This redirect was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the
project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles
This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Economics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EconomicsWikipedia:WikiProject EconomicsTemplate:WikiProject EconomicsEconomics articles
This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Politics of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom articles
This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the
United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles
This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
This article is within the scope of
WikiProject Taxation, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.TaxationWikipedia:WikiProject TaxationTemplate:WikiProject TaxationTaxation articles
This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism articles
Brexit denialism as a factor in the economic downturn
Re - "which aimed to counter a downturn in the economy of the United Kingdom and the cost of living crisis caused by factors including the COVID-19 pandemic and the Russian invasion of Ukraine earlier that year."
Brexit should be mentioned as an additional contemporary factor alongside those existed 2 that are stated - credible sources citing all 3 factors should be plenty. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
77.99.210.174 (
talk)
18:39, 29 December 2022 (UTC)reply
This article is a stub, concerned with the economic policy of a
prime minister who is on track to be have the
the shortest tenure in UK history. Unlike an "name-onomics" article like
Reaganomics, which concerns a political leader who served two terms and had a significant impact on his country's economy, Truss is unlikely to have the level of coverage or analysis necessary over her economic impact. As such, I feel that
Trussonomics is likely to remain a permastub, and should instead be merged into the main article.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Wait. If it becomes a niche idea which gains traction in the future only with a small minority, like Communism in the United States, then I could see for a merger. Her tenure was short, but it's best sought that we wait this out before we perform what seems to be a
WP:CRYSTALBALL merge.
InvadingInvader (
talk)
03:09, 21 October 2022 (UTC)reply
For the record, if this does end up being merged, I have a *strong opposition to Liz Truss being the target. The article on her Premiership, the Government Crisis, the Mini-budget, or the Economy of the UK article all work better. Despite the name, these policies are beyond Truss's reach, and will likely continue under the new PM. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
DecafPotato (
talk •
contribs)
14:46, 21 October 2022 (UTC)reply
Oppose merge. The article as I created it has 7 references, from 3 different (and major) English-language newspapers, all from the first page of a Google search. All 7 include "Trussonomics" in their titles. It wasn't Liz Truss who knocked 4% off the value of the pound within about 4 hours (definitely a significant impact on the UK's economy) - it was Trussonomics, as proposed to be implemented by
Kwasi Kwarteng, which resulted in first his and then her downfall.
Google hits aren't everything, but there are 1.7M of them. A quick search easily turned up several articles in French, as just one language other than English, specifically about Trussonomics (
1,
2,
3).
Changing my vote to strong oppose. I still agree with my previous comment, but would like to add that the page has been greatly expanded since many users here cast their votes, and, as such, the main reasoning behind the proposed merger, that being that the "article is a stub" and is "likely to remain a permastub [that] should instead be merged into the main article", is no longer the case.
Willsteve2000 (
talk)
23:48, 23 October 2022 (UTC)reply
Support merge sourcing isn’t everything; her time in office was microscopically short so this is the definition of “no long term impact/notability on its own”. In general I think fads should not receive independent articles even though they frequently do.
Dronebogus (
talk)
07:16, 21 October 2022 (UTC)reply
I would either wait until the article is expanded upon (if it would even be expanded) then decide whether to merge or change target per what IP 65.92.247.226 said, but I wouldn't support moving into the article about Liz Truss herself. This is one of her economical policies which should be noted under the premiership article in my opinion.
SBS6577P (
talk)
08:13, 21 October 2022 (UTC)reply
Merge, because it is characteristic of her long-running ideological standpoint, as set out in Britannia Unchained, which she co-authored with Kwarteng and others. (And maybe "2022 mini-budget" (or Special Budgetary Operation) should be moved there too?) --
𝕁𝕄𝔽 (
talk)
11:48, 21 October 2022 (UTC)reply
Merge - given her short tenure and inability to put any of her theories into practice, this term will not have longevity and the policies can easily be accommodated within the article about her.
Neiltonks (
talk)
13:51, 21 October 2022 (UTC)reply
This is a strange line of thinking; "doomed to have a short shelf life" sounds
WP:CRYSTALBALL-y, we don't know how the policies will end up, and the policies themselves, while they have Truss as a namesake, could easily be continued. We should avoid a merge until we can see how this ends up.
