Talk:Trickle-down economics/Archive 3
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
RFC
Is trickle-down an economics theory? Andre🚐 13:39, 11 October 2022 (UTC) Adding a clarification question 1a: should economic sources be usable on this article? Andre🚐 17:53, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
- This seems to me to be a loaded question, for a number of reasons:
- it is incomplete: it does not make sense to ask this question about "trickle-down" without at the same time asking about "supply-side economics", which is the other side of the same coin. At present, we have two articles covering essentially the same topic, contrary to WP:FORK
- an economic theory according to whom? The suffix "economics" is attached to both names but the concept is derided by professional economists as political ideology without evidence base. It is to real economics as pseudoscience is to real science: make an assertion and then search for evidence that supports it and ignore evidence that contradicts it. The London School of Economics paper lists the many cases where it has been shown to have had no appreciable effect. At least homeopathy elicits a placebo effect, this has none.
- Can you redraft a more complete and NPOV version? --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 15:01, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
- This appears to be getting into the substance of the question. I'm not proposing a merge or a rename or a move, I'm asking whether, per the above discussion, it should be considered an economic theory and therefore we are able to use economic sources in this article discussing it, or whether as @Bonewah has claimed,
trickle down is not a real economic theory.
Andre🚐 15:53, 11 October 2022 (UTC) - As far as the WP:POVFORK question: I am open to a rename or a merge discussion. However that is not what is being proposed here: I just want to establish that "trickle down economics" is a legitimate WP:COMMONNAME for the group of economic theories closely related to the idea of supply side Andre🚐 18:43, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
- This appears to be getting into the substance of the question. I'm not proposing a merge or a rename or a move, I'm asking whether, per the above discussion, it should be considered an economic theory and therefore we are able to use economic sources in this article discussing it, or whether as @Bonewah has claimed,
- It is unclear what the question is attempting to accomplish here. Trickle-down economics / Trickle-down theory certainly exists as an encyclopedic topic. As I understand it, it is widely considered discredited. I have not examined the sources to evaluate what level of support, if any, it has within the field of professional economics. A more clear question or proposal would be required. I suggest this RFC be withdrawn and, if appropriate, the dispute or proposal be made more clear in a new RFC. Alsee (talk) 15:44, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
- Please see the discussion above: multiple users are claiming that it is not an economic theory and therefore we should not include economic sources in the article. I agree that it is discredited, but that does not make it not an economic theory. Andre🚐 15:51, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
- You haven't defined "an economic theory". Bonewah asserts that trickle-down is not an economic theory but supply-side is an economic theory. That simply doesn't make sense, since they are alternative names for the same ideological proposition. So neither is an economic theory or both are. I will be intrigued to see a definition of this coin that manages to approve of "heads" while disapproving of "tails". --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 16:12, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
- @Andrevan I was reading the above, attempting to figure out the issue here, while you were replying. Perhaps I went over it too quickly, but I still struggle to understand the intended result here. Your comment about including (or not) economic sources was somewhat helpful. However I still suggest you withdraw this RFC, and if necessary start a new RFC actually specifying the sources you propose to use, and the text you want to include based on them. Actually... I strongly suggest that you identify specific sources and proposed text, and discuss them with editors here before opening a new RFC. That discussion might resolve the issue, and even if it doesn't, it will help define and refine the dispute for a future RFC and people arriving for that RFC. It's really hard to respond to this vague current RFC or the rambling and imprecise wall of text above. Alsee (talk) 16:14, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
- I actually don't have a proposal to change the article as it exists today: @Bonewah and @Squatch347 claim that the article should be extensively trimmed to remove economic sources because trickle-down isn't a real economic theory, but just a pejorative term. So I'm not really sure if I can clarify it in the way you are asking for. Andre🚐 17:42, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
- Then surely the solution is to merge the articles? (Though of course since Supply-side "economics" is not a real* economic theory either, I guess their objections should continue to apply
. Somehow I doubt it, though.) [*"Real", as in taken seriously by notable academic economists.] --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 18:49, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
- Then surely the solution is to merge the articles? (Though of course since Supply-side "economics" is not a real* economic theory either, I guess their objections should continue to apply
- I actually don't have a proposal to change the article as it exists today: @Bonewah and @Squatch347 claim that the article should be extensively trimmed to remove economic sources because trickle-down isn't a real economic theory, but just a pejorative term. So I'm not really sure if I can clarify it in the way you are asking for. Andre🚐 17:42, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
- Please see the discussion above: multiple users are claiming that it is not an economic theory and therefore we should not include economic sources in the article. I agree that it is discredited, but that does not make it not an economic theory. Andre🚐 15:51, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, in that it's a slightly pejorative way to refer to supply-side economics (or one could argue equally that "supply-side economics" is a euphemism for trickle-down economics). From reading the discussion above, I think the dispute here is actually
Is trickle-down economics an economic theory, or a political term, or both?
I would personally say "both", and frankly I'd support merging the two pages since I don't think there's enough of a distinction to justify the split. Loki (talk) 18:51, 11 October 2022 (UTC)- Thanks, I agree that is a better framing of the question, I will change it to that if everyone agrees that this is an NPOV rephrasing of the question. Andre🚐 18:54, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
- I would also support merging the two pages into supply-side economics, perhaps with a section titled "Trickle-down economics" showing how it is a perjorative term for supply-side economics Bellowhead678 (talk) 09:59, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, don't really understand the argument against it. Ortizesp (talk) 17:55, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
- I would say yes. Trickle-down economics is, for as controversial as it is, a way of thinking. At the very least, it's a widely-recognized component of both Reaganomics and the economic policy of Liz Truss. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 18:25, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
Much of the discussion here could be avoided by a thorough reading of previous posts on this Talk Page. For example, I wrote over five years ago, "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) 19:02, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
- Are you saying that those advocates used the term Trickle-down interchangeably with Supply-side? Even Tricky-Dick said Trickle-Down? SPECIFICO talk 19:27, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
- I agree that the RFC is unclear. My specific concern with this article is that the term 'trickle-down' is a political term, not an economic theory, and should be treated as such. The way i know this is that for any other economic theory, i can easily produce an abundance of reliable academic sources which clearly say "X is an economic theory that holds Y." Monetarism? Yup, no sweat. Keynesian economics yes, again, easily. Even much maligned supply side economics has an entry in my copy of Case and Fair's Macroeconomics. I have yet to see any such thing for trickle-down. Indeed, that same Macro textbook doesnt even have an entry in its index for trickle down. Now, obviously, i have not looked at every possible reliable academic source, notably, i dont have a copy of The New Palgrave: A Dictionary of Economics (which is used as a source for the definition of Monetarism) but i do have several sources which explicitly say T-D is not an economic theory. Thomas Sowell - “Trickle Down” Theory and “Tax Cuts for the Rich”
Moreover, the reasons for proposing such tax cuts are often verbally transformed from those of the advocates— namely, changing economic behavior in ways that generate more output, income and resulting higher tax revenues— to a very different theory attributed to the advocates by the opponents, namely “the trickle-down theory.” No such theory has been found in even the most voluminous and learned histories of economic theories
. 'Knowledge at WhartonAlthough 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.
