Talk:Trickle-down economics/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Two things going on here

I'm a bit confused about whether the article is about

1. the merits and flaws of an actual theory, i.e., "give more to the most fortunate, and somehow the benefits will work their way down to everyone else" or
2. the use of the term "trickle down" as a label for Supply side economics in general or the specific idea that cutting tax rates can sometimes increase tax revenue.

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

• President T. Rick Eldowne announced in 1953 that cutting tax rates would not just leave the rich with more money to spend or save. He predicted that they would invest this extra money in ways that would create jobs. But S. Narkey Guy called Eldowne's idea "trickle down economics", which won't help the poor because the increased disposable income from a tax cut does not filter into other sections of the economy.

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)

This is currently under discussion - Thomas Sowell has said that no economist has ever advocated trickle-down economics of the form of giving money to the rich through tax cuts so that they would spend it and the wealth would trickle down. However, many references talk about trickle-down economics (without advocating it themselves). See the discussion above. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 17:33, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

It's going to be hard to describe the source of the term "trickle-down", although I added a reference to Will Rogers.

I would like to figure out whether (A) there is an actual theory here, or (B) people who oppose cutting certain tax rates are branding them as trickle-down. But we have to be careful not to take sides for against any viewpoint, or we will diverge from being neutral.

Investopedia says that people called Laffer's proposal trickle-down, but they didn't say he had such a theory:

• Laffer’s idea that tax cuts could boost growth and tax revenue was quickly labelled “trickle-down.” Between 1980 and 1988, the top marginal tax rate in the United States fell from 70 to 28%. Between 1981 and 1989, total federal receipts increased from $599 to $991 billion. This empirically supported one of the assumptions of the Laffer Curve. However, it neither shows nor proves correlation between a reduction in top tax rates and economic benefits to low- and medium-income earners. [1]

Are they a reliable enough source for inclusion in the article? --Uncle Ed (talk) 13:40, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Quote Farm

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:

... those who advocate for lower tax rates and less government interference as ways to grow the economy ... clearly do not make their case by seeking

1. a transfer of existing wealth to high-income earners and business owners (i.e. “give more to those who have the most”). Rather, they emphasize
2. the creation of additional wealth and jobs when entrepreneurs are not hampered by heavy regulation and discouraged by steep taxes [2]

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)

Identity of its proponents

A New York Times article by Robert H. Frank refers repeatedly to "trickle-down theorists" without naming any.

1. Does this simply mean that the author was using trickle-down as a synonym for Supply-side economics? Or,
2. Did he literally mean that there is such a thing as trickle-down theory and that it has adherents?

Thomas Sowell denies the latter, leaving us with the quote from Stockwell. --Uncle Ed (talk) 17:23, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

The article is seriously in error

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.

Hi BernardZ, I haven't seen any sources which describe this cashflow as "trickle-down economics" - could you provide some? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 16:39, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

I did in the stuff you deleted

BernardZ (talk)

Removal of content

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)

Sowell is just mentioned all over the place in this article, so that before my removal, something like half the text was about him. Now, he's notable so it's fine if his views are in here, but they need to be given due weight.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:20, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

I have restored the content with a fair bit of trimming of unnecessary words, I think is more like its due weight. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 18:26, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Removal of Sowell content

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)

Right, it isn't WP:DUE. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 10:00, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

.... and why do you think that? There are several different sources saying that no economist has ever proposed trickle-down economics, why shouldn't that be given a fairly big prominence in the article? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 11:38, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

If you remove a statement from a reliable source, we will be left with only the other side. There is considerable debate over what "trickle-down economics" is, so anything bearing on whether (1) it is a real proposal or (2) it is a nickname to a (slightly?) different proposal for the purpose of blurring any distinctions would be important, not to say crucial.

We are not supposed to resolve controversies, but to present both sides. Supporters of capitalism say that "free market principles" benefit the poor, even if only in an indirect way. Critics of capitalism disagree, arguing that such principles only benefit the rich, and that any benefit to the poor could come only from a (discredited and impossible) trickle-down effect. Maybe this dichotomy of viewpoints needs to be clarified a bit more. --Uncle Ed (talk) 14:05, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

To clarify, it sometimes looks to me like the term trickle-down economics is being used to assert (3) that arguments favoring Capitalism - on the grounds that free market principles increase the standard of living of the poor - amount to nothing more than the notion that helping the rich should result in benefits (somehow) trickling down to the poor and (4) that the trickle-down effect never has happened and can never happen.

Sowell, on the other hand, seems to be arguing (a) that he agrees with #4 (!) but (b) that neither he nor anyone else has actually proposed #3.

[It's kind of like the tussle over The Bell Curve, with Stephen Jay Gould complaining that Charles Murray makes 4 easily falsifiable "assumptions" while Murray denies having made those assumptions. In fact, some contributors recently argued that Murray's denial is not relevant because he's not a secondary source.] --Uncle Ed (talk) 14:16, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, it's a view from a single professor writing in what amounts to some of the most biased sources available. Show that the position is prevalent in the mainstream discourse and not only from one or two professors and you have a case for inclusions. This is a top-level article, that section amounts to minority viewpoints and nitpicky commentary. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 18:27, 15 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)

Yes, do so before reintroducing your statement. There is no indication that anything near-consensus exists to include it. You are giving fringe positions far more weight than the far more authoritative WMF, that is just a textbook example of a WP:DUE-violation. Neither is it especially logical nor does it makes sense to give such weight to semantical opposition of a widely used term. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 21:33, 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)

There's an article in FEE by Steven Horwitz, a Professor of Economics at St. Lawrence University, that touches on the issue of whether there is such a thing as "trickle-down economics". [3] --Uncle Ed (talk) 14:44, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, but this is already included in the article (ref 23). Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 16:42, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

strawman argument

"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)

We work on what reliable sources say - while I agree with you, reliable sources describe trickle-down as it is in the article, so that is how we describe it. There are some other sources (in the "opponents of the term" section) which agree with your view, but if you could add some more then that would be helpful. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 07:41, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

A77B, you might be interested in this: http://www.kansascity.com/opinion/editorials/article186974513.html DOR (HK) (talk) 18:01, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

OR and UNDUE and BLUDGEONING

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)

CFCF, you might have missed the discussion above in the section "Removal of Sowell content". I suggest you try to change the consensus there, which currently is for including the content which has three separate sources to back it up. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 08:02, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, noone is saying that it isn't true: that he said those things.

What however is at issue here is: why it matters that he said those things.

Sowell wrote a post for an extreme right-wing think-tank. This just isn't worth anything compared to the IMF quotes. The above discussions make it very clear that this is undue, and most of your recent editing here has been undue. Carl Fredrik ^talk 08:05, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

• See Talk:Trickle-down_economics#Why was an op-ed used to support the false claim that the term isn't used by professional economists?

As I said in the "Why was an op-ed used to support the false claim that the term isn't used by professional economists?", there is no source which argues that trickle-down economics works. In the "Removal of Sowell content" discussion I showed that there was a consensus for inclusion: myself, Uncle Ed and User:Volunteer Marek have all supported inclusion. Sowell has been quoted in several sources, and has also written similar content for the Spectator. Could you provide evidence that the sources Sowell is quoted in are "extreme right-wing"? I am not saying that the arguments of Sowell, Horwitz and Jeram should be on a par with the IMF, merely that they should not be excluded from the article. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 08:36, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

The only portion of the entire section that I can agree has any value is the following:

Some supply-side economists consider the term "trickle down" as a political pejorative which does not denote any specific economic theory.

But even that could be sourced much better. There is no need for an entire subsection with two paragraphs of text here, neither does quoting Sowell do anything positive for the article. Carl Fredrik ^talk 08:43, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

References

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)

FEE is a libertarian think-tank, it is WP:FRINGE, and anything that is decidedly far off to one side of the debate has to be balanced according to WP:DUE. There is nothing wrong with quoting Sowell apart from the WP:DUE-consideration. His positions are very far off to one side, and to give him 3x more space than established groups like the IMF is not appropriate. His critique is already present in other parts of the article. Carl Fredrik ^talk 09:10, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Why is an article by Steven Horwitz, who seems fairly distinguished, fringe just because it is a column for a libertarian think-tank? And Sowell is only mentioned once in the article, when he is quoting a criticism of trickle-down economics by a presidential speech writer. Here is another article by Conservative MEP Daniel Hannan saying a similar thing to Sowell and the others.Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 11:54, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

The IMF is also only mentioned once. This is about WP:BALANCE and WP:DUE WEIGHT, not about whether he actually has taken the positions. Why are his positions so remarkable? Carl Fredrik ^talk 07:34, 10 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)

Image in the lead

In the United States prior to the Presidency of Ronald Reagan the majority of average income growth during economic expansions went to the bottom 90% (blue); after 1980, income growth during expansions shifted the top 10% (red). Reaganomics is sometimes used as an example of trickle-down economics.

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 fine about moving that image somewhere else, but it is an oft-cited image when it comes to showing Reagonomics. Of course there are disagreements on the whether trickle-down/supply-side caused it. Carl Fredrik ^talk 07:30, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

I will move that image down to the "Criticisms" section as a starting point if that is ok with you guys. I have several problems with the graph - it doesn't make sense to show the "share of income gains" when the income gain can be negative. For example if the bottom 90% had a 0.01% decrease in wages, but the top 10% had a 1% increase, then the overall increase is 0.9%, so the graph would show that the top 10% would have 110% of the income gains which doesn't make sense. It is much clearer to show the absolute percentage increase in income. I am also concerned by the fact that it shows only the periods of expansion - looking at the data then the top 10% lost more during the recessions than the poor so it is unfair to exclude this part. For example, if I include the periods of recession as well as expansion then I get the following graph, which paints a very different picture. (I can't get the x-axis for some reason, but 1980 is the blue line. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 08:48, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

I just don't get what it's suppose to show about Reagonomics even if you did assume causation. The trend continues with Bush 1, Clinton, Bush 2, and Obama, with Obama being the most dramatic shift. The caption makes two true statements which seem to imply without attribution the second statement was the cause of the first. The caption or graph doesn't tie the change to Reagan's tax policy though. It actually shows the opposite, that tax policy had little effect on the trend. If people are oft-citing it for Reagonomics, it's not a great example of whatever they're trying to show. Morphh ^(talk) 11:12, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

It should be noted that Reagan walked into a recession with double digit inflation. Also, the "income inequality" charts never factor in the 30-40% benefits that employees gain out of employer's pockets. This is why most of these "income inequality" charts will deceptively only compare wages and income. A77B (talk) 05:04, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Distribution of growth between the top 10% (left) and bottom 90% (right) in the US between 1917-2010

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)

What about this image of Reagan talking about tax reduction? (I've changed the caption from Ronald Reagan article) Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 13:35, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

That image and caption look fine to me, though I may clarify that it was pejoratively characterized as trickle-down. But.. wasn't this article on track to be merged with Reagonomics or Supply-side economics? Seems trickle-down is just a term used by opponents of supply-side for populist messaging. Morphh ^(talk) 13:45, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Ronald Reagan's economic policies, which were dubbed Reaganomics, included large tax cuts and were characterized as trickle-down economics. In this picture, he is outlining his plan for Tax Reduction Legislation from the Oval Office in a televised address, July 1981

References

My two cents

caveat: I'm an economist.