DecafPotato (
talk)
19:40, 21 October 2022 (UTC)reply
Merge with 2022 mini-budget and/or with Premiership of Liz Truss, it is a neologism but really doesn't have much to do with her personally except at most a sentence on her article.
Pincrete (
talk)
16:35, 21 October 2022 (UTC)reply
Propose merge with another article. The concept of Trussonomics has more to do with Truss's governance than her personal biography. It should be merged with the Premiership of Liz Truss page (at Premiership of Liz Truss) [1]. Moreover, a merger of the October 2022 United Kingdom government crisis [2] has also been suggested with the Premiership page.
Indent2239 (
talk)
14:29, 21 October 2022 (UTC)Indent2239reply
Merge with
Liz Truss because, really, this article has little chance of expansion given that Trussonomics is totally discredited and unlikely to be carried forward by anyone. It's worth a mention in her article though, and is covered briefly in the mini-budget article.
This is Paul (
talk)
22:56, 21 October 2022 (UTC)reply
Support merge Given Trussonomics is essentially reheated Reaganomics, and given Truss' extremely short tenure as PM, it is unlikely an article solely about her economic policy will have enough detail as a stand-alone topic.
gbrading(
ταlκ)15:02, 22 October 2022 (UTC)reply
Oppose Just because she had a short tenure does not diminish the impact of Trussonomics: perhaps a merger will be appropriate at some point, but this feels too soon.
Criticalus (
talk)
02:03, 25 October 2022 (UTC)reply
Support: Due to the brevity of Truss's premiership, it makes sense to merge the Trussonomics article into hers, per nom. I also support merging every article involving Truss, with the exception of the
Premiership of Liz Truss article, into
Liz Truss for the same reason.JTZegers (
talk)
16:17, 25 October 2022 (UTC)reply
Wouldn't some of those article merge into "Premiership of Liz Truss" instead of "Liz Truss"? It wouldn't make sense to merge everything to Liz Truss, if they are concerning her premiership, which would be the more logical merge target --
65.92.244.114 (
talk)
04:12, 26 October 2022 (UTC)reply
Oppose - Just because she was PM for a short time does not make this less notable. Merging this in to Truss article means losing a lot of useful information.
BabbaQ (
talk)
17:52, 25 October 2022 (UTC)reply
Oppose merge or wait. This article is not a stub, it appears there is reliably sourced content that is encyclopedic. Merging it to
Liz Truss would require us to trim that content unnecessarily. Rather, as per
WP:SUMMARYSTYLE we should leave a summary of this article at the parent one, and let this article expand as necessary.VRtalk01:06, 26 October 2022 (UTC)reply
Comment The length of her term does not really matter. If the article is sourced and well written it can remain, unless it is a duplicate and the information is already covered somewhere else, but I don't see that being mentioned here. So either the article needs to be kept or properly merged somewhere in its entirety so that information is not lost. Keivan.fTalk22:50, 26 October 2022 (UTC)reply
Oppose While it's named for Truss, the article makes it clear that it's not solely her idea, nor does it necessarily disappear with the end of her premiership. As such I think it can be retained as a separate article.
JeffUK (
talk)
09:13, 27 October 2022 (UTC)reply
Support merge to
Liz Truss and
Premiership of Liz Truss.
September 2022 United Kingdom mini-budget also covers this topic. This simply isn't an established enough topic to warrant another separate article, and most of the content is irrelevant background and duplication. Above someone says "the article makes it clear that it's not solely her idea", but the premiership and mini-budget articles also make clear that she's not the only person involved. Another commenter says "describing what has been an incredibly consequential economic policy" but again, the mini-budget article describes crashing the pound, so this is a weak argument.
Reywas92Talk17:16, 29 October 2022 (UTC)reply
Support merging into
Premiership of Liz Truss,
Liz Truss, and
mini-budget; the article's contents directly match what can be included in Truss's main page. There is also not enough substantial info here to warrant its own article, in my opinion contrary to some editors above. Also, sections such as 'future' and 'criticism', lots of these sources never reference 'trussonomics' but rather individual proposals in the mini-budget -'Trussonomics' is not the name for trickle-down or other proposals she set out.
