![]() | 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 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
Relevant text: In 2016, Nobel laureate Joseph Stiglitz wrote that the post-World War II evidence does not support trickle-down economics, but rather "trickle-up economics" whereby more money in the pockets of the poor or the middle benefits everyone. [1]
Can someone validate that the source makes this reference on the pages listed? The book doesn't appear to be 155 pages long in any source I can find, and the term Trickle-Down only appears once in the glossary, which seems odd for a 20+page citation. I have no doubt Stiglitz has some kind of relevant views, but I want to be careful we are representing him accurately.
Squatch347 ( talk) 16:36, 1 February 2023 (UTC) Squatch347 ( talk) 16:36, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
I don't think it does that at all, his expert opinion is still referenced on all the pages discussing outcomes of actual policies. If anything it is far better because those pages have broader discussions from all the economists who are engaging in that discussion. Squatch347 ( talk) 00:52, 2 February 2023 (UTC):
References
In edit [2] I've removed the first citation as not referring to trickle down. For the second I'm happy enough for IMF discussion notes that are cited as a major source by a secondary source to be cited, but
in the article does not have an associated secondary source. Even though itis obviously well researched and ha good authors and referenced in lots of other works I think we really do need a clear secondary cite. The citation beside it is also very unsatisfactory in not stating the particular pages supporting its use here. NadVolum ( talk) 14:59, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Someone noticed that number of papers have demonstrated no link between lowering tax burden with the economic growth.
I shall argue - again with the same postulations plus unused dimensions - to energy intensively interpret the statistics after the City of London and the Bank of England was established in 1689.
After that incident the Financial revolution conducted abruptly to the equity intensive Industrial revolution resulting numerous evidences regarding the enormous well-being around us nowadays emerged of positive economic growth climate plus manifested in continuance as economic growth both with the incresed purchasing power for the Western taxpayers but, however, especially on the emerging markets where the phenomenon created conveniences: one can likewise observe and scope the cultural evolution from the stock exchanges for the potential influencies towards monetary systems with the rational fiscal politics after the bourse of Amsterdam was founded simultanously; to interpret the irrefutable index developments in general during the past generations.
Therefore is quite complicated formula to form an optimal taxing rate mechanism due to the divesity of the rule of fiscal legistations and law environments for expressing principles let alone theories with justifications for the public sector interventions to tax or to mandate those Iniatives without implementing appropriate discussions with the sparking open dialogies among the economics and decision makers, but, finally those societys without tax at all need to take account when the public debt question is considered.
Any bonus information or commets? Kartasto ( talk) 22:57, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
I think this statement needs proper phrasing and good citations. A far as I can see studies have if anything shown that such policies are bad for growth - so there is a link. Whatever however it decided it is something that will be disputed so if something like that is put in the lead the backup should be good. NadVolum ( talk) 15:10, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
The Google ngram shows what we all know: The term trickle down economics was in virtually zero use until the Reagan years. But can we note this in the history section? I mean, obviously we can, but are there legitimacy issues with using the ngram as a reference. In this instance it is to show, literally, the historical usage of the term. I think this use case would be fine, but I feel like interpreting graphs, even when they are this glaringly clear, is a slippery slope. Do they call that wp:synth? Heavy Chaos ( talk) 23:39, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
The term "trickle-down economics" was rarely seen in published books until 1979.We would not be able to mention Reagan without SYNTH. Obviously, a secondary would would be better, but Ngram is the most comprehensive archive of published books I'm aware of, and is likely accurate, so while it may be considered borderline, I wouldn't mind it. I'll note that while it obviously doesn't have every published book in the world, Google's worked with national archives to OCR everything they could, so it's reasonably complete. DFlhb ( talk) 08:36, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
I tried to add this but it was reverted for some reason I can't understand. In 1933, Jawaharlal Nehru wrote "the exploitation of India and other countries brought so much wealth to England that some of it trickled down to the working class and their standard of living rose" [1] A scholarly source, an economist author.
