Jump to content

Talk:Trickle-down economics

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by JaHolo (talk | contribs) at 03:27, 11 November 2023 (i wasn't logged in). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Sowell is a conservative economist

His article says it and has 2 references. Andre🚐 00:02, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It says he is a conservative, not a conservative economist. Those are two very different claims. Squatch347 (talk) 00:06, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Economist and conservative," work for you then? Andre🚐 00:10, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why would that be relevant to his quotation? I mean I get what you are going for here, but why? Should we also note he is black and male? Those are criteria irrelevant to his economic analysis right? Squatch347 (talk) 00:16, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
His political views are relevant, his race and gender are not. Andre🚐 00:17, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure why they are related to his professional views as an economist. We don't list the personal political views of every single person on any page vaguely related to politics. Unless there is a compelling reason to reference it, I would leave it off. Squatch347 (talk) 00:24, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's relevant because it affects how they are perceiving and interpreting. It's obvious that Sewell being a conservative says what he says, a conservative position. The Keynesians say things Keynesians would say. I will note you left in two instances of the word "liberal." It's obviously relevant and informative information, so I would leave it in, and you really haven't given any meaningful argument why to remove it. Andre🚐 00:27, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Whoa, we don't just assume bias from an author because they have a personal political opinion. If I left in two that was an oversight, but I am pretty sure I removed the liberal descriptor for the one I saw for Reich and the one for Krugman, I might have saved the wrong version. Removed now. Squatch347 (talk) 00:52, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say a word about bias, I said that we should describe their political views. It is quite relevant that Sewell worked in the Reagan era establishment and had an opinion on the economic impacts of tax policy. To omit that is a disservice to readers. Andre🚐 00:58, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I see you've removed all labels from economists. That reads surprisingly well; though I only really opposed the "Nobel laureate" or "Nobel winning" labels (it's pedantic, but Nobel never made that prize, and quite a few recipients were controversial for being non-mainstream). DFlhb (talk) 05:53, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I must say I'm happier without the political labels. One doesn't achieve or get academic plaudits for having a political opinion. Being a Nobel laureate however is an achievement. And I don't care if they aren't part of some established school of economics! Plus with the way people are divided nowadays they might as well have a second or two to read what a person says before classifying them as in their own camp or not. NadVolum (talk) 15:39, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I;m quite happy for working economists to be called economists as well, even in cases where they have no degree in economics as such. If they are generally recognized as economists that is a relevant accomplishment. I haven't put that back just the Nobel laureate one which recognizes outstanding accomplishment but happy if someone else does. NadVolum (talk) 16:07, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
have no degree in economics as such. If they are generally recognized as economists- who would that be? SPECIFICO talk 18:39, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I didn't mean to imply anyone called that in the article was like that. As to what I said, in [1] you said calling Jared Bernstein an economist was fine. NadVolum (talk) 18:55, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Don't misrepresent other editors' views and don't post off-topic remarks on article talk pages. You also might familiarize yourself with Bernstein's academic background and other resources in his article so that you don't repeat your errors. SPECIFICO talk 19:08, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well represent yourself properly then. Has he got a degree in economics? No - his qualifications are in music philosophy and social science. Did you say he was an economist? Quote "Bernstein is a policy-oriented mainstream economist, one of hundreds of thousands" in a discussion on this precise question. What's got you all riled up? I agree that he is an economist. NadVolum (talk) 22:59, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on article sourcing and content. If you do not understand that a large body of macroeconomic policy concerns social welfare, the topic of his Columbia PhD, please do your background research without making personal remarks here. Or write an article about SPECIFICO and you can engage your thougths there. SPECIFICO talk 23:24, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So no degree in economics as such. NadVolum (talk) 00:10, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
By the way I thought your remark there 'I stopped reading at "left-wing politicians". Next?' was a good illustration of one reason I said above of why we should stop labelling economists with their political leanings. NadVolum (talk) 00:30, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't any kind of tit for tat approach makes for a good article. It's fine in the interim, so we can gather good info and sources, but we should expect that those individual points will be moved and changes so that the article is actually readable and sensible. We want articles to flow through the information. At the moment, it's very disjointed below the history section. So, I think "republican" this guy, "liberal" that guy are ultimately non-meaningful labels for this article. Heavy Chaos (talk) 20:05, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's also the issue of timelessness. It's not conducive to paint "trickle down economics" as only the province of one particular politic (tax cutters), since that might not be true in the near future. Politics changes quickly. That Republican are "tax cutters" now doesn't mean they will be in the future, nor that Democrats never will be. And it ignores unknown unknowns. "Who" in the future might be neither Republican nor Democrat. Heavy Chaos (talk) 20:07, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's not relevant, the article is by its nature backward-looking and based on the reality we live in, not a hypothetical alternative. Andre🚐 22:41, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think you misunderstand my comment. Timelessness is a prose issue, not a content issue. You want to write the message in a way that mostly likely can't be misinterpreted by future changes. Heavy Chaos (talk) 19:42, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In general I agree - WP:10YEARSTEST is a good example of the guidelines around this. But avoiding recentism and maintaining a long-term view doesn't mean future-proofing per se. We should look at what the RS say and what the events were over time but given that most of the events we're talking about here pertain to the 1980s, that is sufficiently distant to describe as such. In other words, we do not need to account for the fact that That Republican are "tax cutters" now doesn't mean they will be in the future, nor that Democrats never will be. That is speculation. We should focus on the actual facts and historical truth. I don't mind leaving the labels out to be clear, but I am responding to your ideas about unknown unknowns. We should focus only on the known knowns and known unknowns. It's just a historical fact that the Republicans and Tories are the ones trying to cut upper end taxes. Andre🚐 21:01, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Trickle Up Section

