[2] Circling back to income "trickle-down", the surplus from innovation can take the form of gains in
real wages, which are spread throughout the economy, according to Nobel laureate economist
Paul Romer.
[3] In particular, economist
William Baumol argues that "the bulk of the unprecedented and widespread rise in the developed world's living standards since the
Industrial Revolution could not have occurred without the revolution's innovations."
[4]
References
I dont have access to all of these sources, but im extremely dubious of any of this. Ill check further as i can. Bonewah ( talk) 19:17, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
Again, if this article was about the term's usage rather than a unwieldy duplicate of the Supply Side Economics critique, these could be used if they were about the term's cross over into other areas where benefits are alleged to leak out to other groups beyond the target group. But that isn't what they are being used for here and so needs to be removed.
Squatch347 ( talk) 06:49, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sourcesAndre 🚐 16:14, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
Benefits do actually trickle down precisely because the big winner.... Is that what you are referrin to? Again, he is referring to the broader use of trickle down in the colloquial sense here referring to accrued benefits arising from technology advancement.
While the term "trickle-down" is commonly used to refer to income benefits, it is sometimes used to refer to the idea of positive externalities arising from technological innovation or increased trade. Arthur Okun, and separately William Baumol, for example, have used the term to refer to the flow of the benefits of innovation, which do not accrue entirely to the "great entrepreneurs and inventors", but trickle down to the masses. And Nobel laureate economist Paul Romer used the term in reference to the impact on wealth from tariff changes.
The page correctly begins by explaining that "trickle-down economics" is simply a critical term used by opponents of certain economic policies. But the third sentence all of a sudden claims that it's an actual (economic) theory. As others have noted on this talk page, it's not at all an actual economic theory. Moreover, while the article that is referenced by the third sentence attempts to claim that it is a theory, to support her claim the article's author in turn links to a Wharton School page ( https://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article/trickle-economics-flood-drip/) in which multiple professors correctly note that it's not a proper theory and it lacks any widely accepted definition. Some quotes from the Wharton piece.
'“I have a little bit of a hard time with the terminology and the idea of trickle-down economics,” says Wharton professor of finance Joao F. Gomes. “Although everyone in the popular press has a somewhat different characterization of what this means, this is not something we have tested or seriously theorized about as economists.”'
'Kent Smetters, Wharton professor of business economics and public policy, says that trickle-down economics is a term created to disparage supply-side economics. “It is just a clever negative sound bite,” says Smetters, faculty director of the Penn Wharton Budget Model (PWBM).'
'Part of the problem is that “trickle down” lacks a universally understood meaning. Smetters says the idea of tax breaks for the rich eventually producing benefits to the poor has never been part of supply-side economics.'
The third sentence should be struck as it contradicts the first two and its premise is not supported. Kerrni ( talk) 17:54, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
ome studies suggest a link between trickle-down economics and reduced growth, and some newspapers concluded..? Bonewah ( talk) 13:14, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
some studies suggest a link between trickle-down economics and reduced growth, and some newspapers concluded that trickle-down economics does not promote jobs or growth, and that "policy makers shouldn't worry that raising taxes on the rich ... will harm their economiesIf there's a problem with this set of text, it's that it is wishy-washy, and contains WP:WEASEL. A better way to frame it in my mind would be something like, "Economists and studies have generally been unable to demonstrate the posited growth effects of trickle-down, and some have found that trickle-down policy actually harmed their economies. Newspapers have concluded that trickle-down policy did not lead to a measurable increase in employment or GDP." Andre 🚐 13:54, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
I'm a bit confused about whether the article is about
I'm also interested in helping our readers figure out which economists or politicians have advocated trickle down. At least we might start by listing claims (or complaints?) that various politicians have advocated trickle down.
Similar claims, perhaps a bit harder to pin down, might be found in criticisms (veiled or otherwise) that a certain politician's economic policy boiled down to (or smacked of) trickle down. We might say, for example, that
Is anyone interested in helping me distinguish between (1) describing the theory and (2) describing usage of the term? -- Uncle Ed ( talk) 14:42, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
Sorry for bifurcating this thread, but I have been looking at various descriptions of 'trickle down' and am wondering which (if any) are relevant to the article. Here is one:
I marked it up a little, to emphasize the distinction the author is trying to make. -- Uncle Ed ( talk) 13:58, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
A New York Times article by Robert H. Frank refers repeatedly to "trickle-down theorists" without naming any.