Yeoutie (
talk)
17:59, 30 October 2022 (UTC)reply
Support merge I agree this likely to remain a permastub, and should instead be merged into the main article. Trussonomics is little more than an undeveloped and unrealised vision. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Lukewarmbeer (
talk •
contribs)
08:49, 1 November 2022 (UTC)reply
@
Lukewarmbeer "a permastub"? Have you read the article? While it was a stub when the merge was proposed, it's state now is that of a longer article, with well-sourced and encyclopedic content. Independent of your views to merge the article due to it being an "unrealized vision", you should accurately reflect the state of the article in your decision.
DecafPotato (
talk)
02:38, 3 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Thanks. You are absolutely correct of course. When I first looked I didn't have time to add to this talk but made a note to. I didn't check again when I returned and commented. I appreciate the heads up to my error.
Having read the article as it is today I would still be inclined to merge it. In its entirety Trussonomics, as with her premiership, is barely a footnote in history.
Lukewarmbeer (
talk)
12:26, 3 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Some of the content, if a merger takes place, might also find a home at
September 2022 United Kingdom mini-budget if not already mentioned there. I do not think that I recommend immediate deletion of the article, but rather, I think I'd recommend turning it into a redirect without deletion of its edit history so that editors can see what information had existed in this article in order to inform edits elsewhere.
SecretName101 (
talk)
02:56, 11 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Support merge Given the record-breaking brevity of the office junior's spell in office, I cannot see how the Trussonomics article is likely to gain any more significant coverage, and feel that a merge to the section on her economic policy is wholly appropriate.
TheLongTone (
talk)
13:08, 15 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Oppose merge Trussonomics is the main reason for her downfall, if it were merged to have all the information in the article the section would be overlong: besides, it's not a stub article anymore.
Tim O'Doherty (
talk)
13:54, 7 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Support merge, this article could use with some copy editing as well, but also does not need its own stand alone article, but would better serve the reader as a blurb on the economics page in the best section deemed best.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I will say that "Trussonomics" is more intimately linked with her premiership, since it was why she was selected as PM and why she resigned when it was reverted. And the details of Trussonomics is part of the September 2022 minibudget, where she and Kwasi Kwarteng expounded the details of Trussonomics in the budget --
65.92.247.226 (
talk)
04:09, 22 October 2022 (UTC)reply
I disagree. Her ideology predates her premiership, which is only the brief period when she and Kwarteng attempted to put it into effect. Don't forget that Parliament never approved their mini-budget sorry special fiscal operation. The real solution is to merge the premiership into this article too, since she delivered nothing except to drag the national reputation for economic competence even further into the more, required the BoE to print another £15bn, cost the BT pension fund £11bn in the gilt firesale etc etc. --
𝕁𝕄𝔽 (
talk)
10:47, 24 October 2022 (UTC)reply
• SUPPORT: article is of insufficient importance to stand on its own. Is every political leader's economic policy now to be named after them?
Billsmith60 (
talk)
22:31, 30 October 2022 (UTC)reply
What ideology?
The sentence "its introduction was hailed by long-term proponents of the ideology" hardly makes sense with a neologism related solely to her premiership. The 'hailers' were presumably proponents of whatever ideology 'Trussonomics' is a synonym/amalgam of, but I didn't want to decide what that was and some of the sources I can't read ($$).
Pincrete (
talk)
16:40, 21 October 2022 (UTC)reply
Its proponents like to call it
supply-side economics. While "supply-side" is recognised as a valid concept in economics (xref "supply and demand"), "supply-side economics" has no credence in serious economics and has been demonstrated repeatedly to be baseless.[1] It is the economics equivalent of pseudo-science: repeated assertion that ignores any falsifying evidence. --
𝕁𝕄𝔽 (
talk)
18:57, 21 October 2022 (UTC)reply
References
^Most recently, Hope, David; Limberg, Julian (April 2022).
"The economic consequences of major tax cuts for the rich". Socio-Economic Review. 20 (2): 539–559.
doi:
10.1093/ser/mwab061. Abstract: The last 50 years has seen a dramatic decline in taxes on the rich across the advanced democracies. There is still fervent debate in both political and academic circles, however, about the economic consequences of this sweeping change in tax policy. This article contributes to this debate by utilizing a newly constructed indicator of taxes on the rich to identify all instances of major tax reductions on the rich in 18 Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries between 1965 and 2015. We then estimate the average effects of these major tax reforms on key macroeconomic aggregates. We find tax cuts for the rich lead to higher income inequality in both the short- and medium-term. In contrast, such reforms do not have any significant effect on economic growth or unemployment. 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.