The trickle-down economic theory, like most economic ideas that get brutalized by politicians, isn’t one that says “just cut taxes and the resulting growth will pay for itself.” Prof. Arthur Laffer himself said it only works when taxes are so high that investment is discouraged. And no, he didn’t specify what that tax rate might be (quite wisely, too: it will vary enormously depending on the conditions).

In the US in the 1980s, trickle-down seemed to work, but only because (a) interest rates were soaring to combat inflation; (b) unemployment soared due to high interest rates choking off demand; and (c) federal spending shot through the roof, generating unprecedented (post-war) deficits and debt.

Throw money at an economy and it will grow. Triple the federal debt between 1981 and 1989 and it can be argued that … whatever happened, worked.

1971-80: debt fell by 1.5 percentage points of GDP.

1981-90: debt rose up by 15.5 points

Here are some interesting sources:

https://www.thebalance.com/trickle-down-economics-theory-effect-does-it-work-3305572

https://www.hks.harvard.edu/news-events/publications/impact-newsletter/archives/autumn-2009/trickle-down-economics-revisited

and, “The IMF Confirms That 'Trickle-Down' Economics Is, Indeed, a Joke”

https://psmag.com/economics/trickle-down-economics-is-indeed-a-joke

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)

Good points. Frankly, I'm tempted to merge this article to Supply-side economics. What are your thoughts on that DOR (HK)? Carl Fredrik ^talk 07:31, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. That's really where it belongs, with a redirect for those who don't know the proper name.DOR (HK) (talk) 17:17, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Just as wage slavery exists alongside the article wage labor, this article also should exist, to document the use of the term, and the arguments it is used in. LK (talk) 06:51, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree with LK; the term "trickle-down theory" has a longer history than the term "supply-side economics", and is not a mere adjunct of that term. The OED shows the first use of "supply side" (but only as a noun) was in 1873; the first use of the term as an adjective to describe a sector of the economy (but not a policy) was in 1957. The earliest use of the term to describe "economic, esp. fiscal, policies designed to promote the supply of goods and services; (also) advocating policies and ideas of this kind, esp. the lowering of taxes and reduction of regulation as a means of increasing revenue and generating growth" was in 1976 when the WSJ used the phrase "Supply-side fiscalism". In 1980 the NYT used the phrase "supply-side policies", and the earliest citation for "supply-side economics" is 1982. On the other hand, Harry Truman said in 1949 "We have abandoned the "trickle-down" concept of national prosperity". Ewulp (talk) 03:55, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

How can that not just be treated in a paragraph "terminology" in a single article? Carl Fredrik ^talk 20:01, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Addition to lead

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)

This is really just supply side economics

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)

Merge discussion

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)

Agreed.DOR (HK) (talk) 15:30, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

IMHO, though I think they could be merged, there is a distinction that is important (although it depends on which source you look at for definitions). See this article or this book.

Although some sources do, in fact, define them the same, many sources draw a sharp distinction defining trickle-down as a type of supply-side economics. Supply-side theory generally states that by lowering taxes overall there is more money in circulation thus encouraging growth overall. Trickle-down more specifically states that by lowering taxes on businesses and the wealthy you encourage the growth of industry which ultimately benefits everybody. The former idea has some mixed support among scholars (not very strong support) whereas the latter is virtually discredited by every serious scholar. I tend to think that distinction is important enough to merit two articles.

-- MC 141.131.2.3 (talk) 15:30, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

P.S. As a point of reference, note that trickle-down theory can be said to be nearly equivalent to the theory of the palace economy whereas supply-side theory covers a much broader idea than the palace theory. --MC 141.131.2.3 (talk) 15:47, 12 October 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)

• Support Merge - Trickle-down is often used as a pejorative term for support supply side policies. This is mentioned in this article, the supply side article and in Reaganomics. I think it makes sense to have the topic in one place and not break the criticism into its own article - this might be considered a WP:POVFORK. Morphh ^(talk) 03:43, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

• Do Not Merge - Supply-side economics is the broader concept that ties to other concepts like underconsumption, overproduction, and, of course, its counterpart demand-side economics. To address an above comment, supply-side is used in scholarly and practical discussion, supply and demand are too fundamental to economics as concepts to ignore fundamental schools of thought surrounding them. I believe that the mechanics of the Trickle-down effect, which seems to be much of what is discussed both here and within the Trickle-down economics article, absolutely fit within the scope of supply-side economics and would make sense to merge that article instead into this one. Trickle-down economics, however, has an important role as a political concept historically, much of which is discussed in the Reaganomics article, but is not fully within the realm of economics. For instance, important historical criticisms and satire such as William Jennings Bryan's mention in his Cross of Gold speech as well as modern usage and satire of the term, such as the usage of the term pejoratively in the 2016 United States Presidential Debates by Hillary Clinton, deserve an article that observes the topic strictly within politics with the provision of the economic theory given only as context. The term will quite likely prompt more satire in at least the near future that does not hold a place within the topic of supply-side economics. I would, however suggest to consider merging Trickle-down effect into this article, as is indicated in the about hatnote in the first line of the article. I agree with the suggestion that Trickle-down economics appears to be a POV fork, though, and perhaps it is better off being moved into an article about the use of the term and its related phrases historically in politics, with the economic discussion currently in the article reduced only to an amount that provides context for the use of the satirical term. Adequately distinguishing the currently trickle-down economics page as purely a discussion of its usage as a term in political critique or satire would resolve the matter of the POV fork, and the economic theory discussions therein could be migrated to this page or the trickle-down effect page. This mostly seems to occur at the beginning of the article and towards the end with its use of a research paper about the validity of trickle-down as an economic theory, which would be more adequately suited to the economic theory article. In short, too much of the content of the Trickle-down economics page is political and not within the scope of economic discussion or documentation, so the articles should remain separate. Consider merging in Trickle-down effect instead. Penitence (talk) 08:29, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

"higher taxes on the wealthy are linked to economic growth"

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)

It's a pretty broad and highly questionable statement as currently phrased. Let's make taxes on the "wealthy" 100% then and be booming and deficit free. I don't doubt there is context, examples, and situations where it's a true statement, but as described here, it's pretty broad and likely unsupportable. We need to be careful of WP:SYN. If the references don't make that broad specific claim, then we should remove it. Morphh ^(talk) 14:48, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

The wording "have found" in that sentence is also a problem for WP:CLAIM. It's a loaded term that indicates "truth", instead of saying the studies said, wrote, or argue their viewpoint. Morphh ^(talk) 14:55, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Describing a finding as a finding is not an example of a WP:CLAIM, as using plain language is always preferable. The existence of this correlation is not contested, only its implications towards causation. The widely-supported, extensively studied existence of a correlation shouldn't be ignored or downplayed without a reliable source explaining the issue. As a summary in the lede, this seems like an appropriate level of detail. Grayfell (talk) 01:01, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Note that Joecite has also argued for removal, saying "these sources are not direct studies that observe the correlation between Trickle-Down economics, and growth rates. Rather they observe correlations between income inequality and growth." Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 08:42, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

The suggested implication is that there is causation, otherwise it wouldn't be included. Statistical correlation can be used to prove and disprove the point, depending on what measures / timeframes are used. The debated point is over the causation and if other social or economic effects, not the tax policy, were the cause of said statistical correlations. I think to state a truth of correlation (which could also be seen as a viewpoint) without the argument of causation would be misleading to the reader. Morphh ^(talk) 20:14, 21 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)

That is an astonishingly poor argument. The IMF study alone has enough clout to merit inclusion in the lede. That other arguments exist as well only strengthens the argument. The IMF study is very authoritative and conclusively states that only increased income in the bottom and middle sections of the economy creates growth. Distrait cognizance (talk) 09:58, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

What you're quoting is not what the sentence stated. It's a WP:SYN argument: A + B = C. High economic inequality is linked to slower growth + taxes on wealthy reduces economic inequality = taxes on wealthy increases growth. That's a logical fallacy, does not consider D,E,F, applies under the context of X,Y,Z, with the conditions of a bell curve. Unless the source specifically makes that assertion, the sentence is WP:OR and should not be included. Morphh ^(talk) 15:15, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Morphh. Economics isn't just about pure theories that lead to ideal outcomes under perfect conditions. It is mainly about how politicians twist their thin understanding of economics into populist phrases that have little to do with reality, and then use their election victories to reward their friends and punish their enemies. Along the way, economics gets the blame.DOR (HK) (talk) 18:08, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Incredible BIAS in article

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)

Welcome to Widipedia! It might surprise you to learn that we don't advocate one way or the other; that's for politicians. DOR (HK) (talk) 15:15, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Entire article is a tour-de-force of Bad Economics

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)

At Wikipedia that's an irrelevant argument. The only question to be asked is if the subject is notable, as documented in RS. Is it? Obviously. The phrased is very well-known, and, unfortunately, many people actually think it makes sense, even though it doesn't work. Our job is to document the phrase in all its...umm...dubious..."glory".

