This is an outstandingly awful article, which I'd change if it wouldn't be reverted back instantly. The iPod example (== Trickle-Up Economics?? == Why not trickle up economics? Make the minimum wage $15 an hour, and watch as all the "poor" people buy more goods and services than you could ever dream, thereby creating massive upward economic flow. Everybody wins. Right? Right?
That will increase production costs which leads to higher consumer costs, all your stupid idea will do is lead to consumer goods inflation. It will also lead to unemployment which is a known fact. Trickle down economics is not the same the same as the trickle down effect, the trickle down effect can be seen in the costs of mobile phones. Are you disputing that it exists? Are you disputing that products become less expensive? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sabaton10 (talk • contribs) 10:02, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Um, trickle down economics is retarded, and is not a theory of economics. It is bullshit, a sort of social loophole for corporations to maximize profit, and it should be taught as such. Any politician who even utters the phrase trickle down is a greedy puppet.
In response: The basic principle behind trickle-down economics rests on the observation that rich people save a greater percentage of their income than poor people. Therefore, if you give tax cuts to the richt, they will invest in the economy, benefiting everyone.
Even the things they consume (sometimes) lead to innovation; think of high-tech, high quality luxury items, like computers, electronics, automobiles.
One Jerk Theory of Trickle Down Economics
The only problem I've ever had with Trickle Down/Supply Side is what I call "the one jerk" instance. That is to say, if there is "one jerk" who can mess it up for everyone below his station then the use of Trickle Down as a national economic plan should be rethought. This problem is compounded more if the "one jerk" is/are the person(s) at the top of the pyramid. Should that person (or persons) choose to keep all the profit and not allow a downward flow of cash the whole theory is destroyed. That's the problem, it is an economic system that relies heavily on the altruism of the people, which as we all know is no certainty. As a result you can expect to see people resort to base behavior and greed. Unfortunate as that is... 220.127.116.11 20:39, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
See US distribution of income 2001-2003. Stirling Newberry 14:06, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I'm in favor of merging the two, but the guy who bollixed up the tricke-down theory/trickle-down economics has his opinions and he may want to mess up the trickle-down effect page. Jim Devine (jdevine) Jdevine 22:44, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I tried hacking through the other page, there wasn't much there that could not be woven in here. It's just going to take enough editors staying on top of it I am afraid. Stirling Newberry 01:23, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Makes sense to have one, tight trickle down article with redirects everywhere else (except for Reagonomics which could probably have its own article). Marlowe 16:38, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I'd suggest allowing both sides an interpretation at the bottom of the article with description at the top. This would allow easy access to both sides' arguments about this issue.
I higly support the combination since I think these two are one and the same. How does this work? --Pdbailey 23:33, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
If there is a merge, it probabaly should be under "Trickle down theory" --not effect. Effect is debatable, theory is not.--sansvoix 22:23, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
- Yikes, just noticed the last comment was half a year ago.
It needs to be named a theory or simply a concept. As far as the content in both threads it doesn't matter.. the truth remains. Since there is research to back up the fact it does not work it is not an effect it is a <<FALSE AND DISPROVED THEORY>>. There is a reason the economy boomed during clinton, because he raised the income taxes on the rich. You all are aware that taxes on the rich are already at an extremely low percentage compared to in the past. May i remind you all <<THIS PLACE IS ABOUT FACTS NOT POLITICS, TRICKLE DOWN ONLY WORKS FOR THE RICH>>. Facts are facts. This WAS a theory. The point is, the name is everything, <<WHEN PEOPLE READ THIS THEY'RE LOOKING FOR FACTS AND WHEN THEY READ THE WORD EFFECT THEY BELIEVE IT ACTUALLY WORKS OR HAS AN EFFECT WHEN IT DOESN'T.>> Do not misinform through poor nomenclature.
() instead of commas for appositive clauses.
inserting () instead of rewording
tax cuts to refer to rate reductions that lead to deficit spending. Only supply side economics believes that "tax cuts" are generally a "free lunch". Most economists, conservative and liberal, believe that if there is deficit spending, it will be paid for, and therefore a reduction that brings about a deficit is shifting taxes to some other group of tax payers, or to bond holders willing to take less than fair market value for their money. Politicians use "tax cuts" all the time because they want voters to believe there is a free lunch, economists tell politicians to use the words "tax cuts" to give people the belief in a free lunch. TINSTAAFL. Stirling Newberry 17:31, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I prefer TANSTAAFL, implying the more earthy "ain't" instead of "isn't" as the second word. But that's just me. Carry on. --Christofurio 03:52, Aug 24, 2004 (UTC)
I support the merger. When will it be merged, for Christ's sake?
Trickle-Down Theory relates not only to economics, but to innovation.
The major theory concerning innovation between social groups is the Trickle-Down Theory (Simmel, 1904, Fashion. International Quarterly, Vol. 10, 130-150). Originating from the world of fashion it is based on observations that "fashionable" people adopt goods which are unusual and thus can be represented as "better" (leading to them – probably both the good and the person - being perceived as more desirable), yet they are surprisingly rapid in disposing of exactly these goods when they are perceived to become common. In its most basic form, Trickle Down Theory states that two conflicting groups act as a motive force for innovation, where socially subordinate groups seek to establish parity by imitating the clothing, attitudes etc of the super ordinate group. The super ordinate group, in turn, abandons these status markers with alacrity and is therefore continually being driven to invent new ones in order to preserve the difference in status.
Trickle Down Theory has been modified by McCracken (1988, Culture and consumption. Indiana University Press), who noted firstly that the direction of diffusion is not actually "down", but up, and who added complexity ("trickle across") by introducing groups of intermediate social standing (gender, age and ethnicity) into the equation.
18.104.22.168 12:45, 15 December 2005 (UTC) Rob Mellor
Recently an anon user made some changes  that appear to be WP:POV and rather unecessary in the lead of an article. Plus, the addition includes a self-reference which should be removed. I would revise the article but I feel that I am not knowledgeable enough on economics to make the needed changes. -albrozdude 19:04, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
- The link above shows where some weasel words have been inserted. They might be the easiest to revise.Oobyduby 13:55, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
I took a chainsaw to this article because long passages of it appeared to be personal holding forth in favor of or against the ideas known as "trickle-down." Please remember the original research policy; the purpose of the article isn't to persuade people one way or the other. It's here to document what people have verifiably said about the term, or about the specific idea that reduced burdens on the wealthy will produce benefits for the broad population. Gazpacho 20:21, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
I have merged everything here that was about "trickle-down economics" to trickle-down theory and restarted the article as a stub about the marketing phenomenon that Rob Mellor refers to above. Apparently it precedes the political use by a few years, and we don't need two articles about the same thing. Gazpacho 07:09, 21 August 2006 (UTC)