This redirect was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the
project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles
This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Economics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EconomicsWikipedia:WikiProject EconomicsTemplate:WikiProject EconomicsEconomics articles
This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Politics of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom articles
This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the
United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles
This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
This article is within the scope of
WikiProject Taxation, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.TaxationWikipedia:WikiProject TaxationTemplate:WikiProject TaxationTaxation articles
This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism articles
Brexit denialism as a factor in the economic downturn
Re - "which aimed to counter a downturn in the economy of the United Kingdom and the cost of living crisis caused by factors including the COVID-19 pandemic and the Russian invasion of Ukraine earlier that year."
Brexit should be mentioned as an additional contemporary factor alongside those existed 2 that are stated - credible sources citing all 3 factors should be plenty. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
77.99.210.174 (
talk)
18:39, 29 December 2022 (UTC)reply
This article is a stub, concerned with the economic policy of a
prime minister who is on track to be have the
the shortest tenure in UK history. Unlike an "name-onomics" article like
Reaganomics, which concerns a political leader who served two terms and had a significant impact on his country's economy, Truss is unlikely to have the level of coverage or analysis necessary over her economic impact. As such, I feel that
Trussonomics is likely to remain a permastub, and should instead be merged into the main article.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Wait. If it becomes a niche idea which gains traction in the future only with a small minority, like Communism in the United States, then I could see for a merger. Her tenure was short, but it's best sought that we wait this out before we perform what seems to be a
WP:CRYSTALBALL merge.
InvadingInvader (
talk)
03:09, 21 October 2022 (UTC)reply
For the record, if this does end up being merged, I have a *strong opposition to Liz Truss being the target. The article on her Premiership, the Government Crisis, the Mini-budget, or the Economy of the UK article all work better. Despite the name, these policies are beyond Truss's reach, and will likely continue under the new PM. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
DecafPotato (
talk •
contribs)
14:46, 21 October 2022 (UTC)reply
Oppose merge. The article as I created it has 7 references, from 3 different (and major) English-language newspapers, all from the first page of a Google search. All 7 include "Trussonomics" in their titles. It wasn't Liz Truss who knocked 4% off the value of the pound within about 4 hours (definitely a significant impact on the UK's economy) - it was Trussonomics, as proposed to be implemented by
Kwasi Kwarteng, which resulted in first his and then her downfall.
Google hits aren't everything, but there are 1.7M of them. A quick search easily turned up several articles in French, as just one language other than English, specifically about Trussonomics (
1,
2,
3).
Changing my vote to strong oppose. I still agree with my previous comment, but would like to add that the page has been greatly expanded since many users here cast their votes, and, as such, the main reasoning behind the proposed merger, that being that the "article is a stub" and is "likely to remain a permastub [that] should instead be merged into the main article", is no longer the case.
Willsteve2000 (
talk)
23:48, 23 October 2022 (UTC)reply
Support merge sourcing isn’t everything; her time in office was microscopically short so this is the definition of “no long term impact/notability on its own”. In general I think fads should not receive independent articles even though they frequently do.
Dronebogus (
talk)
07:16, 21 October 2022 (UTC)reply
I would either wait until the article is expanded upon (if it would even be expanded) then decide whether to merge or change target per what IP 65.92.247.226 said, but I wouldn't support moving into the article about Liz Truss herself. This is one of her economical policies which should be noted under the premiership article in my opinion.
SBS6577P (
talk)
08:13, 21 October 2022 (UTC)reply
Merge, because it is characteristic of her long-running ideological standpoint, as set out in Britannia Unchained, which she co-authored with Kwarteng and others. (And maybe "2022 mini-budget" (or Special Budgetary Operation) should be moved there too?) --
𝕁𝕄𝔽 (
talk)
11:48, 21 October 2022 (UTC)reply
Merge - given her short tenure and inability to put any of her theories into practice, this term will not have longevity and the policies can easily be accommodated within the article about her.
Neiltonks (
talk)
13:51, 21 October 2022 (UTC)reply
This is a strange line of thinking; "doomed to have a short shelf life" sounds
WP:CRYSTALBALL-y, we don't know how the policies will end up, and the policies themselves, while they have Truss as a namesake, could easily be continued. We should avoid a merge until we can see how this ends up.