I suspect you're being facetious. If not, then WP:CIR comes into play. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 05:53, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

This argument has been discussed before on this talk page a few times. There is no record of any economist or politician advocating trickle-down economics (in terms of "if you cut taxes for the rich, they will spend more and that wealth will trickle down"). However, it has been widely covered in media and therefore (unfortunately) is notable. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 07:42, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Well, here's an article written by a senior fellow at the Adam Smith Institute that argues that "trickle-down economics does work, will work, and always has done so .... the argument isn’t that trickle-down economics doesn’t work — even when we use the definition designed as an insult — it’s 'how well does it work?' because we all agree it does." And here's an interview with 2017-2018 White House chief economic advisor Gary Cohn: "When you take a corporate tax rate at 35 percent and move it to 20 percent ... We create wage inflation, which means the workers get paid more; the workers have more disposable income, the workers spend more. And we see the whole trickle-down through the economy, and that's good for the economy." Ewulp (talk) 10:00, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Ok, so I should have written "if you cut taxes for the rich, they will spend more and that wealth will trickle down, which is better than (say) cutting taxes for the poor or cutting the deficit" - the second part is the disputed one. Cohn is (I think) talking about stimulating investment by those companies, rather than just having spare money sitting around and therefore giving it out to workers. Anyway, this is getting slightly off topic, as we both agree that the topic is notable. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 10:21, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Both parts are disputed. If the wealthy invested that extra money in higher wages, starting with the lowest paid (see John Rawls), the increased buying power of the enlarged customer base would help the economy (and business owners), as well as reducing the number who must use welfare benefits to survive. That's classic Social Democracy, and it works great. Experience shows that the wealthy don't usually use that money in that way. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 19:14, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

You think that if taxes are cut, then the rich won't increase their spending *at all*? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 14:45, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Every study done shows that a tax savings or rebate to a wealthy person goes mainly to new personal investments; whereas the same money to a poor person goes to spending, and then some. So, the answer is, yes. If the point or goal is demand stimulation, don't give it to the rich.DOR (HK) (talk) 21:19, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

So if it *mainly* goes to investments, what does the rest go to? I agree that giving money to the poor is far more effective at inducing spending, but you were arguing that there would be no new spending generated at all. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 10:24, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

ConsumptionDOR (HK) (talk) 16:11, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

There is quite a logical jump from "the wealthy don't usually use that money in that way" to "the rich won't increase their spending *at all*". To be even more concise, you turned "usually not" into "not at all". Those are different. You cheated. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:14, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Investment allocates capital just as spending does, but in any case this whole discussion is off track. The question here is what is trickle-down economics. It's clear that it is simply a pejorative term for Reagonomics or supply side economics, both of which already have pages. Since it has been used in popular media it could have a page, but it should not be referred to as an "economic theory" - it is not and has never been a theory, but rather a label given to certain economic actions or to oversimplify certain economic theories. The page should reflect this much, referring to it as a term. Highest Standards (talk) 16:58, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

This is not a response to what I wrote. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:13, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia should be shamed of extreme ideological bias especially on economics

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....

Read the link a few lines above this, the one in "Well, here's an article written by a senior fellow at the Adam Smith Institute". --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:26, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Try this: type "Trickle-down economics," with the quotation marks, into Google. Second, read the number ("about 556,000") of hits. Third, reconsider why you are so angry about this article. Finally, get a life. DOR (HK) (talk) 07:05, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

DOR, If somebody calls you "idiot moron", that doesn't mean you become "idiot moron DOR" Lots of liberals tend to call whom disagree "uneducated" when they are the ones who don't know any knowledge or just have biased ideology

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

Double Standards

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)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2MoVLl_ne2Y&feature=youtu.be

Perhaps the fact that there is a YouTube video (not a valid resource, but still...), and you cared enough to look here means there's actually something worth acknowledging. DOR (HK) (talk) 00:15, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

The term is not an accepted definition of any economic theory, it’s simply a political, pejorative label critics used to insult more libertarian economic ideas about lower taxation leading to economic growth. The article admits it derives from a joke. The question is whether such a term deserves being legitimated by a separate page. The page itself is in the worst tradition of Wikipedia leftist slant by serving as an attack on “supply-side” economics, which is a more serious term. I’ve never seen an economist self-describe as supporting it. I ended up here because I was surprised to see a page on it and wanted to see if it would be as bad as I expected.

It has turned out to be.

Sych (talk) 09:06, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

The term merits an article because it's a common term that people may hear and be curious about. Would you prefer that readers who type "trickle-down economics" into the search box be redirected to Supply-side economics? That would be equating the two; instead the two concepts have separate articles. There's no bias in this; pejorative labels beloved by the right also have Wikipedia articles, e.g. Tax and spend, Social justice warrior, Anchor baby, Gay agenda, Death panels, Liberal elite, Limousine liberal, Snowflake (slang), Gore effect, Moonbat, Loony left, and many more. Ewulp (talk) 22:59, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Usage and support for trickle-down economics

@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)

Opening paragraph

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)

Removal of cited information

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)

Much of what was added is simply relaying data from the report and the commentary on the data was placed in quotations. Helper201 (talk) 15:38, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm wary of including this for a couple of reasons. One, it is a lot of text for a relatively marginal report (despite its pomp, WIP isn't really well publicized). Two, we need to be very careful with BI as it sometime syndicates content that is unreliable (per WP:RSP). If we found another source, I think that would be better, but we would need to also significantly trim this entry and be careful for language. Right now, it reads like a hit piece. Squatch347 (talk) 22:09, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

There is really no need to be citing magazines for things of this nature. If Pikety et al have really proved something with regard to supply side, then we should either cite their scholarship or a reliable secondary source that describes, not some business insider op-ed. This is no different than any other science article, the popular press greatly distorts and exaggerates what the actual research says, and should be avoided for that reason. Bonewah (talk) 14:23, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

As I said, I kept it to including data points and some commentary that was specifically put in quotation marks to indicate as such. I don't see any issue with the data from World Inequality Report that it references or any evidence to say its unreliable. Again, the source doesn't not state that it is an editorial or an op-ed. Helper201 (talk) 18:58, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

• Include Business Insider isn't perhaps the best source, but its not garbage either. Its not apparently an editorial, even though it is somewhat strongly worded. I think the only change I would really make to the wording is to just attribute the claim better, noting that those conclusions about the report were drawn by so and so at Business Insider. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:39, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Oh, and I would move it down to the Criticism section. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:41, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

• Exclude. 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)
• Exclude. The scholarly work of Pikety and others can be cited to peer-reviewed literature. Using this popularized version of a subset of their research furthers this article's confusion between economic theory and political jargon and polemic. SPECIFICO talk 21:06, 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)

What content would we need to remove to make clear the topic that you correctly identify? I think this bears serious consideration. SPECIFICO talk 23:46, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Well, oppose. This article is about 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 not is a very relevant topic. JBchrch talk 23:50, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

• Exclude, there should be far better sources available about this subject than Business Insider. Use those better, more in-depth, and more serious sources instead of that. The material in question looks like an effort to push "This is bad" with a marginal reference, rather than to demonstrate that in a much less in-your-face way through more serious and in-depth research. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:46, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
• Include, but re-write to be more on-topic Summoned by bot. Seems like proper RS coverage of an on-topic and notable academic's group, but the actual content of this edit needs to be fixed. So first, it seems like it should be included because 1) Piketty et al. are notable on this subject, 2) Insider is WP:RS for this purpose, 3) there's nothing special about this topic to restrict sourcing to peer-reviewed sources, and 4) if there are better sources, add them (Even just [5] linked from this piece). But the edit should be fixed by 1) adding attribution to the Lab and Piketty et al. by name, not just the report name; 2) focusing on the trickle down findings, not just the description of inequality; right now it is the eye candy of x percent now own y percent that goes on way too long -- in fact the data cited muddies the discussion by noting that inequality vastly expanded in the last couple of years, what does that have to do with trickle down? it doesn't say; 3) as part of two, focus on the descriptive/evidence in the report, the normative statements by themselves don't work; 4) expand sourcing, the Insider piece is a bit breathless, would be good to find another secondary source to be sure we're getting it right. Chris vLS (talk) 01:05, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
• Include per Chris vLS_{(summoned by browsing RfC/A)} - I find his argument compelling. I agree that the politics is an important aspect of the topic... both the economists and politicians should be documented here. Fieari (talk) 07:38, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
• Exclude Im not opposed to discussing the political aspects of Trickle-down, but random, sensationalistic garbage from the popular press is not the way to do it, especially as there is no shortage of actual scholarly work on that aspect of the topic. Bonewah (talk) 13:54, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
• Comment I think editors that have an issue with the source should think carefully and seriously in distinguishing between whether that necessarily means the article is not allowed to be cited at all on the page and whether all the information contained within it is completely unusable in its entirety. It’s one thing to have an issue with a source, but another more radical and extreme one to say that issue means it elevates the matter to point where the source cannot be cited at all and that it is completely useless. The source has plenty of data points in it, such as those from the World Inequality Report which could be useful in expanding the page. I'm happy if people want to change the wording in my edit in order to include the source and if people look into compromises. Helper201 (talk) 15:53, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

The actual World Inequality Report only mentions trickle-down in chapter 10, and, although the authors are critical of trickle-down, thier rhetoric is no where close to what the BI article says. This is what my concern is, even setting aside the question of how reliable the World Inequality Report actually is, the popular representation of it is so distorted as to be useless, in my opinion. Bonewah (talk) 16:46, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

• Include I don't actually think BI is a good source, nor do I think it's close to the best one, but it's FAR too easy for editors to say we shouldn't include this source while vaguely waving toward potentially better sources which aren't in the article and if we're being honest aren't on their way to being in the article. So rather than pretend like we're going to keep it out for the sake of encyclopedic neutrality we should be forced to reckon with it. Protonk (talk) 17:16, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Your Ok including an edit that grossly misrepresents what *its* sources say just because the material might not ever get included otherwise? And what exactly is the important thing that is being excluded? That the author of the BI editorial doesnt like trickle-down. How about we exclude it for being irrelevant and misleading? Bonewah (talk) 18:47, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