Fee.orgThe problem with this term is that, as far as I know, no economist has ever used that term to describe their own views.
None of these sources are fantastic, but they do say what ive been saying, that Trickle-down is a political term, one used by journalists and politicians, not economists in a scholarly way. Indeed, this article defines it as such in the lede "Trickle-down economics is a term used in criticism of economics policies favoring the higher-income brackets and those with substantial wealth or capital." - So what do i want? Simple, if trickle-down is a political term, this article should cover it as such. @SPECIFICO: You say Nixon used the term? Great! Lets source it and use that here. Sounds like a relevant entry in the history of a political term. @DOR (HK):, Stein, Mundell and Hubbard come to mind? Source it and lets see where it fits in. What we should not do is be citing economic studies (for or against) about tax policy or economic growth or any kind of scientific paper that seeks to debunk or support a theory that isnt actually a theory at all. This would be most of the material under the 'economics' subsection of 'criticisms'. Maybe that material can find a home in the Supply side economics article, but i frankly think its WP:OR here or there.
- For my part, i have two more standard issue college Macro textbooks on order, ill see what they say when i get them, and i can try to get to the library and check New Palgraves. I cant really prove a negative, but, in my mind, if multiple academic sources either dont describe it as an economic theory, then it probably isnt. This is Voodoo economics, an important historical term, not a scientific one. Bonewah (talk) 21:04, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you for replying. I submit that the RFC is clear enough and this is your opinion/response to it. You believe that it is a political term, and not an economic theory. Andre🚐 21:25, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
- There's nothing scientific about either term. "Supply Side" was just as much a lipstick-on-the-pig term as "Trickle-down" was an ironic evocation of the same pig. We have decades of empirical evidence and it does not hold water. And a policy idea, such as Supply Side, is not the same thing as a scientific or well-formed logical "theory" in any case. SPECIFICO talk 01:51, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
- I agree that the RFC is unclear. My specific concern with this article is that the term 'trickle-down' is a political term, not an economic theory, and should be treated as such. The way i know this is that for any other economic theory, i can easily produce an abundance of reliable academic sources which clearly say "X is an economic theory that holds Y." Monetarism? Yup, no sweat. Keynesian economics yes, again, easily. Even much maligned supply side economics has an entry in my copy of Case and Fair's Macroeconomics. I have yet to see any such thing for trickle-down. Indeed, that same Macro textbook doesnt even have an entry in its index for trickle down. Now, obviously, i have not looked at every possible reliable academic source, notably, i dont have a copy of The New Palgrave: A Dictionary of Economics (which is used as a source for the definition of Monetarism) but i do have several sources which explicitly say T-D is not an economic theory. Thomas Sowell - “Trickle Down” Theory and “Tax Cuts for the Rich”
- Quick summary of my concern: We are using WP:Primary sources that don't mention the phrase "Trickle-Down" in them based on WP:Synth that it is the same thing as Supply side economics without an authoritative source equating the two.
- We do have several sources saying that this is a colloquial usage (including our lede) and that no economist holds a "trickle down" policy prescription. As such, I think this article fits into the broad category of articles we have where we reference colloquial phrases that meet WP:Notability standards, which this one seems to do.
- I'm open to a merge under the supply side economics page since this term is generally used against those advocating for supply-ish side policies (though not always). But preferrably, we would limit the scope of the article to its use journalistic and political spheres, which would bring it in line with the more general article structure for colloquial terms.
- What we can't do, imo, is use papers that should, properly be on the Supply Side page as if this article were the same thing based solely on our WP:OR. Squatch347 (talk) 08:20, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
Is there something about "Herbert Stein ( under Nixon)" that makes people think Nixon -- and not Stein -- used the term? DOR (HK) (talk) 17:37, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
- Without a source, its impossible to say for sure. Bonewah (talk) 13:28, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
- It's partly gratifying and partly chastening to see my ad-hoc stab at the lead sentence being quoted as authoritative. (See a little up the page, it's quite recent.) I think it's an OK summary of the article, and in line with the dictionary definitions (I should add a couple of cites), but it really doesn't address the fundamental issue: what's the scope of this article? Is it, or can usefully be, different from that of SSE? Is there any area of policy that can consistently be said to be one rather than the other? What we have it present is the usual 'just grew' mishmash, unfortunately. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 17:28, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
I think we have seen the beginning of a consensus form here, but it might be easier if we start to agree on something a bit more basic. I'd like to ask the participating editors to weigh in on the question, is the scope of this page the discussion of a term or the discussion of a policy proposal? Thanks Squatch347 (talk) 07:05, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
- Term. The article starts with a clear emphasis that this is a term used. All of the history references are about the terms usage. And the article lacks any source defining this as a policy proposal. Squatch347 (talk) 07:05, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
- Term This RFC is a total hash as the creator picked out a small slice of the overall discussion and asked it without any clear context. This is a term not a scientific theory and should be treated as such. Bonewah (talk) 13:09, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
- Term. My reading of the consensus (Andre aside) is that "Supply-side economics" is discredited pseudo-economics and that "trickle-down economics" is a characterising term to criticise it. I can see no credible justification for deleting WP:RS citations just because they are not peer-reviewed journal papers since no reputable economist is going to make themselves look foolish by taking it seriously (except to produce more evidence debunking it). BTW, if anyone was in any doubt that SSE is discredited hogwash, they just need to look at the bond-market reaction last week to the UK government's plan to try it yet again.--𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 14:38, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
- Loki and Ortizesp as well as @Aquillion also commented indicating that trickle-down is coherent as an economic theory, as mentioned I am not opposed to a merge with supply-side, but Bonewah and Squatch are. Andre🚐 14:55, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
- Its not an economic theory unless you can find reliable sources which define it as such. You cant RfC your away around verifiability. Bonewah (talk)
- Plentiful sources were provided discussing it in the context of economics. Just because these sources take a negative view of the underlying veracity does not make it not an economic theory, and this is getting into WP:IDHT territory as this has been discussed and there is no consensus for your viewpoint. Andre🚐 16:36, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
- That is not true. What you did provide were sources that used the term, not ones that defined it. wp:V is clear "Readers must be able to check that any of the information within Wikipedia articles is not just made up. This means all material must be attributable to reliable, published sources. Additionally, quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by inline citations." Im challenging that Trickle-down is a well defined coherent economic theory. Bonewah (talk) 17:38, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
- But we did define it, though it "lacks a universally understood meaning"[1]. Which, again, is not a reason to remove the economic sources that discuss it. The sources clearly describe it as related to the theory of supply side economics. In short, that tax breaks for the wealthy will trickle down, as popularized by Reagan. "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) Andre🚐 18:16, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
- If a source (economic or otherwise) discusses TD directly, then sure we can use it. But if a source does not discuss TD directly, then no, we cannot *because* TD "lacks a universally understood meaning". If it lacks a universally understood meaning, then it is not up to us to imagine one into existence. Which is to say that we can not quote research papers on tax cuts or whatever that do not themselves draw some connection with TD. Bonewah (talk) 19:05, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
- I agree. Examples of usage without a definition do not constitute a valid citation. And any such definition must state clearly that it is a creditable thesis in economics, distinguishable from SSE. And the source must be credibly NPOV. So not the Cato or the Heritage "institutes". Good luck with that. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 19:31, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
- Consensus doesn't support your view: it has a meaning but that meaning isn't universally understood, but there is meaning nonetheless as sources use it. So if we have sources that talk about trickle down even if they don't define it, that can be used. Andre🚐 19:34, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
- Thats fine by me. Its my desire to remove statements where the source cited does not use the term "trickle-down" at all. Note, *can* be used is not the same as *must* be used. If that is agreeable to you, then lets end this RfC and we can get to work doing so. Bonewah (talk) 19:46, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
- If terms make sense in context and are tied together with reliable secondary sources, economic sources may be used. You argued that economic sources may not be used. I don't agree. If you agree to stop mass removal of economic sources because trickle down is not an economic theory, we could have an agreement. Otherwise, the RFC should continue. Andre🚐 20:00, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