Thomas Sowell denies the latter, leaving us with the quote from Stockwell. -- Uncle Ed ( talk) 17:23, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
Trickle-down economics is from people that have money to people that do not. It certainly is much wider then what this article which appears to be a criticism of Reaganomics.
It is used to describe major cash flows in many countries such as Jordan, Lebanon and Moldova which have large cashflows from outside from citizens working in foreign countries.
Volunteer Marek, you removed some content about Thomas Sowell arguing that no-one had ever advocated trickle-down economics, saying "the same thing is being repeated three damn times". Could you explain a bit more about why you removed this? The content is not duplicated elsewhere in the article that I can see. Absolutelypuremilk ( talk) 16:36, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
CFCF, you removed the paragraphs about Sowell saying "UNDUE section, the following section carries critique" - could you explain what exactly you meant here? Absolutelypuremilk ( talk) 09:54, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
There are three separate economists cited here (Jeram, Horwitz and Sowell). Please try and get consensus on the talk page for your changes as per WP:BRD, rather than just removing the content. Alternatively, feel free to open a WP:RFC. Absolutelypuremilk ( talk) 18:35, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
How am I giving it more weight? Maybe you could suggest adding content from the IMF that you think is missing, or rearranging to improve the article? Absolutelypuremilk ( talk) 21:45, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
@ Volunteer Marek: you might be interested in this discussion. Absolutelypuremilk ( talk) 15:26, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
User:Volunteer Marek, User:Ed Poor and myself are all happy for the content to be included. You are the only editor who wants to remove the content. Absolutelypuremilk ( talk) 19:37, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
"trickle-down economics" is widely used by left leaning critics as a strawman argument. whenever an argument is made that lower taxes would reduce burden on small and medium sized businesses and encourage economic growth, the strawman argument will usually come back with "we already tried trickle down economics, giving money to the rich doesn't work". nobody made the argument that giving money to the rich would grow the economy, but that's what a partisan perceives it as. i think it's very biased to refer to this term like it has any actual credence, especially when this term is used synonymous with supply side economics. which is defined as "macroeconomic theory that argues economic growth can be most effectively created by investing in capital and by lowering barriers on the production of goods and services", and not "economic policies as favoring the wealthy or privileged". A77B ( talk) 08:47, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
Perseverence does not excuse you from meeting arguments about putting extreme right-wing commentators on par with the IMF, especially so when their positions are provably false. This edit is extremely problematic: [4], refrain from reinstating such extreme non-NPOV content. Carl Fredrik talk 07:58, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
Some supply-side economists consider the term "trickle down" as a political pejorative which does not denote any specific economic theory. [1]
I still don't understand what your problem is with Sowell, or the sources he is quoted in? Absolutelypuremilk ( talk) 09:02, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
I have removed the first mention of Sowell - he is quoting someone else anyway so his name doesn't add anything. Are you now happy to reinstate the content? If there is something that the IMF has said that you think is missing from the article, feel free to suggest it. Absolutelypuremilk ( talk) 08:05, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Not sure about the other stuff, but I don't think the image in the lead is appropriate. The reference is an opinion from a bias source, but when you go to the actual source of the graph, it doesn't seem they make that argument. It looks like WP:SYN - correlation does not imply causation. There were many factors for the economic changes and the trend continues to 2012, probably continues after that. Morphh (talk) 00:08, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure about the one we have currently, but I think we should have a lead image. How about a cartoon, or Reagan talking about Reagonomics, and cutting taxes increasing growth? LK ( talk) 07:50, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
caveat: I'm an economist.