In regards to this edit [2], it is based on an opinion piece and may violate WP:NPOV without a balancing aspect, and certainly does not provide enough RS consensus for the term "trickle up" to merit it's very own section, with only one very POV citation (Non-paywalled version). The other citation [3] does not use or even mention the term "trickle up". So I will revert for now, until there is some consensus if and how this addition would be made. DN (talk) 21:27, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

First, let's look at what I posted.

To juxtapose competing economic and political ideas, the terms trickle up and bottom up have been used. For example, the principle behind the Obama administration's actions was referred to as trickle-up economics,[1] but the term bottom-up economics was also used.[2] Biden's American Rescue Plan was also referred to as trickle up.[3] Accompanying labeling differed from most trickle down labels in that both Obama's and Biden's approaches were characterized as spending heavy programs, rather than tax cuts in any particular tax bracket.[4][5] At the same time, some criticisms of Obama's economic policy were labeled trickle up.[6]

Heavy Chaos (talk) 21:51, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Krugman, Paul (2016-09-16). "Opinion | Obama's Trickle-Up Economics". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2021-09-14.
  2. ^ Talbott, John R. (2011-01-04). Obamanomics: How Bottom-Up Economic Prosperity Will Replace Trickle-Down Economics. Seven Stories Press. ISBN 978-1-60980-068-0.
  3. ^ Baron, Neil. "Biden's 'trickle-up' economics is just what America needs". The Hill. Retrieved 9 February 2023.
  4. ^ Krugman, Paul (September 16, 2016). "Obama's Trickle-Up Economics". The New York Times. Retrieved 9 February 2023. Republicans accused Mr. Obama of being a "redistributionist," taking money away from "job creators" to give free stuff to the 47 percent. And they claimed that these socialistic policies were destroying incentives and blocking economic recovery.
  5. ^ Schrager, Allison. "Biden's trickle-up economics is bound to fail". The Frederick News-Post.
  6. ^ "Obama's trickle-up economy". New York Daily News. October 5, 2014. Add it up: Obama's economy has handsomely extended the long winning streak of the rich.
Thanks for helping put this in perspective, so that editors here can examine & discuss your changes more easily. As I mentioned before, most of these are opinion pieces. It would help if we had some WP:WEIGHT for inclusion such as a consensus of neutral RS along with some counter points, all preferably from academic sources or some well established news articles. That would help you build consensus, at least from editors like myself. Cheers. DN (talk) 22:04, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I understand what you mean, but these are examples of usage because, indeed, people do use the term on occasion. There is no need for any particular POV guarding. It's just what people say. This is the overall tone of the article: when people have used these terms, and what they are referring to. If you were unaware, there is a Trickle-up economics page, but it is terrible, and I actually favor a small section on this page and deleting that one.
This source [4] does support what it is supposed to support. It does use the terms bottom up in juxtaposition with trickle down, specifically for Obama's policies.
If you want to replace [5] with [6], I'm okay with that. Heavy Chaos (talk) 22:04, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
[7] Does not use the term "trickle up" anywhere that I can see. Could you at least provide the page number? "people do use the term on occasion...."...All due respect, without RS to back up the changes you want to make and give it WP:WEIGHT, it is only your opinion and therefore likely WP:SYNTH and/or WP:OR. Until you find some better sources, IMO it's a non-starter in terms of discussion, no offense. TDE has a multitude of RS and consensus among RS and editors such as myself for inclusion, i.e. not just opinion pieces. While it can also be considered a political term, the scope of it is not limited by it's use among political actors, as economists also use this term and have documented it's use and effects around the world. BTW I would be careful accusing other editors of "POV gaurding", as it could border on violating WP:CIVIL. Cheers. DN (talk) 22:53, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Darknipples I wasn't accusing you of pushing a POV. I meant that it's not actually possible to push a POV unintentionally when the topic is "This is what people say". Regarding OR or SYNTH, if that applies here, it applies to this entire article, especially OR. People do use the term, which includes usage in opinion pieces. Demanding that before recognizing this in the article there also be usage in RS is a non-sequitur. But, if you insist opinion pieces need to be accompanied by non opinion pieces, I might be able to find some. I'll have to look harder at that ref; I lifted it from the trickle up article. Speaking of which, if you see no sense in there being a trickle up section here, then I presume you favor deleting the trickle up article? Heavy Chaos (talk) 23:11, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for clarifying, hopefully you see how that may have been misinterpreted. (Regarding Synth OR) The argument you are using here seems to have shades of the Fallacy of composition. As far as calling my request for RS instead of ONLY opinion pieces a non-sequitur, I question whether or not you are experienced enough to understand the importance of Wikipedia:Reliable sources. We will need to be on the same page in that regard before we can make any further progress towards consensus...(bold emphasis mine)

Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered (see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view). If no reliable sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it.

One last thing I would add to help you in achieving consensus. Make sure your sources (and preferably the material you specifically wish to add) mention "trickle up" in context to trickle down economics. If your source only discusses "trickle up" with no relation to the subject at hand (TDE) it is likely not to be worthy on inclusion in this article since in that instance it would seemingly bare no reference to this article (TDE). See WP:RSCONTEXT Best of luck. Cheers. DN (talk) 23:36, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Speaking of which, if you see no sense in there being a trickle up section here, then I presume you favor deleting the trickle up article?"...In this case, I would not assume anything at this point. Let's not conflate issues here, if I have an opinion about that article I will share it there. That said, I will take a look. Cheers. DN (talk) 23:43, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
After checking the trickle up article it would seem that this [[8]] would qualify as RS for inclusion of "trickle up" in the this (TDE) article (given it includes an inline citation and attribution etc...), especially since it includes mention of trickle down in it. At this time I would not say that it deserves it's very own section, but would be better suited in an existing section. Placement would have to be determined by consensus, but I am open to suggestions. Cheers. DN (talk) 00:04, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with DN it probably doesn't need its own section here, just a one sentence intro and link to the main article. Andre🚐 00:15, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there's enough legit info for the main article to exist, so I don't favor linking to it at all. I do think the the slight usage we do see, which is almost always in juxtaposition with "trickle down", is worth a paragraph, not just a sentence.
I don't get how RS is DN's problem with it though. The article already mentions trickle up in several places, including the lead, a source that puts it in the title, Stiglitz in the econ section, and Will Rogers' quote that started this whole thing. Additionally, Sowell said "flow up" in the same context. RS is using it everywhere! @Darknipples Would you be happy if I recited those in the proposed paragraph? Heavy Chaos (talk) 00:43, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So what you're actually proposing is to merge the articles. That is a different discussion. I'm not sure I think they should be merged, but there's an argument there. If the article already links to it, which it does, that is fine as is. You can propose the merge if you wish. Andre🚐 00:50, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Andrevan If make a small mention here and delete everything there is technically a merger, sure. In effect, I don't see the difference. In practice, I suppose merger is generally more doable, concensus wise. Heavy Chaos (talk) 01:11, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That would be a merge, yes, so don't do it please, since that should be proposed and discussed per WP:MERGEPROP Andre🚐 01:43, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Andrevan OK, well, let's see if DN comes back in the next few days, then we can get something about trickle up on this trickle down page, then purpose the merge. Sound good? Heavy Chaos (talk) 01:53, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is getting way beyond "economics" into oratory, polemics, and politics. Economists discuss demand-side and supply-side stimulus in a more or less rigorous way with a common analytical framework. The rest is wordplay. SPECIFICO talk 02:28, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This talk page is filled with exactly that argument. This isn't an economics thing, it's an "oratory, polemics, and politics" thing. Yeah, wordplay. But what are you saying? I reviewed your few messages on this page and I can't tell any theme on what you would favor for this article. You messages seem incongruent. Are you saying we shouldn't mention trickle up at all, the point of this section? Are you saying something bigger, like, we should or shouldn't have content about something? I need you to clarify your viewpoint, and specifically what "this" refers to in this particular message. Thanks. Heavy Chaos (talk) 03:28, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lead vs body