And by the way, the notion that this sort of information is currently missing from the article is fiction. About half this article is taken up by its 'criticism' section which is mostly this sort of cherry picking of quotes of questionable relevance or provenance. I disagree with the notion that we should be piling more garbage into this article so that we are "forced to reckon with it" whatever that means. Bonewah (talk) 18:57, 17 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)

• Exclude – No issues with citing data from the WIP, but there are valid concerns that Business Insider is drawing conclusions in editorializing fashion and not simply stating the report's findings. We need scholarly, academic sources for that kind of analysis, not some quick journalistic reading of the data. The only way it could remain is with proper attribution added, but even then I think stronger analysis is needed here. --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:29, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
• Include but reword - BI is a perfectly reasonable source for this purpose, the problem here is that the content added is not quite about trickle-down economics. But we could fix it to make it work, so we should. Loki (talk) 03:17, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
• Exclude - Per my reasons above. It isn't clear that this article is an actual BI article and per WP:RSP we should be wary of BI's syndicated columns accuracy. This is even more so the case here where a simple perusal of the actual source shows it to be vastly different than the write up we are linking to. I'm also unsure the WIP article itself is notable and, in its current form certainly violates WP:UNDUE. The broader discussion on this article's nature is probably important here. We are getting stuck because the source is treating a strawman as if it were an actual economic theory. The term is a political label used primarily as a pejorative. Squatch347 (talk) 22:51, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
• Exclude - There are much better sources than random op-eds for this topic. Don't quite see what people are getting at with the politics/economics distinction; drawing evidence based conclusions from policy decisions is what economics is about. --RaiderAspect (talk) 06:54, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
• Trim down and include in the Criticism section. It belongs to the criticism section. Alaexis_¿question? 13:23, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
• Exclude: for this topic we generally want academic sources, not newspaper columns. We could cite the report directly, but I'll trust Bonewah's findings that the report only covers trickle-down economics in one chapter, so it's not in-depth enough to justify a place here (there's plenty that has been written entirely on trickle-down economics). — Bilorv (talk) 21:04, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Image Description.

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)

FEE citation in the lead

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)

But we cannot use a FEE opinion to verify a factual claim in Wiki-voice. Please consider the alternative compromise wording I proposed that Squatch reverted in the edit you link above. SPECIFICO talk 18:40, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

GoneIn60, I think it clearly follows the body. The summary of the history section is, essentially, that this is a pejorative term for a characterization of a political position. We can add links to the body to conform, but without this summary we are using wiki's voice to imply that there is an actual position advocated by actual people called "trickle-down" which seems out of step with the body of the article.

Specifico, I might have missed it, what alternative wording did you propose? The only edit I saw was the clean removal of the language. Squatch347 (talk) 19:05, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Please see the two different prior to yours. SPECIFICO talk 19:21, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

This [6] and this [7]? Squatch347 (talk) 19:26, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Squatch347, while the idea that the term is pejorative is somewhat implied throughout the body, it still feels like the statement "to stimulate business investment in the short term and benefit society at large in the long term" isn't really getting the ample coverage it needs in the body. We get a sense of it, but nothing direct. Perhaps both the term and the statement need to be stated more bluntly in the body, so that when one reads both in the lead, they are able to locate the in-depth discussion later in the article. Just my 2¢.

SPECIFICO, I'm not opposed to calling the term colloquial in the lead. I'll leave that up to others how that's sorted out. I was more focused on the content addition, perhaps trimming and making the body more complete if it were to be kept. --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:58, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

GoneIn60 What do you think of the text I proposed? Trickle-down economics is a colloquial terrm for supply-side economic public policies such as "Reaganomics". 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. I think we need to get the FEE bit out of there as a first step. SPECIFICO talk 18:15, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

If it were to remain, I would probably shorten it to one sentence without trying to cram in "Reagonmics". That term can be briefly defined/used later in the opening paragraph or relegated to the body altogether. The opening three sentences in the lead, as they are right now, are long-winded and can use some concise copyediting. --GoneIn60 (talk) 20:42, 9 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)

You mean the part where Gary Cohn says how happy he is with trickle-down? Hardly pejoritive. Per my edit cited above, it is colloquial and sometimes facetious but it is not innately pejorative. We go with the sources first, text later. Not text first then google a source. SPECIFICO talk 20:48, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

GoneIn60, ahh I appreciate the clarification. I think it definitely can be cleaned up a bit, but I don't like the replacement with colloquial. That implies that this is just a layman's term for an actual economic proposal, rather than a strawman of actual proposals, a la the body of the article. I'd propose something like; "..., was a term coined by political satirist Will Rogers; it is a pejorative characterization of some supply-side economic policies, such as "Reaganomics"....

Squatch347 (talk) 20:51, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

I think define what it is in the opening sentence without any comparisons, have a nice and simple sentence, and then spend the next 2-3 sentences putting the definition in context (using comparisons and such). But that's just me. --GoneIn60 (talk) 21:37, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

I have implemented this suggestion. I propose we now work on the next several sentences and article text. SPECIFICO talk 21:59, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

I think most of that reduction is fair. I've made a few changes though, again I don't like the word "colloquial" since the term is used almost exclusively in a critical context and is used in both academic literature and in public usage (hence not colloquially). I also re-added the source since there isn't consensus on its removal yet. Especially if we are going to slim down this sentence. I've also added the Wharton source solely relating to its discussion of the term pejoratively. Cohn's inclusion in the source aside, this is a published piece by the Wharton School, so it meets WP:RS Squatch347 (talk) 23:22, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

I just pointed out to you that Trump's top economic advisor endorsed the term enthusiastically in the course of implementing the largest such tax cut in history. There is no consensus for your view, so you need to self-revert and continue to engage in discussion here. Edit warring is never constructive. SPECIFICO talk 23:29, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Whoa there with the edit warring accusation, we are looking at trying to find a consensus language, and I'll remind you that it was you that simply re-introduced your edits to the mainpage during a discussion. Adding an additional source and proposing some counter language is hardly waring.

As for the source, yes one of Trump's economic advisors is quoted in the article, but the article itself is what I'm referencing, not the quote from that advisor. I don't understand your argument for why his reference in a section of the article irrelevant to its usage here, means it isn't WP:RS. Squatch347 (talk) 14:43, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Cphn's statement is a counterexamplel that disproves your argument for this content. There's consensus here against the FEE source, so re-inserting it is indeed inappropriate. The Wharton bit is a self-published paper and not RS for the claim you are trying after-the-fact to find a source to fit. SPECIFICO talk 16:00, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

• I don't think there's sufficient sourcing to justify this in the first sentence of the lead, and per WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY we would need to actually have relevant text in the body for the lead to summarize - this new proposed addition to the lead doesn't reflect anything in the body at all. Though, again, I feel that based on the relatively sparse sourcing so far compared to the much longer sourcing of other aspects in the rest of the body, it is probably going to be WP:UNDUE for the first sentence even once added to the body. It isn't just a matter of it being present in the body; we need to figure out how significant this take on its history is in the overall scope of coverage on the topic, and represent that in the body, then reflect it in the lead proportionately to how it is represented in the body. Also, regarding this edit summary, the addition to the lead is relatively new (it was added here) so per WP:ONUS, consensus must be shown to include it, not to remove it. EDIT: Also, FEE is a WP:BIASED source and absolutely cannot be cited without attribution, especially not in the lead. We can say that this is their opinion but cannot present it as fact. Note that we mention that a few people have argued that the term doesn't represent their views and was never used seriously, this is unequivocally (and appropriately) presented as contested opinion in the body - we absolutely cannot present it as fact in the lead without higher-quality neutral sources saying as much. --Aquillion (talk) 20:58, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Lack of citation

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)

@Kaylamolander: I assume you are referring to the sentence in the WP:LEAD (not main body) of the article. In which case, the source you mentioned seems to be cited to support the second part of that sentence, not the first part about Will Rogers. Per MOS:LEADCITE, because the lead of the article is a summary of the main body and will thus contain repeated information, it is not necessary to provide citations for every piece of information in the lead, as long as the same information is already supported by citations in the main body. In this case, the "History and usage" section provides more detail about the Will Rogers origin with a citation. Bennv123 (talk) 09:22, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Lead sentence and article scope.

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)

I've tried to improve this as best as I can. It was immediately drive-by reverted by a page-patroller, but with no rationale that makes any sense. Please tweak it further if anyone feels it doesn't correctly summarise the article, but not just by restoring the previous terrible version. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 08:00, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Your challenge certinly has merit, but your new sentence replaces an uncited and opinionated sentence with another that is also uncited but less opinionated. Of the two, IMO this one is less POV, So I support keeping it for now. But you really need to find a supporting citation. Of course both statements could be true, certainly the term "trickle-down" has been used derisively of the UK Government's tax-cuts announcement of last week, which its supporters have been praising as "supply-side reforms". When searching for citations, please note that an example of use does not constitute a valid citation; the citation must describe and explain the usage.

