Talk:Trickle-down economics

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Trickle-down economics article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5: 90 days

This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Economics C‑class Mid‑importance

	Business and economics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EconomicsWikipedia:WikiProject EconomicsTemplate:WikiProject EconomicsEconomics articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Conservatism C‑class Mid‑importance

	Conservatism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Politics: American C‑class Mid‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

United States: Government C‑class Mid‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government (assessed as Mid-importance).

Taxation C‑class (inactive)

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Taxation, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.TaxationWikipedia:WikiProject TaxationTemplate:WikiProject TaxationTaxation articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Daily pageviews of this article

A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org

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]

I can see you have a view, but what would be far more useful is a citation. The name of the book or the journal and title of the article plus issue and page number. Then other editors can assess it for themselves. You already found it - why waste other editors' time? NadVolum (talk) 09:13, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You want me to provide a citation on why this article does not describe Trickle Down Economics? That's a ridiculous request and you know such a citation doesn't exist. Why waste other editors time? JaHolo (talk) 20:26, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Opposed and reverted your bold removal. This will not be acceptable. Andre🚐 21:46, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

on what basis? all you've said is that it was sourced. a piece of information being sourced doesn't mean it belongs in the lede. the lede should clearly summarize the topic. this one does not. most of it is devoted to explaining what critics think. that should go in a criticism section. and TDE should be clearly summarized. it isn't, anywhere. JaHolo (talk) 23:03, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There's been extensive discussion of this in the talk page in the past, but the overwhelming consensus in past discussions is that "TDE" isn't a term used by economists in favor of supply side economics. It's mainly used in politics and by journalists, and by economics who want to criticize supply-side or other economic policy arguments like the Laffer curve. It's a "zombie bad idea" as the source you removed states. Andre🚐 23:16, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

then the lede should say that. what you just wrote is far more informative than the current word salad the lede is now, which doesn't even attempt to explain what trickle down economics is. I don't understand how anyone could think this lede accurately summarizes anything. it basically says "trickle down economics is a bad idea held by dumb people." ya ok, but WHAT IS IT. JaHolo (talk) 23:31, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not claiming everything's great about the article or that no improvement might be made to it. But the edits I reverted just went ahead and removed a bunch of sourced material including what I just wrote. Andre🚐 23:33, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is absolutely an issue that needs to be addressed with the article. The article is heavily biased. The first paragraph should be rewritten. Criticism can be mentioned after defining TDE Nukey18mon (talk) 02:35, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, been discussed many times, you can't just charge in and allege bias. It's a process. Andre🚐 02:53, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, how does that process work and how do we start it? Two of us have brought this up and you seem to just like to handwave us off like flies. JaHolo (talk) 05:45, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(And we'll just pretend the process isn't Editor A makes an edit, nobody reverts their edit)JaHolo (talk) 05:53, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Payola

This article is in need of recognizing the political grift of paying the electorate for an election. Thomas Sowell's "trickle down economic" recognition of the actuality of the political crime. The legislative violation of the Hatch Act. JohnPritchard (talk) 14:38, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You will need to demonstrate broad WP:RS evidence for that narrative if it is to be considered for this article page. SPECIFICO talk 15:53, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thinking that my role, in this case, is to recognize a well known if barely recognized concept. JohnPritchard (talk) 23:22, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV dispute Introduction paragraph

The introduction to this article is heavily biased against trickle down economics. It defines TDE in terms of what critics believe its effects are, and not what TDE actually is. Any reader looking at a glance would not have a clear understanding of the topic because of this.

Suggestion for change: Define TDE in terms of its policies, followed by the theory behind it, then followed by a brief statement of critiques that is clearly expressed as such. The critiques should not be stated as fact, because they are opinion. I hope to see this done. Nukey18mon (talk) 02:43, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What reliable source would you like to furnish to support your suggestions? Andre🚐 02:56, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here is Wikipedia’s policy on neutrality.

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view Nukey18mon (talk) 03:25, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but what reliable sources are you offering to define what TDE is for the lead? Andre🚐 04:11, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here are multiple reliable that all agree on the definition of TDE. My apologies for not understanding your initial comment

https://www.finance-monthly.com/amp/2023/06/economy-101-trickle-down-economics/

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/t/trickledowntheory.asp

https://www.economicshelp.org/blog/174/economics/trickle-down-economics/ Nukey18mon (talk) 04:45, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, not a one of those is a reliable secondary academic high-quality source. Andre🚐 05:03, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Care to elaborate? Nukey18mon (talk) 05:52, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you propose specific text for a new lead paragraph that incorporates the currently-cited quality sources as well as additional sources of the same caliber. Basically Wikipedia reports what reliable sources report. Do you have any evidence that the cited sources are "opinion" as you claim? ~Anachronist (talk) 05:33, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]