Here are some interesting sources:
One questions seems to be whether anyone ever actually proposed trickle-down as a serious economic policy. If we understand that it is a journalist’s term for supply side economics, then the answer is obviously ‘yes.’ Herbert Stein ( under Nixon), Robert Mundell (Reagan) and Glenn Hubbard (GW Bush) come immediately to mind. DOR (HK) ( talk) 12:35, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
The following content is in the lead:
"Multiple studies have found a correlation between trickle-down economics and reduced growth, and that higher taxes on the wealthy are linked to economic growth.[4][5][6][7] Trickle-down economics has been widely criticised particularly by left-wing and moderate politicians and economists, but also some right-wing politicians."
This is sourced to one study from the IMF, one collection of graphs showing the income share of the top and bottom parts of the income distribution (which is very misleading, as growth can be negative, as in the above discussion), one column in the New York Times and one article about tax havens that doesn't really mention trickle-down economics. To have a statement like this in the lead, it should really be sourced by several secondary sources (I'm not including columns in that!) Absolutelypuremilk ( talk) 20:42, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
The problem with the article is that as you add references to it, you're really just still talking about supply-side economics; so any reference and text here should be added there as well and vice versa.
But that's a problem. Really the topic is the same; we've duplicated the article.
This is why you're not really supposed to have articles on terms very much, "Wikipedia is not a dictionary" and all that. Perhaps we should merge and add this terminology to the main article? GliderMaven ( talk) 22:18, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
I propose that Trickle-down economics be merged into supply side economics. I think that the content in the Trickle-down economics article can easily be explained in the context of supply side economics, and the supply side economics article is of a reasonable size that the merging of Trickle-down economics will not cause any problems as far as article size or undue weight is concerned. GliderMaven ( talk) 02:29, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
Trickle-down is the common name. Supply side means something different and is not a widely used name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.127.226.225 ( talk • contribs)
This phrase in the lead, with four references after it. I can't however see where the sources say this? Absolutelypuremilk ( talk) 13:50, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Grayfell, I think we should be much more careful, especially in the lead, about what claim we are making here. The studies use "trickle-down economics" in very different contexts. One (the IMF) says that "increasing the income share of the poor and the middle class actually increases growth while a rising income share of the top 20 percent results in lower growth", one (Levy Institute) says that most income gains are going to the wealthiest people, the NYT says that high inequality inhibits growth, while the Guardian finds that lots of money is going offshore. These all mention trickle-down economics, but very different parts of it. I don't think we can make such a broad claim in the lead. Absolutelypuremilk ( talk) 08:49, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
There is no SUPPORT whatsoever in this article for trickle down economics. It is simply a labour left wing propaganda article bashing low taxes 101.183.21.131 ( talk) 12:41, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
There is no such thing as "trickle-down theory". There is no such theory. As the article states it was entirely invented by a humorist. This article should be deleted and I'm surprised it even exists. Ergzay ( talk) 05:07, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
GIVE ME THE SOURCE which economists claim "Trickle-down economics"? It does not exist as Thomas sowell mentioned( https://www.daytondailynews.com/news/opinion/thomas-sowell-and-trickle-down-economics/Q7HaS9Sfr4KQtlhsW9sscI/) This shows how left wing leaning Wikipedia is showing propaganda and becomes a demagogue. Even Milton Friedman and Hayek never mentioned about Trickle down Why did you put Reagan on this? Top tax rate was cut initially by Kennedy ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aEdXrfIMdiU) and this is not something "voodoo" as Liberals arguing There are plenty of research and working papers about Positive effects of cutting tax rates from the high authority journals (" Marginal rate cuts lead to increases in real GDP and declines in unemployment" https://www.nber.org/papers/w19171) Please, Biased Liberals do some work before you argue with your bad emotion. Do some research I can show you tons of proven research about Tax cut effects Sigh....