@Oopsemoops:, if you disagree, please respond here first. I realise that WP:BRD supports reversion to wp:status quo but I suggest that we are looking at the lesser of two evils here so it is a matter of choosing the least worst. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 09:29, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

I was trying to sum up the body of the article, so my thought was that it didn't need a separate or additional source. If it's not supported thereby, my preference would be to tweak it until it is, rather than add a single source attempting to provide a grand, definitive summary of the scope of the term, or worse, clause-by-clause each part of it which is really what'd be needed if we we sourcing it strictly in isolation. If necessary we could just start off with a dictionary definition: for example, Oxford provides: "the theory that the poorest in society gradually benefit as a result of the increasing wealth of the richest." The previous version I don't think summed up the article at all, per my objections above. Certainly the two are related, in that any time a right-winger suggests a "supply-side reform", a leftist will say "that's more trickle-down economics", and free-marketeers will protest that it's a slur, or that the two are different to some degree or other, or that there's no such thing as a trickle-down, but I don't think we can say one is just a term for the other unqualifiedly. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 11:15, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

With controversial topics such as this, it can be argued that your summing-up is making your own editorial assessment, so it is best to provide a citation from a neutral source. Good luck with finding such! There are many similar cases where it has proven necessary to cite the first sentence, on occasion even every phrase in the first sentence! --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 12:22, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

October 3 reverts

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)

You're removing piles of sourced material [10] Andre🚐 19:24, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

I'll have it then that you are not objecting to my removal of the FED working paper specifically and will remove it accordingly. 2A01:4B00:9D42:6E00:FCE7:AC6D:CFC5:3126 (talk) 19:27, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Also see Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion. 2A01:4B00:9D42:6E00:FCE7:AC6D:CFC5:3126 (talk) 19:27, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, it's not NPOV to remove the "criticisms" section, for one thing. Andre🚐 19:29, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

@Andrevan I did not remove the "criticisms" section, but renamed it. While not policy, I (and and others [11]) find WP:CSECTION fairly persuasive. 2A01:4B00:9D42:6E00:FCE7:AC6D:CFC5:3126 (talk) 19:40, 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)

Id like to note that "2020 study by economist Anil Kumar" found here does not contain the words "trickle down" by my search of it. It a minimum, we should remove that section due to it being WP:OR. Bonewah (talk) 14:35, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Likewise the 'working' paper] cited in the line 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)

And I'm not supporting the working paper specifically and I didn't revert removing it alone, but the other removals were very wholesale. Andre🚐 14:49, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Sure, of course. Squatch347 (talk · contribs) asked above to discuss each change here individually, so the obvious ones seems like a good place to start. Bonewah (talk) 16:44, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

I think there is a consensus to remove both references, so I've done so along with their associated text. Squatch347 (talk)

One small note, I'm not sure a source necessarily needs to have the phrase trickle down since it's noted as colloquial and these are professional papers. Squatch347 (talk) 05:45, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

I think that is actually the key issue with this article. If, as we claim, 'trickle-down' is a derisive phrase or colloquialism then 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. We cant support or debunk a economic theory that isnt actually a theory at all. Essentially this article should be like Tax and spend, covering notable usage of the term itself.

So, for example, the paragraph starting with 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.

Obviously, this would mean a fairly radical change the the article, so im going to hold off on making any edits until we have discussed it a bit further. Bonewah (talk) 13:29, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

I disagree. Trickle down is colloquial but it has a well-defined meaning in reliable sources. Trickle-down does have a meaning and it refers to supply-side economics, ie the theory that tax cuts for big companies and the top tax brackets spur investment and growth. Andre🚐 15:39, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

What reliable sources are you referring to here? Bonewah (talk) 19:22, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

There are many, from news and articles, to books and textbooks, such as Persky, Joseph (2004). Does "trickle down" work? : economic development strategies and job chains in local labor markets. Daniyel Felzenshṭain, Virginia Carlson. Kalamazoo, Mich.: W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research. ISBN 1-4175-4998-X. OCLC 56820409., it's not synthetic or original research at all, so I strongly oppose your proposal 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)

Ill have a look at that source. I have a couple of Macro textbooks on order that i will check as well. I would prefer something more obviously reliable than "W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research" which ive never even heard of. Looking at their web page and wiki page, it looks like a non-profit, not an academic source. If this really a term of art in economics, it should be easy to find an scholarly source that undeniably says trickle-down is synonymous with supply side. In which case, we should merge it with supply side. Bonewah (talk) 19:55, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it should be merged per se. Yes I do think it is synonymous largely, but we do have many pages that have overlapping definitions that cover them from a slightly different angle. It's worth raising for discussion if you want to propose the merge. Regarding the source I linked, it is indeed a think tank or an economic policy research institute, W. E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research, but should be reliable enough to show economists use the term. Here's a recent academic journal article using the term: Burnette-McGrath, Madeleine (2019). "Reagan-Era Economic Theory in the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act: Trickle-down Economics through Increased International Mobility of Certain Corporate Income". Florida State University Business Review. 18: 57. [21:40, 5 October 2022 (UTC)] THe more I think about it the more I think they should not be merged. Trickle down is more often used in political science and law, while economists are more likely to call it supply side economics, but we can still have 2 different articles that are fundamentally about the same economic group of concepts. Trickle down is a theory and supply side is a branch of economics that heavily rests on that theory. Andre🚐 21:51, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Honestly, I think Bonewah has a point (though I am against a merge). The term is used rather loosely in a way that generally wouldn't warrant inclusion in WP:PS coverage. It is important to remember that no one is a "trickle down" economist. It is a term used by those who oppose a broad set of approaches, many of them contradictory. It would be generally akin to having a page on here for "tax and spend democrats" and then posting a lot of research related to Keynsian economics. The WP:PS debate should be hosted on the main page of Supply-Side economics (where it is quite robust and well monitored) or whatever policy is being labelled as "trickle-down", not on a sub-branch referring to a nickname used by opponents. I'd entertain removing the criticism/reception section after validating those sources are rescued to the parent articles. Since no one is actually pushing for a policy called "trickle-down" it seems a bit odd to have a criticism section of a proposal labelled as such by an opponent, kind of strawan-y. Squatch347 (talk) 05:27, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

I should point out that Madeleine McGrath is a JD law student, not an economist according to the abstract. You generally don't see "trickle-down" used in reputable journals because it isn't a technical term and is seen as unprofessionally derogatory. Squatch347 (talk) 05:36, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

The article does not have to only use sources by economists. There are many examples, though, of notable social scientists using the term. So I oppose your proposal to trim the article. Thomas Sowell has an essay about it: Sowell, Thomas (2012). Trickle down theory and tax cuts for the rich. Stanford, Calif.: Hoover Institution Press. ISBN 978-0-8179-1616-9. OCLC 823741840. it's also used by Joseph Stiglitz: Stiglitz, Joseph E. (2019). People, power, and profits : progressive capitalism for an age of discontent (First ed.). New York. ISBN 978-1-324-00422-6. OCLC 1098270456.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link) Andre🚐 13:49, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

But both of those pieces are referencing how trickle down isn't an economics policy, but a broad pejorative. That is what I think is causing the lack of focus on the page, the misconstrual that trickle down is an economic policy that can be evaluated by studies. We are applying scientific rigor to evaluating the professional debate on a topic that doesn't exist in professional debate. The term certainly warrants its own page, but the page should be focused on the usage of that term and its etymology rather than trying to cram studies already being discussed on other pages. Squatch347 (talk) 05:36, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

I agree this article should remain separate because trickle-down is not synonymous with supply side. I only sugested that if it turned out that trickle down and supply side are the same thing, which i dont think they are and nothing ive seen has changed my mind, although I have not read the Sowell piece sited above. Im still waiting for delivery of a few more macro textbooks, but the one i do have, Case and Fair (2007 ed) makes no mention of trickle down at all, most notably in the supply side section. Bonewah (talk) 13:09, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

I don't agree that trickle down isn't a term in economics, as well as law and politics. We should not remove studies that are critical of the impact of trickle-down on this basis. Andre🚐 14:30, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

I think if it was an economic term, it would be easy (and necessary) to find references that say so unambiguously. Consider for instance 'supply side economics'. My textbook says its a real economic theory and ill bet the other references im waiting on will say the same thing. That is not the case for trickle-down. The references above never say its an real economic theory, and one of them says specifically that it is not. Bonewah (talk) 15:29, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Again, that's missing the bigger picture. I would say supply-side and trickle down are related and overlapping terms. 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. Because it has a meaning in the fields of politics and law as well as in economics, which is the theory that tax cuts for the rich will trickle down. Andre🚐 15:42, 7 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 think you are correct that they don't have to be synonymous in order for wikipedia to have a page on it, but they do need to be synonymous if we are going to use WP:PRIMARY in the article referencing sources that don't actually mention the term referenced in the paper. For us to call them synonymous is WP:SYNTH unless there are reputable economic sources saying they are. Currently, we only have the two you reference, both of which make the exact opposite point. I think it is important to note that in no source on this page is the term "trickle-down" used positively or by someone advocating for said policies. We label is a colloquial usage in the beginning and then treat it as a precise term later in the article. That is clearly inconsistent. So we really have two options. 1) Remove sources that do not reference the article topic in their body after rescuing them to parent articles per WP:PRIMARY or 2) provide a WP:RS that equates the term in primary source documentation. Squatch347 (talk) 06:00, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

On your points, I will locate and demonstrate sources that use the term "trickle down" positively, and neutrally. This is quite doable, but it will require a bit of research, because as you note, many of the proponents of the theory try to re-brand the theory to avoid the negative connotations it has become associated with since, largely, it has been empirically shown to be false. The sources that were positive about its usage as a term do exist and in part, consist of the 80s and 90s era sources that have tried to counter the critical narratives of it. This exists in the present day as well. In the meantime, though, we should not otherwise remove sources from this article or in any other way reduce its scope, since it hasn't been demonstrated that "trickle down" isn't a term used by economists: even if the primary usage of that term as demonstrated by me is negatively, that isn't inherently a pejorative: will respond to your other message below. Andre🚐 18:43, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Ok, well I will be standing by to see those sources, but WP:PRIMARY doesn't let us use sources unless they actually reference the term being covered in the article in wiki-voice. Squatch347 (talk) 10:04, 9 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)

I'm fine with removing the working papers. But I disagree that we can't use sources about the underlying economics just because the expert economists' view is negative. They still do use the term to describe something. Andre🚐 16:18, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm tracking the dissent on whether or not the source must use the phrase "Trickle-Down." I haven't made any updates on that front until we work through this a bit or until a consensus emerges. I think the next step is for you or someone else to provide a reputable source advocating for trickle-down. I'm a bit concerned that we've simply linked the phrase trickle-down with any tax reduction policy a la its use by critics. Doing so without a NPOV RS would make our current use of primary sources WP:SYNTH. We can't make the connection as editors, we need experts to make that connection per WP:PRIMARY. Policy specifically rules out using journalists (obviously not experts) to link two topics in a highly specialized field. Now, if we can find economic consensus on the definition of "Trickle-Down" policies then we can justify their use pretty easily. Squatch347 (talk) 05:51, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

I don't agree with your analysis. I'm responding with another source in the below section, so perhaps we should continue discussing there. It is not SYNTH because RS have already tied trickle-down with a series of policies. Andre🚐 14:56, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

WaPo piece

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)

Pinging the above participants Bonewah, Squatch347, Andrevan. 2A01:4B00:9D42:6E00:39E9:1410:E537:EE46 (talk) 22:58, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