- [edit conflict] Nor yours. You can't infer a definition from an example of use, still less conclude that it categorises it is as a credible theory in economics: to do so is unambiguously OR. I don't wish to prolong this agony: provided we conclude that reliable sources may be used even if they are not peer-reviewed journals, I agree to closing the RFC though I don't envy the closer who has to make any sense of it. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 19:52, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
- If there's no consensus for the mass removals of sourced content, the status quo remains. Andre🚐 19:55, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
- Nor do I agree it's OR to see the many economic sources that discuss trickle-down economics and say it is not a topic in economics. I didn't say it was correct. Andre🚐 20:00, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
- I suggest you quit while you are ahead. We may differ about how we got here but if we can agree that relevant RSs should not be deleted or precluded, let's just wrap it up here. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 20:06, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
- I don't agree that we need to wrap it up. It is definitely not clear to me that we have clarity or a consensus. RFCs typically may run for up to 30 days. It's only been 6. Andre🚐 20:08, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
- We lack clarity because the RfC was unclear. We should have asked if we can use sources which do not explicitly say they are about or in reference to trickle-down as that is the heart of the disagreement. If you wont agree to close the RfC then will you agree to re-word it so users can weigh in on what is actually at issue? Bonewah (talk) 20:45, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
- I'd propose rewording the RFC as I suggested above per @LokiTheLiar:
Is trickle-down economics an economic theory, or a political term, or both?
Andre🚐 20:47, 17 October 2022 (UTC)- I disagree as 1)If its an economic term, then you need reliable sources which explicitly say it is an economic term and define it. No amount of editor opinion can change remove that requirement. And 2) the core of the disagreement is about sources that we are using that do not mention trickle-down, but some editors think are relevant to trickle down. You even say so yourself
If there's no consensus for the mass removals of sourced content
. Yes, it is my stated position that we should remove all content that does not explicitly refer to Trickle-down. Not inferred, or implied as decided by what some editor thinks its meaning is.Bonewah (talk) 21:01, 17 October 2022 (UTC)- I submit that I've already offered sources that consider it an economic term, they just say the definition's boundaries are blurry, but they do characterize that. And contrary to your term, consensus will override your opinion on whether the sources are sufficient. Andre🚐 21:03, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
- Since we still appear to have no consensus on what the consensus is, that is going to be somewhat difficult. Who gets to decide who overrides what? --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 23:22, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
- That is the purpose of the RFC: Bonewah and Squatch stated that trickle-down is not an economic theory. Their argument lacks consensus. If we want to all agree that trickle-down has a coherent reference point in terms of economic policy and impact, even though many of the sources do not support the idea that it is good or valid or accurate, then there is no dispute. I contend that it IS an economic term as well as a political one. That is the question in the RFC. Bonewah wants to remove sources because according to him, we don't know it's about trickle down economics unless the term is defined strictly to his satisfaction. Andre🚐 23:26, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
- Since we still appear to have no consensus on what the consensus is, that is going to be somewhat difficult. Who gets to decide who overrides what? --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 23:22, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
- I submit that I've already offered sources that consider it an economic term, they just say the definition's boundaries are blurry, but they do characterize that. And contrary to your term, consensus will override your opinion on whether the sources are sufficient. Andre🚐 21:03, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
- I disagree as 1)If its an economic term, then you need reliable sources which explicitly say it is an economic term and define it. No amount of editor opinion can change remove that requirement. And 2) the core of the disagreement is about sources that we are using that do not mention trickle-down, but some editors think are relevant to trickle down. You even say so yourself
- I'd propose rewording the RFC as I suggested above per @LokiTheLiar:
- We lack clarity because the RfC was unclear. We should have asked if we can use sources which do not explicitly say they are about or in reference to trickle-down as that is the heart of the disagreement. If you wont agree to close the RfC then will you agree to re-word it so users can weigh in on what is actually at issue? Bonewah (talk) 20:45, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
- I don't agree that we need to wrap it up. It is definitely not clear to me that we have clarity or a consensus. RFCs typically may run for up to 30 days. It's only been 6. Andre🚐 20:08, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
- I suggest you quit while you are ahead. We may differ about how we got here but if we can agree that relevant RSs should not be deleted or precluded, let's just wrap it up here. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 20:06, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
- Thats fine by me. Its my desire to remove statements where the source cited does not use the term "trickle-down" at all. Note, *can* be used is not the same as *must* be used. If that is agreeable to you, then lets end this RfC and we can get to work doing so. Bonewah (talk) 19:46, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
- If a source (economic or otherwise) discusses TD directly, then sure we can use it. But if a source does not discuss TD directly, then no, we cannot *because* TD "lacks a universally understood meaning". If it lacks a universally understood meaning, then it is not up to us to imagine one into existence. Which is to say that we can not quote research papers on tax cuts or whatever that do not themselves draw some connection with TD. Bonewah (talk) 19:05, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
- But we did define it, though it "lacks a universally understood meaning"[1]. Which, again, is not a reason to remove the economic sources that discuss it. The sources clearly describe it as related to the theory of supply side economics. In short, that tax breaks for the wealthy will trickle down, as popularized by Reagan. "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) Andre🚐 18:16, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
- That is not true. What you did provide were sources that used the term, not ones that defined it. wp:V is clear "Readers must be able to check that any of the information within Wikipedia articles is not just made up. This means all material must be attributable to reliable, published sources. Additionally, quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by inline citations." Im challenging that Trickle-down is a well defined coherent economic theory. Bonewah (talk) 17:38, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
- Plentiful sources were provided discussing it in the context of economics. Just because these sources take a negative view of the underlying veracity does not make it not an economic theory, and this is getting into WP:IDHT territory as this has been discussed and there is no consensus for your viewpoint. Andre🚐 16:36, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
- Its not an economic theory unless you can find reliable sources which define it as such. You cant RfC your away around verifiability. Bonewah (talk)
- Loki and Ortizesp as well as @Aquillion also commented indicating that trickle-down is coherent as an economic theory, as mentioned I am not opposed to a merge with supply-side, but Bonewah and Squatch are. Andre🚐 14:55, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
Obviously we can let this run a few more days, but we do seem to have a consensus that this article is discussing a term and it's usage rather than a set of policies. I would point out that WP:CONSENSUS does not require unanimous consent if there is broad agreement on something. A lone editor does not get to WP:OWN a page. To that end, I think we need to have a discussion about page structure becaise it reads right now as a discussion of policies. I think the external links are fine, I'm less concerned about peer review if we are treating it as a term since review isn't relevant. The shift back to non-economic sources makes a lot of sense if we are writing this as how the term is used, rather than as a discussion of the academic review of a set of policies. Squatch347 (talk) 06:28, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
- We do not at all have a consensus, and someone who represents one POV doesn't get to judge whether there is a consensus. Nor am I a lone editor, as there are at least 3 other editors in the conversation who agreed with my point, meaning the numbers are roughly equal and the arguments are not resolved or unambiguous. There is no consensus to shift away from economic sources. Andre🚐 14:46, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
- That wasn't the question I posed to the editors. I asked if the scope of article was about the usage of the term or about evaluation of policies. It was essentially universal (minus you) that the scope of this article was about the usage of the term. My point is not to argue with your assumption about this policy or that policy counting as trickle-down, but to scope the article so that it complies with the stylization and formatting of every other article on Wiki that deals with a colloquial term: cite the parent article for discussion of the topic and focus on how the term has been used over time. For the life of me, I don't get why you feel the need to rehash a debate about economic proposals on a child article about the history of a colloquial term. Squatch347 (talk) 18:31, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
- It is not universal minus me, as @Aquillion @LokiTheLiar @Ortizesp also indicated it can be a set of economic policies. Andre🚐 18:41, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
- You might want to go back and read their comments. They all agreed it was a colloquial term. The closest you got was that Aquillion thought that it isn't solely a pejorative, but might have crossed over to a Common Name (which is possibly a fair point). None of them, not a single one, has said the article is about a defined set of policies or should be a discussion of those policies.