This seems (to me anyway) a better founded first use than the humorist, which is more of a joke about money trickling up. Selfstudier ( talk) 19:03, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
By [X date], trickle down economics was a well known term, though not always consistently defined nor applied
References
His article says it and has 2 references. Andre 🚐 00:02, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
That Republican are "tax cutters" now doesn't mean they will be in the future, nor that Democrats never will be. That is speculation. We should focus on the actual facts and historical truth. I don't mind leaving the labels out to be clear, but I am responding to your ideas about unknown unknowns. We should focus only on the known knowns and known unknowns. It's just a historical fact that the Republicans and Tories are the ones trying to cut upper end taxes. Andre 🚐 21:01, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
In regards to this edit [5], it is based on an opinion piece and may violate WP:NPOV without a balancing aspect, and certainly does not provide enough RS consensus for the term "trickle up" to merit it's very own section, with only one very POV citation ( Non-paywalled version). The other citation [6] does not use or even mention the term "trickle up". So I will revert for now, until there is some consensus if and how this addition would be made. DN ( talk) 21:27, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
Heavy Chaos ( talk) 21:51, 9 February 2023 (UTC)To juxtapose competing economic and political ideas, the terms trickle up and bottom up have been used. For example, the principle behind the Obama administration's actions was referred to as trickle-up economics, [1] but the term bottom-up economics was also used. [2] Biden's American Rescue Plan was also referred to as trickle up. [3] Accompanying labeling differed from most trickle down labels in that both Obama's and Biden's approaches were characterized as spending heavy programs, rather than tax cuts in any particular tax bracket. [4] [5] At the same time, some criticisms of Obama's economic policy were labeled trickle up. [6]
References
Republicans accused Mr. Obama of being a "redistributionist," taking money away from "job creators" to give free stuff to the 47 percent. And they claimed that these socialistic policies were destroying incentives and blocking economic recovery.
Add it up: Obama's economy has handsomely extended the long winning streak of the rich.
Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered (see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view). If no reliable sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it.
I saw the bits I added about Thatcher and Hayek added to the lead. I don't oppose this but it should be in both the lead and the body - the lead is supposed to summarize the body. Andre 🚐 22:49, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
Business Economics, Theory and application, by Neil Harris (Butterworth Heinemann, publishers, 2001): “During Ronald Reagan's presidency the 'trickle down' theory of wealth creation was advanced, which argued that if the rich become even richer it would cause the wealth created to 'trickle downwards', making poorer people better off.” p. 197-198, [[< https://archive.org/details/0360-pdf-business-economics-theory-and-application-0750644540/page/197/mode/1up?q=trickle+>]]
$10,000 gold : why gold's inevitable rise is the investor's safe haven, Nick Barisheff, (Wiley publishers, 2013). “In 1981, things began to change. Ronald Reagan took office in January. He introduced a program of tax cuts designed to encourage business owners to grow. It was called “trickle down” economics, as hypothetically the tax cuts to the rich would stimulate job creation.”, p. 139 [[< https://archive.org/details/10000goldwhygold0000bari/page/139/mode/1up?q=trickle+>]]
State Department cable, via WikiLeaks Balancing Openness and Social Conservatism “He says that ASEZA [Aqaba Special Economic Zone Authority, Jordon] officials subscribe to the “trickle-down theory” of economics, in that the initial benefits of the development plans are intended to benefit the wealthy, but eventually tangible benefits will filter down to the lower rungs of society.” [[< https://archive.org/details/04AMMAN2554/mode/1up?q=trickle+down>]]
The bit in the lead saying Reaganomnomcs an Thatcherism were Trickle down has been removed saying it is unsupported by the citation. The citation is
As far as I can see if that doesn't support that Thatcherism was Trickle down it doesn't support that Reaganomics was trickle down. It says hey pursued similar policies cutting taxes ina way that helped the rich preferentiually and saying that the economy should be freed andto be drven more by rich investors and entrepreneurs which would benefit everyone eventually - but in the meantime they needed to tighten financial control. And it explicitly calls that type ofpolicytrickle down.