I saw the bits I added about Thatcher and Hayek added to the lead. I don't oppose this but it should be in both the lead and the body - the lead is supposed to summarize the body. Andre🚐 22:49, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly, but it was in the history section. It didn't seem to belong there. Maybe the Usage>economics section is better, if you are thinking of using the original "Hayek, related to Thatcher" wording. Heavy Chaos (talk) 00:34, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with putting it in the economics section. Andre🚐 00:14, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A few sources

Business Economics, Theory and application, by Neil Harris (Butterworth Heinemann, publishers, 2001): “During Ronald Reagan's presidency the 'trickle down' theory of wealth creation was advanced, which argued that if the rich become even richer it would cause the wealth created to 'trickle downwards', making poorer people better off.” p. 197-198, [[<https://archive.org/details/0360-pdf-business-economics-theory-and-application-0750644540/page/197/mode/1up?q=trickle+>]]

$10,000 gold : why gold's inevitable rise is the investor's safe haven, Nick Barisheff, (Wiley publishers, 2013). “In 1981, things began to change. Ronald Reagan took office in January. He introduced a program of tax cuts designed to encourage business owners to grow. It was called “trickle down” economics, as hypothetically the tax cuts to the rich would stimulate job creation.”, p. 139 [[<https://archive.org/details/10000goldwhygold0000bari/page/139/mode/1up?q=trickle+>]]

State Department cable, via WikiLeaks Balancing Openness and Social Conservatism “He says that ASEZA [Aqaba Special Economic Zone Authority, Jordon] officials subscribe to the “trickle-down theory” of economics, in that the initial benefits of the development plans are intended to benefit the wealthy, but eventually tangible benefits will filter down to the lower rungs of society.” [[<https://archive.org/details/04AMMAN2554/mode/1up?q=trickle+down>]]

Thatcherism Trickle down?

The bit in the lead saying Reaganomnomcs an Thatcherism were Trickle down has been removed saying it is unsupported by the citation. The citation is

Redenius, Charles (April 1983). "Thatcherism and Reagonomics: Supply-Side Economic Policy in Great Britain and the United States". Journal of Political Science. 10 (2, Article 4). The Athenaeum Press. ISSN 0098-4612. Archived from the original on December 2, 2022. Retrieved 9 February 2023.

As far as I can see if that doesn't support that Thatcherism was Trickle down it doesn't support that Reaganomics was trickle down. It says hey pursued similar policies cutting taxes ina way that helped the rich preferentiually and saying that the economy should be freed andto be drven more by rich investors and entrepreneurs which would benefit everyone eventually - but in the meantime they needed to tighten financial control. And it explicitly calls that type ofpolicytrickle down.

What am I reading differently that could be interpreted to remove Thatcherism? NadVolum (talk) 23:51, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The section which mentions the term "trickle down" refers to US policy, not British policy. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 19:58, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The people quooted are American but it describes supply side economics as trickle down - that's why the title is 'The supply side alternative'. The whole article was about Thatcher and Reagan taking up supply side economics. It has 'In a moment of candor, David Stockman, Reagan's director of the Office of Management and Budget, stated that supply-side economic theory was merely "trickle" down economics renamed'", one might as well say the supply side economics being implemented unde Reagan wasn't actually described as trickle down because he didn't say Reagan was implementing that version of supply side economics. NadVolum (talk) 22:05, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's an Americanism and the term was applied in an American context. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 22:55, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. There's lots of other ones saying it, I'll find anothe when I get back to this article. NadVolum (talk) 23:13, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not encyclopedic

This article is not encyclopedic. It defines the topic as what critics don't like about it. Those critics may be absolutely correct but people should still be able to come and read what trickle down economics are. Another article defines trickle down economics as: 'employs policies that include tax breaks and benefits for corporations and the wealthy that trickle down to benefit everyone.' And that is what trickle down economics are. I AM NOT saying trickle down economics work or that they are a good thing. But it's our job to create an encyclopedia. If we can have an article about Hitler and the KKK that define what those actually are, we can have one here too. JaHolo (talk) 03:27, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Trickle-down_economics&oldid=1184552965"