- They all agreed it was a term that has a meaning as to the policy it refers to. There is no consensus here that economic sources should not be discussed. Andre🚐 18:47, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
- I'm not sure why we're trying to freight the register of the word with such significance. Is "Reaganomics" not also a rather colloquial term? And why is it axiomatic that "supply-side economics", a '70s coinage, is the "parent" of a much earlier concept? 109.255.211.6 (talk) 19:12, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what you mean, I'm not familiar with the phrase "freight the register," can you elaborate? Reaganomics is an article. To quote that article,
refers to the neoliberal economic policies promoted by U.S. President Ronald Reagan during the 1980s. These policies are commonly associated with and characterized as supply-side economics, trickle-down economics, or "voodoo economics" by opponents
. Andre🚐 19:15, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what you mean, I'm not familiar with the phrase "freight the register," can you elaborate? Reaganomics is an article. To quote that article,
- I'm not sure why we're trying to freight the register of the word with such significance. Is "Reaganomics" not also a rather colloquial term? And why is it axiomatic that "supply-side economics", a '70s coinage, is the "parent" of a much earlier concept? 109.255.211.6 (talk) 19:12, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
- They all agreed it was a term that has a meaning as to the policy it refers to. There is no consensus here that economic sources should not be discussed. Andre🚐 18:47, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
- For reference, I do indeed think that "trickle-down economics" refers to the same thing as "supply-side economics", and ideally the two articles should be merged. (Or rather, technically speaking, "supply-side economics" is the particular 1970s/80s instance of a set of policy proposals that goes back to the late 19th century under various names but definitely including "trickle down".) Both names are political terms, because of course they are, there is no neutral name for this.
- As is, it seems like this article is for the broader idea and supply-side economics is for the more specific 70s/80s iteration of it. It doesn't seem to me like this article is about a term and that article is about the thing the term refers to. To see what that looks like, compare gay to homosexuality. I don't think the distinction is strong enough in this case to keep two separate articles, though. Loki (talk) 19:18, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
- I'm not opposed to the merge, and maybe the most productive path would to be propose a merge. I believe however Bonewah and Squatch had indicated they do not believe the terms are synonymous and opposed the merge. But at the least, we should note that there is no consensus for Squatch's proposed massive trim of all the economic criticism,
cite the parent article for discussion of the topic and focus on how the term has been used over time
. Andre🚐 19:25, 18 October 2022 (UTC) - I think that is a good distinction. From my read this is also similar to the distinction between gay agenda and LGBTQ Rights. One is a term used indiscriminately and often pejoratively and one is a topic with a robust conversation. Right now, because the article tries to do both it isn't very clear (hence the RFC). I would support restricting the scope to just the term (a la gay, or Gore Effect, or any other political slang) to make the article coherent. Absent that I've supported a merge in the past. This being a sub-heading under Supply side would, by its very nature, constrain it to the discussion of the term as I proposed above. Squatch347 (talk) 19:31, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
- Im not opposed to a merge, so long as the resulting article doesnt just import all the problems this one currently has. I think we would end up losing the history of the term and its social context which is a shame, and i dont believe that a merge is a good way to solve what is really an OR and verifiability issue. Frankly i would prefer a real RfC that we all agree presents the disagreement as it really is. At least that way we could get some sense of what the broader community thinks. Bonewah (talk) 20:06, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
- I'd be OK with a merge but not with "restricting the scope" or extensively trimming the economic sources critical of supply-side. I believe we still do not have a consensus to conduct such trimming on this article, and at least earlier today there was still considerable disagreement and a proposal to remove all economic coverage, which I oppose. If this RFC concludes we could start a new one about possibly merging or renaming the articles. Andre🚐 22:02, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
- My instinct is that the ultimately best situation is like the one Loki outlines. But that's a potential endpoint, not a means. Either way we need to ensure we have good sources, give them appropriate weight, and structure things logically. And not play the 'excluding material I don't like by scoping games', either. The important part is that if there's two articles, they have clear and sensibly non-redundant scopes, and if there's one, it likewise covers the full range of topics and labels even-handedly. We can't properly have two 'SPOV' articles, as we're very much in danger of having. Equally -- if not moreso! -- we can't have one 'SPOV' one and one 'tightly scoped to just discuss terminology' one. If we have two, it should follow WP:SUMMARYSTYLE, or otherwise make the distinction otherwise clear. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 02:23, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
...trimming the economic sources critical of supply-side
Just to be clear, no one is trying to remove critiques of supply side economics from Wiki. I'm asking why they are on this page rather than on, I don't know, the supply side economics page?