What am I reading differently that could be interpreted to remove Thatcherism? NadVolum ( talk) 23:51, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
This article is not encyclopedic. It defines the topic as what critics don't like about it. Those critics may be absolutely correct but people should still be able to come and read what trickle down economics are. Another article defines trickle down economics as: 'employs policies that include tax breaks and benefits for corporations and the wealthy that trickle down to benefit everyone.' And that is what trickle down economics are. I AM NOT saying trickle down economics work or that they are a good thing. But it's our job to create an encyclopedia. If we can have an article about Hitler and the KKK that define what those actually are, we can have one here too. JaHolo ( talk) 03:27, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
people should still be able to come and read what trickle down economics areis already met: The article says,
The policies are founded on the premise that spending by this echelon will "trickle down" to those less fortunate.-- Hob Gadling ( talk) 07:13, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources.Since you people either refuse to give us reliable sources or fail to do so, we have to represent the viewpoints of the sources we have and omit the viewpoints of the sources we do not have. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 07:27, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
This article is in need of recognizing the political grift of paying the electorate for an election. Thomas Sowell's "trickle down economic" recognition of the actuality of the political crime. The legislative violation of the Hatch Act. JohnPritchard ( talk) 14:38, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
When Donald Trump campaigns on "Tax Cuts For The Rich", the quid pro quo constitutes a political crime. Political grift in action. The truth of "trickle down economics". The legislative Hatch Act violation. JohnPritchard ( talk) 14:29, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
Likewise, this reporting on Clarence Thomas demonstrates the prevalence of criminal corruption in government. Government as exploitation ignores government as public service, the basic purpose to manage the common good in law and economy. A field of study typically obscured by the political passions of opinion. A convenience to political crime responsible for perpetuating the mysteries in the objective. JohnPritchard ( talk) 15:30, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
In this historical review, Reaganomics: A Historical Watershed (2018), the history of "trickle down economics" is documented in the diverse contexts of theory and policy that constitute the complexity of the national experience. JohnPritchard ( talk) 09:19, 19 December 2023 (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 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
Relevant text: In 2016, Nobel laureate Joseph Stiglitz wrote that the post-World War II evidence does not support trickle-down economics, but rather "trickle-up economics" whereby more money in the pockets of the poor or the middle benefits everyone. [1]
Can someone validate that the source makes this reference on the pages listed? The book doesn't appear to be 155 pages long in any source I can find, and the term Trickle-Down only appears once in the glossary, which seems odd for a 20+page citation. I have no doubt Stiglitz has some kind of relevant views, but I want to be careful we are representing him accurately.
Squatch347 ( talk) 16:36, 1 February 2023 (UTC) Squatch347 ( talk) 16:36, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
I don't think it does that at all, his expert opinion is still referenced on all the pages discussing outcomes of actual policies. If anything it is far better because those pages have broader discussions from all the economists who are engaging in that discussion. Squatch347 ( talk) 00:52, 2 February 2023 (UTC):
References
In edit [2] I've removed the first citation as not referring to trickle down. For the second I'm happy enough for IMF discussion notes that are cited as a major source by a secondary source to be cited, but
in the article does not have an associated secondary source. Even though itis obviously well researched and ha good authors and referenced in lots of other works I think we really do need a clear secondary cite. The citation beside it is also very unsatisfactory in not stating the particular pages supporting its use here. NadVolum ( talk) 14:59, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Someone noticed that number of papers have demonstrated no link between lowering tax burden with the economic growth.
I shall argue - again with the same postulations plus unused dimensions - to energy intensively interpret the statistics after the City of London and the Bank of England was established in 1689.
After that incident the Financial revolution conducted abruptly to the equity intensive Industrial revolution resulting numerous evidences regarding the enormous well-being around us nowadays emerged of positive economic growth climate plus manifested in continuance as economic growth both with the incresed purchasing power for the Western taxpayers but, however, especially on the emerging markets where the phenomenon created conveniences: one can likewise observe and scope the cultural evolution from the stock exchanges for the potential influencies towards monetary systems with the rational fiscal politics after the bourse of Amsterdam was founded simultanously; to interpret the irrefutable index developments in general during the past generations.