I agree with your assessment. The paper is also a working paper. This kind of goes to my point above that the article lacks clarity. The paper doesn't reference trickle down economics as a term because that isn't a professional term. Us having it as part of the economics section here creates an wp:undue impression that economists think of trickle down as a set of policies. At a minimum I think this paragraph should be removed or added to a different section so as to not give the impression of peer review. Squatch347 (talk) 05:36, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

That article further reinforces what we have said above, that 'trickle down' is a pejorative rather than a meaningful economic term. The only 2 places it even says 'trickle down' are 1) in the headline, which, per WP:HEADLINE is not reliable (and they use quotes around trickle-down, suggesting they think of it as an expression rather than a precise term) and once in the body where they say "The tax savings, in other words, would trickle down from the rich to everyone else." The 'in other words' here implies that its the WaPo that is saying it, not someone else. Bonewah (talk) 13:32, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

I don't agree that this was established above. I understand why you are saying this but just because the term is used negatively, doesn't make it pejorative, and as we've established it is used by economists such as Joseph Stiglitz and Thomas Sowell. It's also not SYNTH/OR to understand that trickle down is being referred to in context. Andre🚐 14:29, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Well, i dont know that we have established the term is a pejorative, but just because its used by economists does not mean that it is an economic term. I mean, one of the economists you mentioned, Thomas Sowell, specifically states that it is not an economic term: 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)

That is not saying the topic isn't an economic term, simply that the theory isn't part of Econ 101, and I think we have shown a few examples that it is discussed, and can find more if you would like. I know it is in at least a few textbooks. Regardless, the negative way the term is viewed, doesn't indicate that we shouldn't have those studies discussed in this article. The economists' dispute as to whether it is legitimate or whether the theory is meaningful or accurate should be covered in the article. It's clearly a topic worthy of being discussed by virtue of being discussed by economists. For example, broken windows theory is another theory that is controversial - maybe the article should be moved to trickle-down theory. Andre🚐 15:28, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Again, the mere fact that the term is used or discussed does not make it an economic term. It is a term worthy of a Wikipedia article, just not one that claims or acts as if its an economic theory. Bonewah (talk) 16:51, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Which would be reasonable provided that Supply-side economics is equally categorised as a political ideology masquerading as economics. See Keeping tax low for the rich does not boost economy (London School of Economics, King's College London) --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 17:18, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

When you say 'categorized' do you mean in Wikipedia or by someone else? Bonewah (talk) 17:47, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

"Characterised" might be a better word. I doubt we have a category:political ideology masquerading as economics My essential point is that there should be equality of treatment: each should be taken at face value as good faith economic theories or each (more honestly) as retrospective justifications for an a priori political assertion. What we must not do is regard one as being more valid than the other: if one is valid then so is the other. And conversely. Pick your favourite economist: Paul Krugman takes the "it's codswallop" view: it was codswallop when Regan, Bush, Barber and Maudling touted it and it is rancid codswallop today.

I'm confused now. The point is that the article should cover the concepts in and around trickle-down comprehensively, including all different sorts of sources - economic, political, legal, media, news, books, etc. If there are conflicts in the sourcing we should cover that and attribute it. Andre🚐 20:14, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

I think maybe there are two distinct issues here.

1. Are "Supply-side economics" and "trickle-down economics" notable term such as to justify articles. Unarguably yes.
2. Are they genuinely respected among serious economists, with an intellectually rigorous foundation, then the answer is no, probably not. They are ideological positions that some economists such as Laffer and possibly Friedman have given credence to, but other economists consider them bunkum.

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)

I think the problem here is that we are conflating a term used only by opponents of a broad set of policies (again most of them contradictory) as if it were being used by advocates. There is not such thing as trickle down theory. No one advocates for anything of that name, nor has use the term "trickle down" as part of their defense. It is a term, according to the sources on the page, only used in non professional sources by opponents. It should be covered that way in the article.

We don't, for example, have an indepth discussion about the calculation problem with socialist economics on the page about the term pinko. We recognize that it is being used as a pejorative and that it is applied broadly to policies and people who may be socialists or may not be. We maintain the specific technical debate on the parent article. Squatch347 (talk) 06:00, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

It's a false analogy because that's unambiguously an offensive term of name-calling, while "trickle down economics" and "trickle down theory" are serious terms that are used by journalists, academics, and others. Andre🚐 18:44, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

I concur. If there is no such thing as "trickle-down economics" (despite being widely referenced as such) then there is equally (if not more so) no such thing as "Supply-side economics" (but the same notability defence applies). They are two sides of the same coin, two equally valid (or equally invalid) ways of describing the same ideological tenet - retrospectively. As Paul Krugman explains, the idea has no intellectual foundation and has been demonstrated repeatedly to have no measurable effect when tested. Classic pseudoscience. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 19:12, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't think the sourcing supports the idea that it is only used in the pejorative. Most mainstream coverage uses the term in a neutral fashion to summarize the policies in question, to the extent where it can reasonably be called the WP:COMMONNAME. --Aquillion (talk) 20:03, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

I agree. Andre🚐 13:46, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Well, we'll be standing by for reputable sources where someone advocating for such policies has used that term. In the meantime however, there isn't a defense of retaining primary sourced material that doesn't actually use the phrase "trickle-down." Squatch347 (talk) 10:07, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

I disagree. And there isn't consensus for your opinion. Reasonably understood economic studies about the economics that don't use the phrase can still be included if there is a consensus to include them. Andre🚐 16:19, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

@John Maynard Friedman: The big difference between trickle-down and supply side is that there are an abundance of reliable sources that refer to supply side as an economic theory, which is not the case with 'trickle down' economics. Whether only a pejorative or not, its not an economic theory. Bonewah (talk) 14:50, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

References

@Andrevan: Economic studies about something that isnt economics should not be included. Economic studies that dont specifically use the phrase trickle-down are almost always going to be WP:OR. Bonewah (talk) 14:53, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. Here's another source. Simply because the economic theory is often attacked for being inaccurate empirically, does not make it not an economic theory. Basu, Santonu; Mallick, Sushanta (2008). "When does growth trickle down to the poor? The Indian case". Cambridge Journal of Economics. 32 (3): 461–477. ISSN 0309-166X. Andre🚐 14:55, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

I dont have direct access to that source, but based on the abstract and intro it does not seem to do what you want it to do. "A theoretical analysis and several econometric tests have been undertaken to examine whether the trickle down effect took place in rural India over a long time period." Trickle down effect is not the same as trickle down theory or trickle down economics. 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)

Why isn't trickle down effect the same? Andre🚐 15:22, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

• Here's an RS that uses the phrase explicitly. Watkins, John P. (2014). "Quantitative Easing as a Means of Reducing Unemployment: A New Version of Trickle-Down Economics". Journal of Economic Issues. 48 (2): 431–439. ISSN 0021-3624. [15:23, 10 October 2022 (UTC)]
• Here's another one. 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 taxes Dugger, William M. (1990). "The Wealth Tax: A Policy Proposal". Journal of Economic Issues. 24 (1): 133–144. ISSN 0021-3624.
• And one more. neoliberal policies such as trickle-down economics , tax breaks for upper-income brackets or the removal of social safety nets Wrenn, 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 have no doubt that economists have used the term, that does not make it an actual theory. Lots of economists have used the term 'voodoo economics' but its not a actual theory. Lots of economists have used the phrase 'tax and spend' but its not an actual theory. Bonewah (talk) 17:44, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

I just offered several RS from econ journals that use the exact phrase "trickle-down economics" and discuss its meaning as a (discredited, perhaps) economic theory. So, your argument doesn't hold up in my opinion. It is indeed a real set of economic theories and policy ideas that is referred to by this name, and this is supported by RS. If you do not agree start an RFC. Andre🚐 18:00, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

As i said, i dont have access to those sources. Can you please copy and paste the parts that describe trickle down as an economic theory? Im trying to reconcile the fact that 'trickle-down' theory or 'trickle-down' economics doesnt appear in any econ textbook ive seen and we have sources that explicitly say it is not an economic theory with the claim that it is. Again, not just using the term but defining it as an economic theory. Bonewah (talk)

I agree with Bonewah. Yes it is "a thing", is widely referenced as such so it is definitely notable. But, like so-called "Supply-side economics", it is not accepted as having any credibility in mainstream economics, any more than is, say, Reaganomics. It is a descriptive term for an political movement that is led by ideology rather than by evidence-based analysis. I believe that to be the correct summary of the RSs that you cite. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 18:15, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

I just quoted the quotes, if you want access to the full text I recommend going to The Wikipedia Library to get JSTOR access. They clearly refer to the trickle-down theory as a set of economic and policy ideas: the ideas that cutting taxes for upper income will "trickle down" is an economic idea. Just because the idea lacks credibility doesn't make it "not an economic theory." Au contraire, it's a heavily disputed theory even though maybe at this point the mainstream economists understand it lacks credibility, as recent as the Bush tax cuts and the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act it is still brought forth as a theory by conservative economists. Andre🚐 18:23, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I disagree with your assertion that supply side is merely a political movement. I can simply turn to my econ textbook and find the entry that says explicitly that supply side economics is a the theory that ...X. Same book says nothing at all about trickle down. Whether or not supply side is 'discredited' is a different question. Btw, here is another source that explicitly says trickle down is not a real economic theory “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.” Bonewah (talk) 18:29, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Here is another one. The problem with this term is that, as far as I know, no economist has ever used that term to describe their own views. Although im not crazy about fee.org as a source, note that these sources are saying explicitly what im saying, that trickle down is not a real economic theory. Bonewah (talk) 18:34, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

And here "It is my object in this paper to suggest that no reputable development economist ever, explicitly or implicitly, entertained any such theory in any of its alleged versions" Dont have access to that one, but again, at least the intro says what ive been saying. Bonewah (talk) 18:42, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

These are all just sources that say trickle-down economics is untrue or debunked or invalid - not that it isn't a valid, notable topic for an economic article. It's not OR or SYNTH to take the many RS that define what trickle-down is, and also attribute those who believe it's not real econ. The article just has to say that and cover the controversy fairly. Andre🚐 18:59, 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)