- I'd be OK with a merge but not with "restricting the scope" or extensively trimming the economic sources critical of supply-side. I believe we still do not have a consensus to conduct such trimming on this article, and at least earlier today there was still considerable disagreement and a proposal to remove all economic coverage, which I oppose. If this RFC concludes we could start a new one about possibly merging or renaming the articles. Andre🚐 22:02, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
- Im not opposed to a merge, so long as the resulting article doesnt just import all the problems this one currently has. I think we would end up losing the history of the term and its social context which is a shame, and i dont believe that a merge is a good way to solve what is really an OR and verifiability issue. Frankly i would prefer a real RfC that we all agree presents the disagreement as it really is. At least that way we could get some sense of what the broader community thinks. Bonewah (talk) 20:06, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
- I'm not opposed to the merge, and maybe the most productive path would to be propose a merge. I believe however Bonewah and Squatch had indicated they do not believe the terms are synonymous and opposed the merge. But at the least, we should note that there is no consensus for Squatch's proposed massive trim of all the economic criticism,
- You might want to go back and read their comments. They all agreed it was a colloquial term. The closest you got was that Aquillion thought that it isn't solely a pejorative, but might have crossed over to a Common Name (which is possibly a fair point). None of them, not a single one, has said the article is about a defined set of policies or should be a discussion of those policies.
- It is not universal minus me, as @Aquillion @LokiTheLiar @Ortizesp also indicated it can be a set of economic policies. Andre🚐 18:41, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
- That wasn't the question I posed to the editors. I asked if the scope of article was about the usage of the term or about evaluation of policies. It was essentially universal (minus you) that the scope of this article was about the usage of the term. My point is not to argue with your assumption about this policy or that policy counting as trickle-down, but to scope the article so that it complies with the stylization and formatting of every other article on Wiki that deals with a colloquial term: cite the parent article for discussion of the topic and focus on how the term has been used over time. For the life of me, I don't get why you feel the need to rehash a debate about economic proposals on a child article about the history of a colloquial term. Squatch347 (talk) 18:31, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
- I don't understand your rationale for applying critiques to a broad topic to the child page discussion the use of a colloquial term. That isn't how any other colloquial term is referenced on wiki and it doesn't provide obvious value to the reader. If anything, it seems to obscure the usage of this as a term and make the article less readable.
- Really there seems to be a pretty good consensus minus yourself and to some extent the IP that we either need to merge this page into the supply-side page as an associated term or conform this page to the general use set a la any of the examples listed above. As it stands now, this page is just a magnet for every POV pusher from any side of a debate to come in and put their particular preferred academic paper, which is disruptive. Squatch347 (talk) 06:36, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
- I heartedly agree that supply side critiques etc need to be hashed out on the supply side page, not here. What i really object to here and there is the propensity of editors to play amateur economist and ignore wp:OR and WP:SNYTH. Bonewah (talk) 13:00, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
- Folks, we appear to be going in circles here. At first you say you would support a merge but then you say that we can't use critique of trickle-down, because it's only a colloquial term and that critiques of supply side belong there. My argument is that trickle-down is economically coherent as a characterization of a set of policies and principles, and includes a lot of overlap with supply-side. Andre🚐 14:30, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
- Exactly. Can't play bait-and-switch where we say "they're the same so we should merge them, but they're different because some of the criticisms use the 'colloquial' term, and SSE is SCIENCE, so critiques that don't play Simon Says using the SSE-advocates' preferred terminology are out of bounds." I don't see how we can avoid it being a contentious (set of) article(s), given the topic. That people can't even agree on the terms, so we're on a constant euphemism/dysphemism treadmill, is really just a symptom of that. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 19:53, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
- If TD is an economically coherent as a characterization of a set of policies and principles as you claim, then it should be easy to find multiple reliable sources which clearly define it as such. So far, what ive seen is simply people using the term, sometimes to describe SSE, usually derisively. Which is exactly what you would expect if it were a colloquial term. This is exactly why you see the term in contexts that clearly arent SSE, like the references to innovation 'trickling down' or QE having a 'trickle-down' effect or a 'trickle down' effect from job creation schemes ([url=https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/56820409 |title=Does "trickle down" work? : economic development strategies and job chains in local labor markets]), because its a generic term typically used to describe a positive effect flowing from one group to another group, usually one that is perceived to be below the first.
- Exactly. Can't play bait-and-switch where we say "they're the same so we should merge them, but they're different because some of the criticisms use the 'colloquial' term, and SSE is SCIENCE, so critiques that don't play Simon Says using the SSE-advocates' preferred terminology are out of bounds." I don't see how we can avoid it being a contentious (set of) article(s), given the topic. That people can't even agree on the terms, so we're on a constant euphemism/dysphemism treadmill, is really just a symptom of that. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 19:53, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
- Folks, we appear to be going in circles here. At first you say you would support a merge but then you say that we can't use critique of trickle-down, because it's only a colloquial term and that critiques of supply side belong there. My argument is that trickle-down is economically coherent as a characterization of a set of policies and principles, and includes a lot of overlap with supply-side. Andre🚐 14:30, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
- I heartedly agree that supply side critiques etc need to be hashed out on the supply side page, not here. What i really object to here and there is the propensity of editors to play amateur economist and ignore wp:OR and WP:SNYTH. Bonewah (talk) 13:00, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
- Really there seems to be a pretty good consensus minus yourself and to some extent the IP that we either need to merge this page into the supply-side page as an associated term or conform this page to the general use set a la any of the examples listed above. As it stands now, this page is just a magnet for every POV pusher from any side of a debate to come in and put their particular preferred academic paper, which is disruptive. Squatch347 (talk) 06:36, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
You pretty much nailed it below TDE could be used to describe other policies where the trickle-down effect is presumed or theorized or posited that aren't strictly SSE.
It can be, and it is. Is it a pretty good description of SSE? Yea, pretty much, which is why its so commonly used in that context. But that is still a colloquial use. Bonewah (talk) 15:17, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
- And none of this is a reason why the article can't cover the economic meanings the term is used to refer to. Andre🚐 15:22, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, it is. The article's title, lead in, and category of articles are all about this as a political term. The format of a political term article (or any article generally discussing a term) is to cover its usage historically. The article is not about a generic policy proposal or economic reactions to that proposal. The vast majority of editors here in the RFC and before have noted that to you. This article is not the appropriate place to collect WP:PRIMARY sources related to supply side economics. Those belong on the Supply side economics page. Please, just take a quick look through some of the other articles on this page's category to see how outtt of sync it is and how it has turned into a WP:FORUM rather than an encyclopedia article. [2]Squatch347 (talk) 06:27, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
- The article is about everything and anything "trickle-down economics." Once again you falsely state a majority agrees with you when that is not the case, it's pretty evenly split. This article is the correct place for economic sources and it is not a FORUM and the sources are reputable journal articles that directly discuss trickle-down. There is no consensus for your radical POV pushing. Andre🚐 16:16, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
- How did you come to that conclusion? From the article:
This article is about the political term.