Therefore is quite complicated formula to form an optimal taxing rate mechanism due to the divesity of the rule of fiscal legistations and law environments for expressing principles let alone theories with justifications for the public sector interventions to tax or to mandate those Iniatives without implementing appropriate discussions with the sparking open dialogies among the economics and decision makers, but, finally those societys without tax at all need to take account when the public debt question is considered.
Any bonus information or commets? Kartasto ( talk) 22:57, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
I think this statement needs proper phrasing and good citations. A far as I can see studies have if anything shown that such policies are bad for growth - so there is a link. Whatever however it decided it is something that will be disputed so if something like that is put in the lead the backup should be good. NadVolum ( talk) 15:10, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
The Google ngram shows what we all know: The term trickle down economics was in virtually zero use until the Reagan years. But can we note this in the history section? I mean, obviously we can, but are there legitimacy issues with using the ngram as a reference. In this instance it is to show, literally, the historical usage of the term. I think this use case would be fine, but I feel like interpreting graphs, even when they are this glaringly clear, is a slippery slope. Do they call that wp:synth? Heavy Chaos ( talk) 23:39, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
The term "trickle-down economics" was rarely seen in published books until 1979.We would not be able to mention Reagan without SYNTH. Obviously, a secondary would would be better, but Ngram is the most comprehensive archive of published books I'm aware of, and is likely accurate, so while it may be considered borderline, I wouldn't mind it. I'll note that while it obviously doesn't have every published book in the world, Google's worked with national archives to OCR everything they could, so it's reasonably complete. DFlhb ( talk) 08:36, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
I tried to add this but it was reverted for some reason I can't understand. In 1933, Jawaharlal Nehru wrote "the exploitation of India and other countries brought so much wealth to England that some of it trickled down to the working class and their standard of living rose" [1] A scholarly source, an economist author.
This seems (to me anyway) a better founded first use than the humorist, which is more of a joke about money trickling up. Selfstudier ( talk) 19:03, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
By [X date], trickle down economics was a well known term, though not always consistently defined nor applied
References
His article says it and has 2 references. Andre 🚐 00:02, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
That Republican are "tax cutters" now doesn't mean they will be in the future, nor that Democrats never will be. That is speculation. We should focus on the actual facts and historical truth. I don't mind leaving the labels out to be clear, but I am responding to your ideas about unknown unknowns. We should focus only on the known knowns and known unknowns. It's just a historical fact that the Republicans and Tories are the ones trying to cut upper end taxes. Andre 🚐 21:01, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
In regards to this edit [5], it is based on an opinion piece and may violate WP:NPOV without a balancing aspect, and certainly does not provide enough RS consensus for the term "trickle up" to merit it's very own section, with only one very POV citation ( Non-paywalled version). The other citation [6] does not use or even mention the term "trickle up". So I will revert for now, until there is some consensus if and how this addition would be made. DN ( talk) 21:27, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
Heavy Chaos ( talk) 21:51, 9 February 2023 (UTC)To juxtapose competing economic and political ideas, the terms trickle up and bottom up have been used. For example, the principle behind the Obama administration's actions was referred to as trickle-up economics, [1] but the term bottom-up economics was also used. [2] Biden's American Rescue Plan was also referred to as trickle up. [3] Accompanying labeling differed from most trickle down labels in that both Obama's and Biden's approaches were characterized as spending heavy programs, rather than tax cuts in any particular tax bracket. [4] [5] At the same time, some criticisms of Obama's economic policy were labeled trickle up. [6]
References
Republicans accused Mr. Obama of being a "redistributionist," taking money away from "job creators" to give free stuff to the 47 percent. And they claimed that these socialistic policies were destroying incentives and blocking economic recovery.
Add it up: Obama's economy has handsomely extended the long winning streak of the rich.
Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered (see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view). If no reliable sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it.