I don't know why Wikipedia abstract this as purely negative term when the credible research from top journals (that is what we call real "educated") say lots of positive benefits from cutting marginal income tax and Corporate tax rates And if you guys really wanna describe this you should mention It was KENNEDY who implemented this policy First! When I see the picture of Reagan, I can clearly figure out Wikipedia starts to be a demagogue machine again
Why is the term trickle-down given a page on it's own when it has little if any reason to exist. TheDarkMaster2 ( talk) 15:59, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
@DOR (HK) I noticed that you reverted my change stating that in recent history, there is little belief among economists that trickle-down economics improves an economy and it is now mainly used to characterise similar policies under the heading of "trickle-down". Could you provide one or two sources of recent economists supporting trickle-down economics? I couldn't seem to find any. I am also curious about the second part of my edit, which was specifically backed up with 3 examples of economic policies being classified as "trickle-down" to discredit them. Iron filings ( talk) 23:30, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
This set of policy positions has been so compromised over the years that I have a hard time finding any credible sources willing to stake their professional reputations on it. DOR (HK) ( talk) 21:53, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
We say, "Whereas general supply-side theory favors lowering taxes overall, trickle-down theory more specifically advocates for a lower tax burden on the upper end of the economic spectrum." Question: does anyone have any hard evidence of any mainstream economist ever advocating a supply-side approach that wholly focuses on lowering taxes on the less well-off? The entire point of supply-side fiscal policy is to generate more capital investment, which suggests that lowering taxes only works for the investor class. If this is the case, then the sentence I quote here should be deleted. DOR (HK) ( talk) 17:16, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
Revert in question
Discussion over this revert removing this cited information and whether to include this information on the page.
Helper201 (
talk)
19:01, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
Taking this here as asked. The source does not state that it is an editorial. Perhaps it could be moved to criticisms if it is found to be one but much of the information added and included in the article is data from a report, so I think it fits better in this section. Its complete removal I think is unjustified.
Helper201 (
talk)
15:26, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
A huge study of 20 years of global wealth demolishes the myth of 'trickle-down' and shows the rich are taking most of the gains for themselves.Yuck. There is a thriving scholarly literature on inequalities and wealth concentration. Cite that. JBchrch talk 20:59, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
— Let's be clear about one thing: trickle down economics is far more important as a political issue than as an economic one. As such, we should be using citations and crafting the article as if this were about a political issue. It doesn't matter if serious economists believe in it or not: politicians (at least some) do, and media commentators as well. So, from here on in, may I politely request that we stop debating the quality of economic support for this topic, and focus on its political impact? DOR (HK) ( talk) 22:34, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
the economic proposition that taxes on businesses and the wealthy in society should be reduced as a means to stimulate business investment in the short term and benefit society at large in the long term. Whether
serious economists believe in it or notis a very relevant topic. JBchrch talk 23:50, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
— JBchrch, This article is about the POLITICAL proposition that taxes on businesses and the wealthy in society should be reduced as a means to stimulate business investment in the short term and benefit society at large in the long term. Serious economists have already made it clear that as an ECONOMIC theory, it is severely lacking . DOR (HK) ( talk) 01:41, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
Good afternoon,
The current image description is "...dubbed "Reaganomics", included large tax cuts and were characterized as trickle-down economics." Leaving this as "characterized" begs the question, by whom to avoid wiki voice.
I made this update earlier which was reverted, so I'm bringing it to the talk page. The revert editor said it was "clearly David Stockman" which could be a fair change since he was one of the earliest advocates of that term. However, the very next sentence is that Reagan's political opponents seized on the term. I think the political opponents language is more apt given that they popularized the characterization. However, if editors would rather it be more limited to Stockman, that would be a good edit as well.