Trickle-down economics is a term used in critical references to economic policies
- The article is about everything and anything "trickle-down economics." Once again you falsely state a majority agrees with you when that is not the case, it's pretty evenly split. This article is the correct place for economic sources and it is not a FORUM and the sources are reputable journal articles that directly discuss trickle-down. There is no consensus for your radical POV pushing. Andre🚐 16:16, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, it is. The article's title, lead in, and category of articles are all about this as a political term. The format of a political term article (or any article generally discussing a term) is to cover its usage historically. The article is not about a generic policy proposal or economic reactions to that proposal. The vast majority of editors here in the RFC and before have noted that to you. This article is not the appropriate place to collect WP:PRIMARY sources related to supply side economics. Those belong on the Supply side economics page. Please, just take a quick look through some of the other articles on this page's category to see how outtt of sync it is and how it has turned into a WP:FORUM rather than an encyclopedia article. [2]Squatch347 (talk) 06:27, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
- As for consensus, obviously myself and Bonewah sided on the idea of term, but so did FMH, Aquillion, Loki (who said it could be both, but lacked enough evidence as an economic theory to justify the split), Bellowhead678, DOR (HK), SPECIFICO. Opposed are yourself, Ortizesp, and an IP.
- But its worse than that because a quick perusal of the talk page shows this exact topic being raised no less than seven times. Two ended in deadlock, five ended with conclusions that this was about the term, not some nebulous, undefined policy. This is far more one sided than you think.
- With that said, I hear your concerns and want to address them within the scope of wiki policy. As I see it there are two legitimate routes this article can take.
- 1) This article is based around the term's usage. We retain most of the current sources, but the text is modified slightly to highlight how they are being used.
- 2) This article is updated in lead to talk more about this as a set of policies. That will be difficult because we have yet to see a single source actually defining the topic or a single person advocating for the policies. Its probably doable, but will require a lot of work. It also means a lot of the sources go away because in that world we are strictly bound by WP:PRIMARY.
- I would suggest course of action 1 as it retains the most information, brings the article into line with its peer category articles, and involves the least contention.
- Squatch347 (talk) 05:50, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
- Loki saying it could be both, is a point in the column for keeping the economic meaning in. Aquillion also comes down in this category although didn't explicitly say anything in the RFC. SPECIFICO presumably as well. Some of the others you mentioned didn't comment in the RFC. It's really just yourself and Bonewah pushing for a trim of the article. Nor do the historical discussions appear to have a clear consensus that I can tell.
- That being said I am generally OK with modifying the text slightly, as long as we're clear that we cannot just start trimming out all economic sources as the October 3 reverts referred to. Andre🚐 15:49, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
- Ok, if I were to put some suggestions in here along those lines, would you be open to them? Specifically, focusing the text on how the term has been used? I'm thinking there should be a political usage and economic usage with the latter being broken down into "related to income" and "applying to externality spillover" (that language could some tweeking). If we did that I'm not sure we would need to remove sources, but we could take it one at a time. Squatch347 (talk) 05:48, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
- With that said, I hear your concerns and want to address them within the scope of wiki policy. As I see it there are two legitimate routes this article can take.
Proposal 1
- Section labelled "Criticisms" is relabeled to "Usage." This makes sense given that the structure, even now isn't just criticism. It would also fit more in line with the general structure of the other articles in the category and, hopefully, limit the attractiveness to WP:FORUM the page with random links as we've seen over the last couple of years.
- This section would be broken into two sub-sections (for now): Politics and Economics. With all existing text reordered into those two categories.
- The last part, and we should take this part slow with each change being discussed here, would be to reframe the entries a la we did below, to talk about the general usage of the term by the authors. Looking through the page, I don't see any sources that would be removed in this proposal. We should probably have a discussion on the broader usage of the term when it is being used like in the IMF study. I don't think it should be removed, but should it be lumped into a separate sub-section called "colloquialism" (or something, that word doesn't quite feel right)? I'm on the fence on that one for sure.
Thoughts? Squatch347 (talk) 05:58, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
- I am ok with renaming Criticisms to Usage and splitting it up into public policy and economics with the existing text, so if you want to go ahead, I have no objection there. I am also OK with continuing to discuss and reframe the context if needed. I do not think the IMF is "colloquialism," but let's discuss that more in-depth. There seems to be a desire or a tendency to want to discredit or disregard the IMF, which I do not agree with. The IMF may have a foot in economics and another 2 in public policy, but that's the nature of trickle-down. The economic analysis of the ramifications of a public policy favoring tax cuts for the rich is not itself divorced from economics, and the desire to make this split clean is problematic. There are many usages of the concept of trickling down that straddle the line between policy and economics. Nevermind that most serious economists reject the economic veracity of trickle-down policy. Because that isn't the issue we're dealing with here. Please a start a new section to discuss the 3rd bullet point when you are ready to. That being said, I do think the lead could be written better, but I don't want to take a stab at it without a detailed discussion first. Andre🚐 13:48, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
- Ok, I'll go ahead and make some of those changes then post some individual suggestions here. Just to clarify on the IMF, I thought it might be a colloquialism because they seem to be using it more as an idiom rather than as a specific economic idea. It isn't a dig on the IMF at all, the phrase does seem to have entered common parlance and is often used as a synonym for "spill over" or something of that ilk. We have a few sources in there that are using the term kind of in that manner as I read it. Squatch347 (talk) 05:48, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
(i) Personal income tax (PIT) cuts stimulate growth but the supply side effects are never large enough to offset the revenue loss from lower marginal tax rates; (ii) PIT cuts do 'trickle-down' the income distribution: tax cuts stimulate demand for non-tradable services which raise the wages and employment prospects of low-skilled workers even if the tax cut is not directly incident on them;
seems pretty economic and specific to me. Andre🚐 14:06, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
- Ok, I'll go ahead and make some of those changes then post some individual suggestions here. Just to clarify on the IMF, I thought it might be a colloquialism because they seem to be using it more as an idiom rather than as a specific economic idea. It isn't a dig on the IMF at all, the phrase does seem to have entered common parlance and is often used as a synonym for "spill over" or something of that ilk. We have a few sources in there that are using the term kind of in that manner as I read it. Squatch347 (talk) 05:48, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
Jumping in late to this conversation. Let me try to unpack things a bit because it seems to me that the conversation has gotten into the weeds and we’ve lost sight of the big picture.
First, I think there’s general agreement that “trickle-down economics” was always first and foremost a critical term used by opponents of certain policies. It’s simply a label like left-wing or liberal or alt-right. All of these are used to discredit opponents and avoid engaging in debating ideas.
As Neil deGrasse Tyson once said:
“The moment when someone attaches you to a philosophy or a movement, then they assign all the baggage and all the rest of the philosophy that goes with it to you. And when you want to have a conversation, they will assert that they already know everything important there is to know about you because of that association. And that's not the way to have a conversation.”
Second, there also appears to be broad agreement that there’s no clear definition of what trickle-down economics is, if it were indeed a theory. In this discussion and elsewhere, some people have argued that it’s just another name for supply-side economics. The David Stockman quote from footnote (9) supports this.
Others have argued it’s only tax cuts for the wealthy. This is what Amadeo argues it is in the article referenced as (2) in the footer. Still others argue that it’s not a theory at all.
Notably, the Wikipedia page on supply-side economics begins: ‘Not to be confused with trickle-down economics.’ In other words, there Wikipedia seems to believe that trickle-down economics is NOT supply-side economics.
I rehearse all of this because while we’re on solid ground defining trickle-down economics as a critical term, we have no basis for defining a theory of trickle-down economics. This is important, because if there’s no accurate definition of a trickle-down economics theory, there’s no way for us to later offer any criticism of something that is undefined and undefinable.