I continue to disagree with your interpretation of the policy and what a pejorative means. Andre🚐 13:46, 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)

I've started an RFC in the below section. Andre🚐 13:39, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

The voodoo economics redirect seems like far from best practice. The term is mentioned in practice in that article, but also in others. It's neither hatnoted or alt-titled there. As the article is itself mainly about the particular economic history of that administration, rather than other right-wing governments voodooing in the same manner, that's potentially rather unhelpful. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 06:54, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Here's a source from Detroit News that connects them. [14] Andre🚐 19:07, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

The scenario I'm wondering about here is that a reader hears 'Liz Truss's voodoo economics' (or Scott Morrison's, etc, etc), stuffs that into a Wikipedia sear bar, ends up at "Reagonomics" without any clear indication why, and gives up in disgust at that point (or otherwise has a sub-optimal Wikipedia experience). Hence I'm moved to consider if that redirect should have a different target, and/or more helpful landing context in whichever one it does end up pointing to. Which isn't directly relevant to this article, except insofar as this might conceivably be a candidate for the role. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 02:31, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

I agree, VE could redirect to SSE or TDE and that would be a better target. Andre🚐 02:41, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Maybe have it point here, with a hatnote linking to RE? But it should ideally have an alt-title and some context for it too, and if merging this is an imminent prospect... 109.255.211.6 (talk) 19:55, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

That works for me. I don't think the merge is imminent. Andre🚐 20:00, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Done. Likely needs a little more in the body (and a good source), but the longest journey, etc, etc. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 23:14, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

... starts with a wholesale WP:IDONTLIKEIT revert without any addition to the discussion, to complete the Wikipedia version of that saying. Anyone else have any thoughts on this? Can't personally see what was even arguably NPOV about my addition. If one wants an additional source for it, here's the WaPo again: 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)

Intolerance of any attempt to balance the article now extends to External links

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?

• Zidar, Owen (October 30, 2018). "Tax Cuts for Whom? Heterogeneous Effects of Income Tax Changes on Growth and Employment" (PDF). Journal of Political Economy. 127 (3): 1437–1472. doi:10.1086/701424. ISSN 0022-3808. S2CID 158844554. Archived (PDF) from the original on June 2, 2018. Retrieved December 4, 2019. (working paper)
• Hope, David; Limberg, Julian (December 2020). "The Economic Consequences of Major Tax Cuts for the Rich" (PDF). International Inequalities Institute. London School of Economics and Political Science. Retrieved 8 October 2022. 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)

I am also frustrated when others undo my contributions, but you could have made the same argument without implying that everyone else is an ideologue "fear[ing]" that their "precious" theory will be "exposed" and nothing of substance would have been lost. If you find that the body of the article portrays the theory in an unduly positive light, make suggestions as to how it should be changed. Don't use the external links section as a dumping ground for low-quality sources that you happen to like. (I hope you will forgive me for making that assumption.) 2A01:4B00:9D42:6E00:C8C9:FC0E:F73F:ED76 (talk) 23:51, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

You have no basis whatever to describe them as "low quality", these are papers by respected academics. They may not have the highest accolade of full peer-review publication so I acknowledge not top quality but they are nonetheless highly relevant and stand proud against any of the citations in the article. There is something seriously wrong when newspaper columnist are citable but work from the UK's foremost centre for study of economics is not. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 00:07, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Quality is relative and they are certainly of low quality compared to the sort of sources that we should be using, which are published review pieces as opposed to individual papers or even working papers (but this seems like a debate about semantics rather than substance). I agree that we should largely rid the sections dealing with the actual economic analysis of whatever newspaper columnists write. Perhaps you can start by pointing out sources you object to. 2A01:4B00:9D42:6E00:C8C9:FC0E:F73F:ED76 (talk) 00:21, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

No, I do not accept nor accede to your attempt to reframe the question. You are attempting to impose a test that only applies to the most scholarly or medical topics, and then only to in-body citations. You quoted WP:ELNO in your edit summary: no line of that policy precludes inclusion of these articles, except perhaps 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)

We will certainly not cite an Irish Times opinion piece for content other than opinion in an article on an academic topic. They do not "show" anything because they are not reliable for academic topics. I don't quite your insistence to add these subpar sources to the article. Surely having reviewed the academic literature makes you confidently express these strong views here, right? So why not just add the high quality sources forming the basis for your views instead of opinion pieces, CNN Money, and a working paper?

I thought we had progressed beyond the thinly-veiled insinuations? It is perfectly possible for IPs to know policy. 2A01:4B00:9D42:6E00:30:F5E0:8F6D:FBD3 (talk) 21:25, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Funny. I just found this [15]. Seems like the LSE paper was actually published; I am not sure why a working paper version was cited. The Socio-Economic Review is perhaps not as mainstream as we would wish, although the authors' choice is likely a result of their political economy focus (at King's, too, not LSE. I am not sure why we kept talking about the LSE). An interesting part I missed in my reading of the working paper: "Given the lack of consensus in existing empirical analyzes and the difficulties of making causal inferences from macro-level panel data analyzes, it remains an open empirical question how cutting taxes on the rich affects economic outcomes" - although we can probably discount that bit of academic rhetoric (why should the editor be interested in "closed" questions...) we certainly should think about how to summarise the sometimes conflicting evidence, particularly without getting close to WP:OR. 2A01:4B00:9D42:6E00:30:F5E0:8F6D:FBD3 (talk) 21:36, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Based on this, the paper could be included once again. The working paper thing was a red herring for this one. Andre🚐 21:47, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Some examples of OR that need to be removed

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".

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)

It's a reasonable assumption that "supply-side reforms like ending regulation" are "trickle-down policies." That isn't original research or synth. That's just basic factual background. And we have sources that make the connection. Andre🚐 14:53, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

OR clearly states that the requirement is "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." It does not say that you can add information based on an editor's "reasonable assumption". Bonewah (talk) 17:42, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

If the article has RSs that explicitly make the connection and assert identity, then the question of OR or SYNTH does arise. Andre, can you identify these sources please? --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 18:27, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

I've already offered these sources numerous times above [16] [17] [18] and there are many others. Andre🚐 18:42, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

This is actually a fantastic example of what I argued very early on, that the term is used very colloquially for often mutually exclusive policies. Andre's first link is related to quantative easing, a demand side economic policy. None of the sources make the connection needed to prevent the usages above from being WP:OR Squatch347 (talk) 18:51, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

(EC)Your claiming that those three sources backs up the claim that George H.W. Bush "had derided the trickle-down approach as "voodoo economics"? Because that is what is required. Simply finding something somewhere where someone says Trickle-down economics is not enough. The source must directly back up the claims being made. Bonewah (talk) 18:53, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Hang on, I wasn't offering the sources for the George H.W. Bush statement. I didn't add that statement, and I haven't researched it, and I don't know where it comes from. I was offering sources that substantiate the idea that "trickle-down policies" are defined as a variety of policies, which do not all have to be the same, because Wikipedia can cover different meanings and contexts in one article, that favor stimulus for the wealthy. Obviously, a specific claim of a quote from a Bush will need a source. But if it's clear from the context and the material in the sources given and the basic background knowledge that George H.W. was talking about trickle-down economics when he said voodoo economics, it is not SYNTH/OR. I'd say it's clear from inspection in the BBC News source given, since we have the other sources that describe "trickle-down" as a tax cut for the rich, which is also mentioned in the source. Andre🚐 18:58, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

At any rate here's another source for this from Detroit News. [19] 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)

The article you linked to does not say that. The ellipses you offer are half the article. And once again, “trickle-down” approach is offered in quotes, just as you would fora colloquial term, not a scientific one. I also note that the article you site mirrors Wikipedia quite a bit, which makes me think they were using this article as a basis for for their article. Bonewah (talk) 19:23, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

The quotes are only used in the first reference to the term. That's why I included the Galbraith part where the quotes are not used. The ellipsis does not change the meaning. It absolutely does support what is written in our article. The article is about trickle-down and it explains that H.W. Bush was using the term against Reagan's supply-side policies commonly known as trickle-down. There's no evidence for the theory that this article was cribbing from Wikipedia. The article is from 2017. Andre🚐 19:27, 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."

References

Control-f for 'trickle' in the source? 0 results. Bonewah (talk) 20:12, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

I don't agree about your "barest mention" since the article I shared is pretty much entirely about the concept we're discussing. As to the Kumar article, that one appears to be a working paper, so I assume it could be removed on that basis, rendering the question of its mention of trickle-down essentially moot. Instead we could use this one: [20] 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)

Again, I'm unimpressed by claims of things being more or less "scientific" based on whether they're using terms derived from stand-up comedy or cod-Greek. Why would people of the view that it's regressive hogwash be looking for $20 words for it? This is politics and economics, peeps, not particle physics. Nor of the "doesn't count as it's in quotes and half the article away" claims: here's the ellipses-free context for it, lest there being any doubt about what the referent of that "it" is (in an article that 'control-f'-ing, as suggested, produced seven matches, including the title): 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)

Thank you for the comment, and you are correct, on your ellipsis-reference extrapolation, which I appreciate. Without getting into the question of whether economics is a "science," well, it's certainly at least a social science, tho obviously not a hard science in my view. By the way, do you just edit anonymously or are you also someone else in this discussion, just checking? Andre🚐 22:57, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Gratified to have been of some assistance. I'd say more like at most a social science, but sure, all academic fields have their terms of (bachelor of) art. That rarely means that "supply-side" is in practice used with any more definitional precision than "trickle-down" is. And I can confirm that I'm neither sockpuppeting, not have I accidentally forgotten to log in a half-dozen times here. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 03:41, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Got it, thanks! Andre🚐 03:47, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

I think there is a fundamental difference in how we go about editing. You guys seem to believe that if a source mentions TD or TDE somewhere in the text it is fit for inclusion here. I dont agree with that, but that disagreement is better hashed out on a case by case basis. What is a much bigger issue is the notion that a source can be used even if it doesnt mention TDE at all, so long as an editor has a "reasonable assumption" that the source has something to do with what that editor believes trickle-down is. If that is what people here believe or how people intend to edit this article, then you are wrong. Full stop. There simply isnt a clearer example of what OR is than that.