Pending thoughts, Squatch347 ( talk) 22:19, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
Squatch347, regarding this edit, just need to keep in mind that WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY. Great that you are open to having the reference in the body, but it's actually a requirement. Citations should not solely appear in the lead. Perhaps a shorter version of this in the lead would be fine, but I would first work on integrating the citation and specific definition into the body. -- GoneIn60 ( talk) 18:12, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
Additionally, once resolved, I'd like to add this source to the revised final wording: [8] Squatch347 ( talk) 19:26, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
The article claims that Will Rogers created the phrase, but the link at the end of that sentence (#7) leads to an opinion piece from the National Review that has nothing to do with the origin of the term, nor does it offer a reliable definition of "trickle-down" economics. Kaylamolander ( talk) 06:40, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
We start off by saying "Trickle-down economics is a colloquial term for supply-side economic policies." There's an amazing number of problems in that, for such a short sentence. First, it's entirely unsourced. Whose view is that, or what set of views is it summarising? Second, it's a logical impossibility, as the supposed "colloquial term for" was coined decades earlier than the other. Third, it sets the scene for an ongoing muddle about the scope of the entire article. Are the two indeed supposedly synonymous? Free-marketeers get very huffy that their "supply-side reforms" don't simply amount to trickle-down. (Which indeed sounds unlikely to me, as they invariably amount to unfunded tax cuts for the rich, corporate deregulation, and kneecapping anything resembling workers' rights, but my opinion's not what matters here.) 109.255.211.6 ( talk) 23:14, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Hi @ Andrevan, why should we include a working paper in this article [9]? 2A01:4B00:9D42:6E00:FCE7:AC6D:CFC5:3126 ( talk) 19:17, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
I think the best bet to move forward is to post each suggested change here for discussion. I agree that working papers do not belong in this topic, but some of the other edits seem less clear cut to me. Squatch347 ( talk) 05:43, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
A 2020 working paper by London School of Economics and Political Science researchers... No mention of 'trickle down', at least by a 'control-f' search. Bonewah ( talk) 14:41, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
Overall, there is ample empirical support for and against tax cuts as means of spurring economic growth.should be cut, along with most the material below that, not including the 'politics' section. Again, if trickle-down is a turn of phrase, then empirical evidence is meaningless.
we need to strip out all scientific material which claims that 'trickle-down' does or does not work, as trickle-down is not a scientific theory or term that has any meaning to economists in a formal sense.That's definitely false. Andre 🚐 19:27, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (
link)
Andre
🚐
13:49, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
But it is not necessary for a source to say, "trickle down economics is a real economic term," for it to be one, or for Wikipedia to have an article about the usage of the term and studies about it.It is if you want Wikipedia to say it is, or if you want the Wikipedia article to treat it as if it was. Thats the point, we cant site scientific fact for or against an economic theory if it isnt actually an economic theory. And we cant say or act like its an economic theory if we dont have reliable sources that say it is an economic theory. Citing articles where an economist simply uses the term is not sufficient because economists can and do also use the term as a pejorative or in the context of politics or law as you say. Bonewah ( talk) 16:44, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
I still disagree. There are people who treat it as an economic theory, and there are those who do not. There are many usages of the term, so, I still don't agree. Andre 🚐 20:14, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
I did notice a working paper in the body of the text that I've removed related to our discussion here and the consensus that working papers, at least, don't meet WP:PRIMARY standards. Squatch347 ( talk) 10:30, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
The Washington Post piece [12]at the end of the Economics section is inaccurately described to "find" something. In fact, it summarises research by others. The authors on the linked page [13] are careful to state that their research "has yet to be peer reviewed". Even if we were to include a non-peer reviewed paper without proper attribution ("find" is far too strong), we should at least get the description of that paper right. 2A01:4B00:9D42:6E00:39E9:1410:E537:EE46 ( talk) 22:57, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
The "trickle-down" theory cannot be found in even the most voluminous scholarly studies of economic theories. Bonewah ( talk) 15:23, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
I think maybe there are two distinct issues here.
So in essence I am saying that yes, we have to have both articles but we must be even-handed in our treatment. It must be clear to readers that they are two equally valid expressions of the same (IMO, flawed) concept. That would be much easier if they were combined into one article but (unless the consensus has changed), that is not realistic. So there will be a great deal of duplication and WP:fork violation. Unfortunately I don't have the time to develop the articles along those lines so it can only be left on the table as a plea for even-handedness and equality of treatment. -- 𝕁𝕄𝔽 ( talk) 21:42, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
References
Abstract: This paper uses data from 18 OECD countries over the last five decades to estimate the causal effect of major tax cuts for the rich on income inequality, economic growth, and unemployment. First, we use a new encompassing measure of taxes on the rich to identify instances of major reductions in tax progressivity. Then, we look at the causal effect of these episodes on economic outcomes by applying a nonparametric generalization of the difference-in-differences indicator that implements Mahalanobis matching in panel data analysis.