DecafPotato (
talk)
19:40, 21 October 2022 (UTC)reply
Merge with 2022 mini-budget and/or with Premiership of Liz Truss, it is a neologism but really doesn't have much to do with her personally except at most a sentence on her article.
Pincrete (
talk)
16:35, 21 October 2022 (UTC)reply
Propose merge with another article. The concept of Trussonomics has more to do with Truss's governance than her personal biography. It should be merged with the Premiership of Liz Truss page (at Premiership of Liz Truss) [1]. Moreover, a merger of the October 2022 United Kingdom government crisis [2] has also been suggested with the Premiership page.
Indent2239 (
talk)
14:29, 21 October 2022 (UTC)Indent2239reply
Merge with
Liz Truss because, really, this article has little chance of expansion given that Trussonomics is totally discredited and unlikely to be carried forward by anyone. It's worth a mention in her article though, and is covered briefly in the mini-budget article.
This is Paul (
talk)
22:56, 21 October 2022 (UTC)reply
Support merge Given Trussonomics is essentially reheated Reaganomics, and given Truss' extremely short tenure as PM, it is unlikely an article solely about her economic policy will have enough detail as a stand-alone topic.
gbrading(
ταlκ)15:02, 22 October 2022 (UTC)reply
Oppose Just because she had a short tenure does not diminish the impact of Trussonomics: perhaps a merger will be appropriate at some point, but this feels too soon.
Criticalus (
talk)
02:03, 25 October 2022 (UTC)reply
Support: Due to the brevity of Truss's premiership, it makes sense to merge the Trussonomics article into hers, per nom. I also support merging every article involving Truss, with the exception of the
Premiership of Liz Truss article, into
Liz Truss for the same reason.JTZegers (
talk)
16:17, 25 October 2022 (UTC)reply
Wouldn't some of those article merge into "Premiership of Liz Truss" instead of "Liz Truss"? It wouldn't make sense to merge everything to Liz Truss, if they are concerning her premiership, which would be the more logical merge target --
65.92.244.114 (
talk)
04:12, 26 October 2022 (UTC)reply
Oppose - Just because she was PM for a short time does not make this less notable. Merging this in to Truss article means losing a lot of useful information.
BabbaQ (
talk)
17:52, 25 October 2022 (UTC)reply
Oppose merge or wait. This article is not a stub, it appears there is reliably sourced content that is encyclopedic. Merging it to
Liz Truss would require us to trim that content unnecessarily. Rather, as per
WP:SUMMARYSTYLE we should leave a summary of this article at the parent one, and let this article expand as necessary.VRtalk01:06, 26 October 2022 (UTC)reply
Comment The length of her term does not really matter. If the article is sourced and well written it can remain, unless it is a duplicate and the information is already covered somewhere else, but I don't see that being mentioned here. So either the article needs to be kept or properly merged somewhere in its entirety so that information is not lost. Keivan.fTalk22:50, 26 October 2022 (UTC)reply
Oppose While it's named for Truss, the article makes it clear that it's not solely her idea, nor does it necessarily disappear with the end of her premiership. As such I think it can be retained as a separate article.
JeffUK (
talk)
09:13, 27 October 2022 (UTC)reply
Support merge to
Liz Truss and
Premiership of Liz Truss.
September 2022 United Kingdom mini-budget also covers this topic. This simply isn't an established enough topic to warrant another separate article, and most of the content is irrelevant background and duplication. Above someone says "the article makes it clear that it's not solely her idea", but the premiership and mini-budget articles also make clear that she's not the only person involved. Another commenter says "describing what has been an incredibly consequential economic policy" but again, the mini-budget article describes crashing the pound, so this is a weak argument.
Reywas92Talk17:16, 29 October 2022 (UTC)reply
Support merging into
Premiership of Liz Truss,
Liz Truss, and
mini-budget; the article's contents directly match what can be included in Truss's main page. There is also not enough substantial info here to warrant its own article, in my opinion contrary to some editors above. Also, sections such as 'future' and 'criticism', lots of these sources never reference 'trussonomics' but rather individual proposals in the mini-budget -'Trussonomics' is not the name for trickle-down or other proposals she set out.