I saw the bits I added about Thatcher and Hayek added to the lead. I don't oppose this but it should be in both the lead and the body - the lead is supposed to summarize the body. Andre 🚐 22:49, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
Business Economics, Theory and application, by Neil Harris (Butterworth Heinemann, publishers, 2001): “During Ronald Reagan's presidency the 'trickle down' theory of wealth creation was advanced, which argued that if the rich become even richer it would cause the wealth created to 'trickle downwards', making poorer people better off.” p. 197-198, [[< https://archive.org/details/0360-pdf-business-economics-theory-and-application-0750644540/page/197/mode/1up?q=trickle+>]]
$10,000 gold : why gold's inevitable rise is the investor's safe haven, Nick Barisheff, (Wiley publishers, 2013). “In 1981, things began to change. Ronald Reagan took office in January. He introduced a program of tax cuts designed to encourage business owners to grow. It was called “trickle down” economics, as hypothetically the tax cuts to the rich would stimulate job creation.”, p. 139 [[< https://archive.org/details/10000goldwhygold0000bari/page/139/mode/1up?q=trickle+>]]
State Department cable, via WikiLeaks Balancing Openness and Social Conservatism “He says that ASEZA [Aqaba Special Economic Zone Authority, Jordon] officials subscribe to the “trickle-down theory” of economics, in that the initial benefits of the development plans are intended to benefit the wealthy, but eventually tangible benefits will filter down to the lower rungs of society.” [[< https://archive.org/details/04AMMAN2554/mode/1up?q=trickle+down>]]
The bit in the lead saying Reaganomnomcs an Thatcherism were Trickle down has been removed saying it is unsupported by the citation. The citation is
As far as I can see if that doesn't support that Thatcherism was Trickle down it doesn't support that Reaganomics was trickle down. It says hey pursued similar policies cutting taxes ina way that helped the rich preferentiually and saying that the economy should be freed andto be drven more by rich investors and entrepreneurs which would benefit everyone eventually - but in the meantime they needed to tighten financial control. And it explicitly calls that type ofpolicytrickle down.
What am I reading differently that could be interpreted to remove Thatcherism? NadVolum ( talk) 23:51, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
This article is not encyclopedic. It defines the topic as what critics don't like about it. Those critics may be absolutely correct but people should still be able to come and read what trickle down economics are. Another article defines trickle down economics as: 'employs policies that include tax breaks and benefits for corporations and the wealthy that trickle down to benefit everyone.' And that is what trickle down economics are. I AM NOT saying trickle down economics work or that they are a good thing. But it's our job to create an encyclopedia. If we can have an article about Hitler and the KKK that define what those actually are, we can have one here too. JaHolo ( talk) 03:27, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
people should still be able to come and read what trickle down economics areis already met: The article says,
The policies are founded on the premise that spending by this echelon will "trickle down" to those less fortunate.-- Hob Gadling ( talk) 07:13, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources.Since you people either refuse to give us reliable sources or fail to do so, we have to represent the viewpoints of the sources we have and omit the viewpoints of the sources we do not have. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 07:27, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
This article is in need of recognizing the political grift of paying the electorate for an election. Thomas Sowell's "trickle down economic" recognition of the actuality of the political crime. The legislative violation of the Hatch Act. JohnPritchard ( talk) 14:38, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
When Donald Trump campaigns on "Tax Cuts For The Rich", the quid pro quo constitutes a political crime. Political grift in action. The truth of "trickle down economics". The legislative Hatch Act violation. JohnPritchard ( talk) 14:29, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
Likewise, this reporting on Clarence Thomas demonstrates the prevalence of criminal corruption in government. Government as exploitation ignores government as public service, the basic purpose to manage the common good in law and economy. A field of study typically obscured by the political passions of opinion. A convenience to political crime responsible for perpetuating the mysteries in the objective. JohnPritchard ( talk) 15:30, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
In this historical review, Reaganomics: A Historical Watershed (2018), the history of "trickle down economics" is documented in the diverse contexts of theory and policy that constitute the complexity of the national experience. JohnPritchard ( talk) 09:19, 19 December 2023 (UTC)