We find that major reforms reducing taxes on the rich lead to higher income inequality as measured by the top 1% share of pre-tax national income. The effect remains stable in the medium term. In contrast, such reforms do not have any significant effect on economic growth and unemployment.
Simply because the economic theory is often attacked for being inaccurate empirically, does not make it not an economic theory.No, what makes it not an economic theory is the lack of reliable sources saying it is an economic theory (not to mention reliable sources explicitly saying it is not an economic theory). Bonewah ( talk) 15:20, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981 and in the Tax Reform Act of 1986. These two acts instituted clas- sic, trickle-down economics , by largely replacing the principle of pro- gressive taxes with the principle of proportional taxesDugger, William M. (1990). "The Wealth Tax: A Policy Proposal". Journal of Economic Issues. 24 (1): 133–144. ISSN 0021-3624.
neoliberal policies such as trickle-down economics , tax breaks for upper-income brackets or the removal of social safety netsWrenn, Mary V. (2015). "Agency and neoliberalism". Cambridge Journal of Economics. 39 (5): 1231–1243. ISSN 0309-166X.
Andre 🚐 15:27, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
I concur with both other editors here. Even with your examples, all we have are instances where the term is being used as a pejorative (none of those articles advocate for a policy) or where they put it in quotes indicating they are using a colloquial phrase, not a technical term. I would argue we are pretty close to consensus here. And, honestly this isn't really about consensus,the article is currently a blatant violation of WP:Synth and so WP:Burden is on the user wishing to override policy. Squatch347 ( talk) 05:49, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
The term Voodoo economics currently redirects to Reaganomics. Maybe it needs a "request to merge", but a similar arrangement can provide the off-ramp here? Meanwhile, here is another respected economist ( Robert Reich) referring to S-SE/T-DE as "gonzo economics" 𝕁𝕄𝔽 ( talk) 07:47, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
Almost 40 years ago, during the 1980 presidential primary, Bush famously characterized the agenda of then-rival Ronald Reagan as “voodoo economics.” [para] Bush was referring to supply-side policies that claimed tax cuts for the rich would unleash so much growth that they’d generate enough revenue to fund themselves.109.255.211.6 ( talk) 23:44, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
It seems that this thesis is so precious that visitors must not be permitted to see any evidence that falsifies it, demonstrating that it is ideology, not economics. Can anyone provide a rational argument why these links should not be given?
Abstract: This paper uses data from 18 OECD countries over the last five decades to estimate the causal effect of major tax cuts for the rich on income inequality, economic growth, and unemployment. First, we use a new encompassing measure of taxes on the rich to identify instances of major reductions in tax progressivity. Then, we look at the causal effect of these episodes on economic outcomes by applying a nonparametric generalization of the difference-in-differences indicator that implements Mahalanobis matching in panel data analysis.
We find that major reforms reducing taxes on the rich lead to higher income inequality as measured by the top 1% share of pre-tax national income. The effect remains stable in the medium term. In contrast, such reforms do not have any significant effect on economic growth and unemployment.
The authors of these articles are academics with a professional reputation to protect and consequently have tagged them for now as working papers open to review, so [assuming for sake of progress that the MOS applies to this article] we can't use them as in-body citations, BUT there is nothing in the MOS or other policy that precludes their being included in External Links. There I can only conclude that those editors who seek to cancel them do so because of fear that they will expose the thesis as the evidence-free political ideology that it is and not serious economics. This obstruction is a serious violation of WP:NPOV. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 ( talk) 23:42, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
1: the site should not merely repeat information that is already or should be in the article.Yes the information should be in the body and these articles cited in support of it, but for the moment that method does not have consensus. But they certainly belong at least in "Further reading" or "External links" because information they contain is highly relevant to the topic because they show clearly that this concept is not evidence-based and is certainly not good economics. Nothing in any policy says otherwise. So your objection resolves to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Unless you can produce cogent reasons for their exclusion, they will be reinstated. Also, please post under your regular user-name. -- 𝕁𝕄𝔽 ( talk) 09:11, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
This article has a problem with
WP:OR and
WP:SYNTH. Before i get to the specifics, lets review what OR and SYNTH say: Wikipedia does not publish original thought. All material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source. Articles must not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not clearly stated by the sources themselves.