Yeoutie (
talk)
17:59, 30 October 2022 (UTC)reply
Support merge I agree this likely to remain a permastub, and should instead be merged into the main article. Trussonomics is little more than an undeveloped and unrealised vision. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Lukewarmbeer (
talk •
contribs)
08:49, 1 November 2022 (UTC)reply
@
Lukewarmbeer "a permastub"? Have you read the article? While it was a stub when the merge was proposed, it's state now is that of a longer article, with well-sourced and encyclopedic content. Independent of your views to merge the article due to it being an "unrealized vision", you should accurately reflect the state of the article in your decision.
DecafPotato (
talk)
02:38, 3 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Thanks. You are absolutely correct of course. When I first looked I didn't have time to add to this talk but made a note to. I didn't check again when I returned and commented. I appreciate the heads up to my error.
Having read the article as it is today I would still be inclined to merge it. In its entirety Trussonomics, as with her premiership, is barely a footnote in history.
Lukewarmbeer (
talk)
12:26, 3 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Some of the content, if a merger takes place, might also find a home at
September 2022 United Kingdom mini-budget if not already mentioned there. I do not think that I recommend immediate deletion of the article, but rather, I think I'd recommend turning it into a redirect without deletion of its edit history so that editors can see what information had existed in this article in order to inform edits elsewhere.
SecretName101 (
talk)
02:56, 11 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Support merge Given the record-breaking brevity of the office junior's spell in office, I cannot see how the Trussonomics article is likely to gain any more significant coverage, and feel that a merge to the section on her economic policy is wholly appropriate.
TheLongTone (
talk)
13:08, 15 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Oppose merge Trussonomics is the main reason for her downfall, if it were merged to have all the information in the article the section would be overlong: besides, it's not a stub article anymore.
Tim O'Doherty (
talk)
13:54, 7 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Support merge, this article could use with some copy editing as well, but also does not need its own stand alone article, but would better serve the reader as a blurb on the economics page in the best section deemed best.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I will say that "Trussonomics" is more intimately linked with her premiership, since it was why she was selected as PM and why she resigned when it was reverted. And the details of Trussonomics is part of the September 2022 minibudget, where she and Kwasi Kwarteng expounded the details of Trussonomics in the budget --
65.92.247.226 (
talk)
04:09, 22 October 2022 (UTC)reply
I disagree. Her ideology predates her premiership, which is only the brief period when she and Kwarteng attempted to put it into effect. Don't forget that Parliament never approved their mini-budget sorry special fiscal operation. The real solution is to merge the premiership into this article too, since she delivered nothing except to drag the national reputation for economic competence even further into the more, required the BoE to print another £15bn, cost the BT pension fund £11bn in the gilt firesale etc etc. --
𝕁𝕄𝔽 (
talk)
10:47, 24 October 2022 (UTC)reply
• SUPPORT: article is of insufficient importance to stand on its own. Is every political leader's economic policy now to be named after them?
Billsmith60 (
talk)
22:31, 30 October 2022 (UTC)reply
What ideology?
The sentence "its introduction was hailed by long-term proponents of the ideology" hardly makes sense with a neologism related solely to her premiership. The 'hailers' were presumably proponents of whatever ideology 'Trussonomics' is a synonym/amalgam of, but I didn't want to decide what that was and some of the sources I can't read ($$).
Pincrete (
talk)
16:40, 21 October 2022 (UTC)reply
Its proponents like to call it
supply-side economics. While "supply-side" is recognised as a valid concept in economics (xref "supply and demand"), "supply-side economics" has no credence in serious economics and has been demonstrated repeatedly to be baseless.[1] It is the economics equivalent of pseudo-science: repeated assertion that ignores any falsifying evidence. --
𝕁𝕄𝔽 (
talk)
18:57, 21 October 2022 (UTC)reply
References
^Most recently, Hope, David; Limberg, Julian (April 2022).
"The economic consequences of major tax cuts for the rich". Socio-Economic Review. 20 (2): 539–559.
doi:
10.1093/ser/mwab061. Abstract: The last 50 years has seen a dramatic decline in taxes on the rich across the advanced democracies. There is still fervent debate in both political and academic circles, however, about the economic consequences of this sweeping change in tax policy. This article contributes to this debate by utilizing a newly constructed indicator of taxes on the rich to identify all instances of major tax reductions on the rich in 18 Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries between 1965 and 2015. We then estimate the average effects of these major tax reforms on key macroeconomic aggregates. We find tax cuts for the rich lead to higher income inequality in both the short- and medium-term. In contrast, such reforms do not have any significant effect on economic growth or unemployment. 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.