So im ok with leaving the GHW Bush quote alone for now so that we can focus on the bigger issue, which is material based on citations that do not reference TD or TDE at all. So ill ask again, what is the basis for including the '2020 study by economist Anil Kumar' above? Bonewah (talk) 14:08, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

That is manifestly not true. The sources for HW Bush do reference trickle-down directly multiple times. And I already removed the 2020 Anil Kumar study. Andre🚐 14:28, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

So do you agree then that at a minimum, a source must at least mention TDE, and that the connection cannot simply be assumed? Bonewah (talk) 14:36, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

It depends on the context, but in general, synonymous terms and reasonable assumptions are certainly valid. Andre🚐 15:39, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

And so this gets to the core of the issue. I dont think SSE and TDE are synonyms nor do i think that its reasonable to assume that if a source is discussing tax cuts it is an appropriate source for this article. If you disagree with that, i would offer that perhaps we should make that the subject of our RfC, or otherwise seek outside advise on how to proceed. Having said that, im also willing to just go through all the examples of things we cite where the source does not explicitly say its about TDE. It might end up that they all get cut anyway without us having to hash out this disagreement. Bonewah (talk) 17:32, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Well, feel free to bring up the other examples of what you are concerned with and we can hash out those specifics as you say. I already removed the Kumar study which was a working paper anyway. Andre🚐 18:53, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

We clearly have many sources asserting that the two are synonymous, or at the very least largely so. And as far as I can see, even SSE zealots essentially concede that: we'd a 'Trussonomics' (if VE = unfunded TDE, than as far as I can see TN = VE when your shamanic reserve-currency towers aren't strong enough) talking head on UK TV news complaining that TDE was a "slur" for SSE. (Their poor delicate feels!) Can't really be a a slur if they don't denote more-or-less the same thing. I'm not even clear what the contrary position is. Which policies are are TDE but not SSE, or SSE but not TDE? More importantly, what's your source for this key distinction? Or are we going to apply a OR criterion as to what's OR? 109.255.211.6 (talk) 19:35, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

To play devil's advocate for them not being synonymous, even though I'd say they are about 85% synonymous in my mind, trickle-down has been used to describe other policies such as quantitative easing, which is a demand-side policy that still favors the wealthy. In the below section there is a discussion of Arthur Okun and William Baumol talking about how innovation trickles down, which is slightly different also from Reaganomics and SSE. TDE could be used to describe other policies where the trickle-down effect is presumed or theorized or posited that aren't strictly SSE. Andre🚐 19:56, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Generally speaking if two terms or topics have a 85% overlap, that's a pretty good sign they should likely end up as one article. Otherwise we're going to have one '15%' article, or a FORK on the 85% that's in constant danger of becoming a POV one. Or wikimuddle being wikimuddle, usually some roiling chaos combo of the two.

How common is it to describe QE as TDE? Don't recall coming across that myself, though certainly I've heard it suggested that it's generally been done in a way where wealthy financial institutions make out like bandits. I'll have to look at the Okun&Baumol material, but surely there's a difference between innovation per se, and 'let's deregulate and taxbreak to the benefit of rights-holders'. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 05:42, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

So I do agree with you that trickle-down is essentially supply-side economics most of the time, and like I said I was playing devil's advocate. But in the parallel thread above Bonewah advanced the very position I was caricaturing. There is at least one source that I shared in a different thread [21], and if you ctrl+F QE there's an unsigned message from someone else referring to what is I think a different one.

Coincidentally I was watching The Problem with Jon Stewart just now and I heard one of the panelists reference the idea that the race to the bottom in globalization trickles down. There are a lot of references to a trickle-down effect so there does seem to have been some generalization of the term into the common parlance, even though I do still think that SSE is the primary referent.

Personally, while I'm open to merging the articles because like I said, I think they are about 85% equivalent, I'm not really looking to have to argue that point, because the 15% to me is enough to have them be separate articles and have this one cover the aspect of the Venn diagram that is outside of SSE as economists describe that term. You have previously argued that SSE is equivalently amorphous to TDE and I'm open to that, but I suspect Squatch and Bonewah do not believe SSE is amorphous. Andre🚐 23:05, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

More OR

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.

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'

archive of WSJ Report: Tax Cuts for Wealthy Linked to Income Inequality

copy of CRS report

archive of WSJ Nonpartisan Tax Report Withdrawn After G.O.P. Protest

Bonewah (talk) 18:59, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

I have no objection to removing these sentences and both of these sources. Andre🚐 19:10, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

More OR cont.

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. 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. 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. 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."

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)

I don't agree to remove this carte blanche (as yet anyway). I haven't read all of this material in depth but I'll need some time to understand what all is being claimed here and how it's sourced. I do think I should have access to all of the sources via The Wikipedia Library which I suggest you sign up for. I do agree that this writing is a little hard to read and probably can be improved. But we'll need to review the sources closely and understand what's going on here first. So it's not at all clear that this is OR on the face of it. Andre🚐 19:24, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

The Okun work does discuss "trickle down" on p. 46 as mentioned, and for the Baumol book it does appear to have "trickle down" and discussion of such concepts around p. 77 so those two at least, seem legit. These at least are not OR by the standard of mentioning trickle-down by name. I didn't finish going through the Nordhaus and Romer sources yet, but if they are suitably related to the concepts from the Okun and Baumol work but use synonymous terminology, that would suffice to include. I'll need some more time to review the sources and the text, but I am leaning toward this not being OR, though it could be rewritten to be clearer for a general audience. Andre🚐 19:52, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

• Section is WP:SYNTH, we are drawing out relationships and connections not made in the sources. This wouldn't meet mustard on any page on wiki.

• I can’t see the Okun reference, what precisely is its usage?

• Nordhaus paper discusses Schumpeterian Profit and technological innovation which is not even the same topic of discussion in the earlier critiques. It is also a working paper. And unless we are transitioning this to a term only page, working papers do not meet WP:Primary requirements.

• Romer paper links to a working paper, but it does look like the DOI references an actual publication, so no issue there. But the paper itself is not about what is being implied or being referenced at large. This is about the trade benefits from a tariff, exactly the opposite of the term's usage earlier.

• Baumol source cites page 80, but that page does not contain the phrase trickle down. The closest is page 77, where he is discussing a model, and says "it is a benefit in the real world." Source does not support text.

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)

We can remove the Nordhaus working paper per the working paper thing. Okun and Baumol do both reference trickle down as I mentioned. The page as I mentioned reading it on was p.77. We can change the text to reflect the source more accurately. However, that doesn't make it original research since the source does talk about the topic and the quote appears to be accurate. If it's talking about the concept of trickle down and the context is appropriate, the words trickle down don't need to be on the same page. Original research isn't "drawing out relationships and connections not made in the sources," it's making conclusions and connections. If there are obvious relationships that in this case, ARE present in the sources, that's not OR/SYNTH. It can still be improved sure.

I strenously disagree that the article must be about either supply side, or the term's usage. It's about all of those things. Andre🚐 14:24, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Can you provide the text from Okun? So far this reference isn't verifiable.

I think we still need to remove the Romer paper, the source is explicitly about tariffs and only references trickle-down obliquely. The only use it could have would be in some kind of comment a la "economists sometimes use the term "trickle-down" to refer to the claim that positive eternalities of some policies can accrue to non-target groups." The current writing is completely at odds with that source's usage of the claim.

If we are going to retain Baumol, we have to dramatically re-write this addition since the source references these policies providing real world benefits.

The current writing is WP:OR because our conclusion is not explicitly in the sources. To whit: "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.""

Squatch347 (talk) 06:09, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

@Squatch347, you are completely wrong. The Okun reference is completely verifiable. I don't know why you are unable to verify it, but just because you are unable to, does not mean it is not verifiable. It is a published work and I was able to read it using the link given in the reference. To provide the full text here would be a copyright violation. But more to the point, just as you are fundamentally misunderstanding OR policy, you appear to not understand our core content policy V. Verifiable does not mean verified. At any rate I was able to read the book fine, so try harder I guess. That isn't on me. It clearly talks about trickle-down in the book.

I'm not opposed to rewriting the text but what is the conclusion that you claim we are reaching that is in not in the sources? Because previously you stated that even connecting a source that talks about the same thing is OR. It's not. What is this conclusion or analysis we are making? any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources Andre🚐 16:14, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

RE:Okun, ok where? What does it say? You said that you had seen the page, so I was asking what you found. The link provided above goes to an outdated archive.org page. I was curious what you had found in the spirit of collaboration. The best I can find is on page 45 where the author states that 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.

I would support something like the following:

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.

Squatch347 (talk) 06:08, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

As mentioned I saw the text on p. 77. Since you can read p. 45 I guess you are able to read the source through the archive.org link, I'm not sure what you mean about it being outdated. I don't see any real problem with your proposed text, though. Andre🚐 15:51, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, when I say outdated I mean that the link seems to have expired or not function. Could be me, I'm on a flaky connection right now. I was able to get previews, but not the full context on Google Books. I'm curious if what you had generally matched my impression from above? Squatch347 (talk) 05:55, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Could be you, but when I go to the archive.org page I am able to "borrow" the entire book. At any rate I have no objection to your edit. Andre🚐 15:48, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Third sentence is inconsistent with the rest of the paragraph, is unsupported and should be removed

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)

Contradictory sources aren't necessarily a problem, we just need to balance the viewpoints. We can't just come down on the side of one viewpoint. There are many sources in economics journal that evaluate trickle-down, perhaps critically, but this appears to be similar to the discussion in the RFC above. This article is about everything that anyone might have meant or used trickle-down to describe, including economics, news, and other. Andre🚐 18:29, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

@Kermi, take a look at the RFC above. I think your concern is also being referenced there. My proposal was to update this page to match its peers which discuss the term's usage rather than having it being a dumping ground for every single WP:PRIMARY somebody happens to find. If you could review some of that discussion and participate, I think it would address the concerns you mention here. Squatch347 (talk) 05:46, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Do you mean the sentence that begins 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 economies If 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)

Thanks for the suggestion @Squatch347. I just jumped in to the RFC. Hope it's a helpful contribution. Kerrni (talk) 02:12, 27 October 2022 (UTC)