… This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding original research, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented.
. SYNTH goes further to say Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source.
So everything in this article must be directly related to 'Trickle-down" and must not reach or imply any conclusions not stated in those sources. For us, that means anything that does not at least say trickle-down cannot be used as we would be implying the text of a reference relates to trickle-down without the citation itself saying so.
This is true irrespective of the outcome of the above RfC. Even if someone produces a reliable source that states "trickle-down" is X,Y and Z" we still cannot go find an example of X and put it here if that example does not explicitly say it is about Trickle-down. Again, we cannot reach or imply a conclusion not clearly stated by the sources themselves.
So let me next detail some examples of OR/SYNTH from this article.
While running against
Ronald Reagan for the
Presidential nomination in 1980,
George H. W. Bush had derided the trickle-down approach as "voodoo economics".
[1]
References
The problem? The cited source does not say anything about "the trickle-down approach" as we claim. We are implying that "the trickle-down approach" is what was meant when the source said "George Bush senior famously called Mr Reagan's ideas "voodoo economics" before he became vice-president of the United States. While challenging Mr Reagan in the Republican presidential primaries, he said he did not believe that supply-side reforms like ending regulation would be enough to rejuvenate the economy."
This is OR because we are the ones claiming that Bush was referring to trickle-down.
There are many more examples, and that is what needs to be addressed. Bonewah ( talk) 14:38, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
The tax plan’s “trickle-down” approach was popularized in the 1980s during the Reagan administration,....“Voodoo economics” was the derisive term George H.W. Bush applied to it in his failed 1980 bid for the Republican presidential nomination against Ronald Reagan, a supply-side enthusiast. The liberal economist John Kenneth Galbraith in 1982 likened the trickle-down idea to horse manure: “If you feed the horse enough oats, some will pass through to the road for the sparrows.”Andre 🚐 19:03, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
<- As usual, the barest mention of trickle down somewhere is held up as seen as sufficient for User:Andrevan. How about this one:
A 2020 study by economist
Anil Kumar of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas found that "The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) of 2017 is the most extensive overhaul of the U.S. income tax code since the Tax Reform Act of 1986. Existing estimates of TCJA's economic impact are based on economic projections using pre-TCJA estimates of tax effects. Following recent pioneering work of Zidar (2019), I exploit plausibly exogenous state-level variation in tax changes and find that an income tax cut equaling 1 percent of GDP led to a 1 percentage point higher nominal GDP growth and about 0.3 percentage point faster job growth in 2018."
[1]
References
{{
cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help)
Control-f for 'trickle' in the source? 0 results. Bonewah ( talk) 20:12, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
Our results therefore provide strong evidence against the influential political–economic idea that tax cuts for the rich ‘trickle down’ to boost the wider economy.Andre 🚐 20:56, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
Laffer occupies a position of prominence in the history of trickle-down economics. In 1974, he famously sketched a diagram on a restaurant napkin to illustrate his belief that the government could cut taxes and, contrary to economic assumptions, end up producing more revenue, not less. Economic growth would accelerate, and income would slosh downhill from corporations and the wealthy to ordinary Americans. [para] Over the years, the concept — also known as supply-side economics — has frequently drawn ridicule. [para] “Voodoo economics” was the derisive term George H.W. Bush applied to it in his failed 1980 bid for the Republican presidential nomination against Ronald Reagan, a supply-side enthusiast."It" is very clearly TDE, which it's explicitly equating with SSE, and indeed with VE. (For me VE carries the slightly different nuance of "unfunded because it'll pay for itself real soon", whereas TDE/SSE is in principle compatible with old-school "slash public spending" fiscal conservatism, but that's by the by.) 109.255.211.6 ( talk) 22:19, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
Analysis published in 2012 by the
Congressional Research Service found that reductions in top tax rates were not correlated with economic growth but were associated with income inequality. The CRS later withdrew the analysis after Senate Republicans objected to its findings and wording.