Because economics is a science, as with other sciences, economists propose a theory and then test it. With trickle-down economics, there is no established or agreed upon theory of what this is, so it’s not possible to test it. None of the papers referred to in this Wikipedia page attempts to offer a clearly articulated theory. In fact, most of them use the term “trickle-down” as an adjective, not in the context of a theory, in the same way that one might say the rain trickled down the window. For example, the IMF study in footer 12 and the Bloomberg piece in footer 14.
While Robert Frank’s 2007 New York Times piece (footer 13) does purport to talk about trickle-down theory, it’s an op-ed full of strawmen and anonymous “trickle-down economics” proponents. Similarly, Amadeo’s piece (footer 2) talks about a theory, but the key Wharton reference she attempts to use to back up this claim is filled with quotes from economists dismissing it as a theory.
On the subject of proponents of trickle-down economics, they are so vanishingly rare as to be non-existent. I know of no policy-makers who ever championed or ran on a platform of trickle-down economics or any academics who have put their name behind the theory. Yet it’s easy to come up with vast lists of supply side economists, Keynesian economists etc. If trickle-down proponents existed, we would expect to list them on this Wikipedia page. Yet we don’t, because there are none. The only names we use are those who are using the term as a pejorative, including a disgruntled member of the Reagan administration who is retroactively calling its policies trickle-down economics. They were never called this at the time they were advanced or implemented. In other words, all of this supports our first definition of trickle-down economics as a critical term, not a theory.Kerrni (talk) 02:11, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
- This is a bit of a WP:TEXTWALL. I'm not going to respond in depth except to say, the article is about all of the contexts in which trickle-down economics is used. The fact that economic experts argue about what it means proves it's a topic in economics. We don't pick which side we are on. We cover all of the opinions in accordance to their prominence in weight in reliable sources. WP:NPOV WP:BALANCE WP:RS WP:V WP:NOR. You can't pick and choose what sources to throw out because you don't like their logic, or their thinking. If they are notable economists we cover what they think and say. Andre🚐 02:17, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
- Picking up on a couple of your points. First, I disagree that it's a topic in economics in the sense that most economic topics are thought of. Having studied economics at the undergraduate and post-graduate level in the US and internationally, it was never covered in any lectures or text books. Other economists and commentators have made the same point. If it were really a topic in economics, we'd expect there to be entire books, chapters or courses devoted to the subject in the same way supply-side economics, Keynesian economics, socialism and other subjects are taught and debated. It's notable that there are none, for the same reason that there are no economists or policy-makers who consider themselves proponents of trickle-down economics. If there were truly a theory of trickle-down economics, there would be people debating on each side of it, but you only ever find critics of the so-called theory and no proponents. Second, you acknowledge that there is an argument about what the theory of trickle-down economics is and even that some people argue it is not a theory. In that case, it's important that we acknowledge that in the Wikipedia entry. Instead, in line three we make a blanket statement that "trickle-down theory more specifically advocates for a lower tax burden on the upper end of the economic spectrum". This runs counter to what we all seem to agree -- that there is an argument about what it advocates for and indeed whether there is a generally accepted theory at all. We should acknowledge that and not suggest something that is not grounded in fact. Kerrni (talk) 12:29, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
- Your own anecdotes on what you have studied isn't how we determine what to write in Wikipedia. If you have some sources for the claim that "trickle down is not a theory," please provide them. Andre🚐 15:33, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
- I used more than anecdotes to make that point. There are no introductory or other economic textbooks devoted to trickle-down economics or have chapters on trickle-down economics. Paul Krugman's Econ 101 textbook doesn't include it, nor does Alfred Mills or others. The point stands on its own without the anecdote as do the other points I made. Kerrni (talk) 15:57, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
- That really is irrelevant, because there's no Wikipedia policy that says you can't talk about an economic topic unless it's in the econ 101 textbook. Andre🚐 15:59, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
- It's relevant to your argument that trickle-down economics is a theory because you allege that some economists argue about it. Economists don't argue about it in academia, as I demonstrated above. The sources that are used to try and support this argument do not demonstrate this. Either they don't discuss the theory (e.g. footer (12) and (14)) or they aren't academic rather they're op-eds (e.g. (2) and (13)). Furthermore, as I explained, economic experts aren't arguing about this. An argument requires two sides and there are zero proponents of trickle-down theory, only critics of an undefined theory. Kerrni (talk) 16:22, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
- Sorry but you seem to be injecting your own opinion and original research. It's not going to fly to just strip out the economic sources already in the article due to your own interpretation. If we want to change the article text but keep the sources and rewrite what the article says, we can do that. Clearly, economists from Stiglitz to Sewell and others mentioned above and in the article do discuss the policy proposal that cutting tax on the rich trickles down to help the overall economy. Just because academics have rejected the empirical veracity doesn't make it not an economic theory and it is POV pushing to come in and put our own spin on this. Andre🚐 16:26, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
- I'm not offering any opinions or interpretations. I'm just stating facts. For example, it's a fact that the two sources I referenced above do not address trickle-down economics at all, rather they just use the phrase "trickle-down" in the critical sense of the term, not the theory. That's not an opinion. It's just black and white. As for Sowell, the piece you referenced is consistent with everything he's written on the subject that I've read. Quoting directly from the Sowell referenced here (see page 3): "It was an argument that would be made at various times over the years by others— and repeatedly evaded by attacks on a “trickle-down” theory found only in the rhetoric of opponents." In other words, Sowell here makes the very points I have been making--there are no proponents of a trickle-down theory and there are no people arguing for it. The Stiglitz piece reinforces the point that there is no clear definition of what trickle-down economics is. He defines it (page 28) as "...the notion that if the economy grows, everyone will benefit." Again, we're doing users a disservice by providing a definition of a trickle-down economic theory when every source we're discussing seems to have a different definition. We should acknowledge that there is no settled definition of what trickle-down economics is and acknowledge that the very theory's existence is disputed. Kerrni (talk) 16:53, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
- It's not a black and white statement, it's reasonable to understand when they talk about "trickle-down" they are talking about this same thing. Sowell may be included as well as Stiglitz. We should summarize what those sources say for the purposes of this article. Nothing you've written says that the "very theory's existence" is in doubt. It exists, but most people just think it's not an empirically accurate one. Andre🚐 17:11, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
- It's not at all reasonable to understand they are talking about a theory of trickle-down economics. It's at best ambiguous and it's certainly an interpretation, but other interpretations are equally possible. People have used the term trickle down in countless ways before and since Will Rogers's joke without meaning to imply they are discussing a theory of trickle down economics. In the case of the IMF paper, as I've commented, there is no mention at all about "trickle-down economics", no attempt to define what it would be if they were supposed to be testing a hypothesis and the two mentions of the words "trickle down" over 39 pages are merely descriptive. It sounds like you interpret it as referring to an economic theory. But others couldn't be faulted for thinking the choice of words was incidental and "flow down" or some other description would have meant exactly the same thing. As for your suggestion that the very theory's existence is not in doubt, that's precisely what Sowell is saying when he writes '...a "trickle-down" theory found only in the rhetoric of opponents.' How else could that be interpreted? Kerrni (talk) 17:51, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
- No, it's quite obvious that if they're talking about the impact of tax cuts trickling down, that is trickle-down economics. To suggest otherwise is silly. We don't accept Sowell at face value: we balance him with other economists. Andre🚐 18:03, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
- Not only is that your opinion, which we agree we need to avoid, but you're adopting yet another definition of what trickle down economics is. Recapping the various definitions that have been proposed in all the sources we've been citing (I'm sure we can find more):
- Stiglitz: "...the notion that if the economy grows, everyone will benefit."