[1]
[2]
References
Here are ungated copies of both the WSJ articles used as citations and the CRS report itself. My check reveals no mention of 'Trickle-down'
Bonewah ( talk) 18:59, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
Although "trickle-down" is commonly mentioned in reference to income,
Arthur Okun has used it to refer to the flow of the benefits of
innovation, which do not accrue entirely to the "great entrepreneurs and inventors", but trickle down to the masses.
[1] More precisely,
William Nordhaus, a winner of the
Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences, estimates that innovators can capture only an extremely low 2.2 percent of the total surplus from innovation.
[2] Circling back to income "trickle-down", the surplus from innovation can take the form of gains in
real wages, which are spread throughout the economy, according to Nobel laureate economist
Paul Romer.
[3] In particular, economist
William Baumol argues that "the bulk of the unprecedented and widespread rise in the developed world's living standards since the
Industrial Revolution could not have occurred without the revolution's innovations."
[4]
References
I dont have access to all of these sources, but im extremely dubious of any of this. Ill check further as i can. Bonewah ( talk) 19:17, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
Again, if this article was about the term's usage rather than a unwieldy duplicate of the Supply Side Economics critique, these could be used if they were about the term's cross over into other areas where benefits are alleged to leak out to other groups beyond the target group. But that isn't what they are being used for here and so needs to be removed.
Squatch347 ( talk) 06:49, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sourcesAndre 🚐 16:14, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
Benefits do actually trickle down precisely because the big winner.... Is that what you are referrin to? Again, he is referring to the broader use of trickle down in the colloquial sense here referring to accrued benefits arising from technology advancement.
While the term "trickle-down" is commonly used to refer to income benefits, it is sometimes used to refer to the idea of positive externalities arising from technological innovation or increased trade. Arthur Okun, and separately William Baumol, for example, have used the term to refer to the flow of the benefits of innovation, which do not accrue entirely to the "great entrepreneurs and inventors", but trickle down to the masses. And Nobel laureate economist Paul Romer used the term in reference to the impact on wealth from tariff changes.
The page correctly begins by explaining that "trickle-down economics" is simply a critical term used by opponents of certain economic policies. But the third sentence all of a sudden claims that it's an actual (economic) theory. As others have noted on this talk page, it's not at all an actual economic theory. Moreover, while the article that is referenced by the third sentence attempts to claim that it is a theory, to support her claim the article's author in turn links to a Wharton School page ( https://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article/trickle-economics-flood-drip/) in which multiple professors correctly note that it's not a proper theory and it lacks any widely accepted definition. Some quotes from the Wharton piece.
'“I have a little bit of a hard time with the terminology and the idea of trickle-down economics,” says Wharton professor of finance Joao F. Gomes. “Although everyone in the popular press has a somewhat different characterization of what this means, this is not something we have tested or seriously theorized about as economists.”'
'Kent Smetters, Wharton professor of business economics and public policy, says that trickle-down economics is a term created to disparage supply-side economics. “It is just a clever negative sound bite,” says Smetters, faculty director of the Penn Wharton Budget Model (PWBM).'
'Part of the problem is that “trickle down” lacks a universally understood meaning. Smetters says the idea of tax breaks for the rich eventually producing benefits to the poor has never been part of supply-side economics.'
The third sentence should be struck as it contradicts the first two and its premise is not supported. Kerrni ( talk) 17:54, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
ome studies suggest a link between trickle-down economics and reduced growth, and some newspapers concluded..? Bonewah ( talk) 13:14, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
some studies suggest a link between trickle-down economics and reduced growth, and some newspapers concluded that trickle-down economics does not promote jobs or growth, and that "policy makers shouldn't worry that raising taxes on the rich ... will harm their economiesIf there's a problem with this set of text, it's that it is wishy-washy, and contains WP:WEASEL. A better way to frame it in my mind would be something like, "Economists and studies have generally been unable to demonstrate the posited growth effects of trickle-down, and some have found that trickle-down policy actually harmed their economies. Newspapers have concluded that trickle-down policy did not lead to a measurable increase in employment or GDP." Andre 🚐 13:54, 25 October 2022 (UTC)