- Amadeo: "Targeted tax cuts...to the wealthy."
- Stockman: "Supply-side is 'trickle-down' theory."
- Andre: "Tax cuts trickling down."
- And of course, we also have these sources (as we've discussed and you requested) from economic experts who dispute it's a theory:
- Sowell: "...[a] theory found only in the rhetoric of opponents"
- Smetters, faculty director of the Penn Wharton Budget Model, linked to by Amadeo: "It is just a clever negative sound bite." https://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article/trickle-economics-flood-drip/
- Gomes, a finance professor quoted in this paragraph from the same piece Smetters is quoted in:
- 'Many others have pointed out the folly of using the term — that no real economic model or serious school of thought stands behind what has long been a term of art at the intersection of politics and media. “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.”'
- As I've noted, if we're going to make the case that there is some sort of theory, we need to acknowledge that there are both multiple definitions of what the theory is and that still others dispute that it's a serious theory. Kerrni (talk) 18:27, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
- I'm actually not giving my own opinion at all nor are we "making a case," we follow what the sources say, and balance the aspects and different viewpoints in the article. The fact that there are different and conflicting definitions or usages of the term, is NOT a reason to eliminate some usages and claim the term is undefined. We can cover those who believe it is not a real theory, and we will cover those who believe it has a meaning, in proportion to what they say about it. But it's an economic topic, with plentiful sourcing: we cannot exclude sources because they just say "tax cuts trickle down" and don't include the word "economics." That is reasonably implied. WP:SYNTHNOT Andre🚐 18:32, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
- I agree that some people might reasonably imply that. But others might equally reasonably imply it isn't. It's ambiguous. We should use sources that don't require an implication. The very reason we're short on sources is because it's a disputed theory that hasn't been tested or seriously theorized. I'm glad we're reaching agreement on some points here. It's been a healthy discussion.
- Given the fact that, as you note, there are different and conflicting definitions, we need to edit or remove sentence three: "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 would suggest something along the lines of: "Trickle-down economics is also considered by some to be a theory. However, it has been variously defined and some economists do not consider it to be a serious theory." We could follow that with some of the definitions as well as some of the economists who dispute it as a theory. And when we cite any criticism we should be careful to note how the source is defining trickle-down economics. Kerrni (talk) 18:52, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
- Not quite, because we need to avoid WP:WEASEL, so let's be more specific about who formulates trickle-down and what it usually consists of, versus the claims that claim it is incoherent. The way to go about this would be to conduct a more thorough read of the sources in the article and sort them into different buckets. Let's start by looking at the 2 sources on the text you want to change and see what those sources say. One is a magazine article, one is a book about Reaganomics.
- I agree this text can be improved. I have no objection to including the economists who believe it is not a serious theory. Also some believe it is basically supply side economics. While others more generally use trickle-down economics to describe any kind of stimulus policy that helps the rich and should then trickle down. I agree that this sentence is an incomplete picture of the entire story, but let's look at what the sources say that are cited there. Andre🚐 19:53, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
- The difference here is that there are economists who say they are following a "supply side" approach. There is no one, politician or economist that says they are following a "trickle-down" approach. Or even that benefits will "trickle-down." It is solely a term used in a rhetorical manner by opponents of some policy or other. We don't treat rhetorical flourishes like that as serious terms on wiki. See: Gay Agenda, anchor baby, borking, death panel, limousine liberal, or tar baby option. These are terms used as strawmen of opposing positions and we confine our article to term usage. We need to do so here. Squatch347 (talk) 07:25, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
- You're exactly right @Squatch347. A case in point is that former British prime minister Liz Truss never once referred to her proposed across-the-board tax cuts as "trickle-down economics" or that the benefits would "trickle down". The only people that did were those like Frank Langfitt, the NPR London Correspondent, who this week on the 10/24 Morning Edition show, when discussing the newly appointed prime minister, attributed Liz Truss's downfall as being a result of the trickle-down economics policies "she supported". Kerrni (talk) 14:43, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
- The difference here is that there are economists who say they are following a "supply side" approach. There is no one, politician or economist that says they are following a "trickle-down" approach. Or even that benefits will "trickle-down." It is solely a term used in a rhetorical manner by opponents of some policy or other. We don't treat rhetorical flourishes like that as serious terms on wiki. See: Gay Agenda, anchor baby, borking, death panel, limousine liberal, or tar baby option. These are terms used as strawmen of opposing positions and we confine our article to term usage. We need to do so here. Squatch347 (talk) 07:25, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
- I'm actually not giving my own opinion at all nor are we "making a case," we follow what the sources say, and balance the aspects and different viewpoints in the article. The fact that there are different and conflicting definitions or usages of the term, is NOT a reason to eliminate some usages and claim the term is undefined. We can cover those who believe it is not a real theory, and we will cover those who believe it has a meaning, in proportion to what they say about it. But it's an economic topic, with plentiful sourcing: we cannot exclude sources because they just say "tax cuts trickle down" and don't include the word "economics." That is reasonably implied. WP:SYNTHNOT Andre🚐 18:32, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
- No, it's quite obvious that if they're talking about the impact of tax cuts trickling down, that is trickle-down economics. To suggest otherwise is silly. We don't accept Sowell at face value: we balance him with other economists. Andre🚐 18:03, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
- It's not at all reasonable to understand they are talking about a theory of trickle-down economics. It's at best ambiguous and it's certainly an interpretation, but other interpretations are equally possible. People have used the term trickle down in countless ways before and since Will Rogers's joke without meaning to imply they are discussing a theory of trickle down economics. In the case of the IMF paper, as I've commented, there is no mention at all about "trickle-down economics", no attempt to define what it would be if they were supposed to be testing a hypothesis and the two mentions of the words "trickle down" over 39 pages are merely descriptive. It sounds like you interpret it as referring to an economic theory. But others couldn't be faulted for thinking the choice of words was incidental and "flow down" or some other description would have meant exactly the same thing. As for your suggestion that the very theory's existence is not in doubt, that's precisely what Sowell is saying when he writes '...a "trickle-down" theory found only in the rhetoric of opponents.' How else could that be interpreted? Kerrni (talk) 17:51, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
- It's not a black and white statement, it's reasonable to understand when they talk about "trickle-down" they are talking about this same thing. Sowell may be included as well as Stiglitz. We should summarize what those sources say for the purposes of this article. Nothing you've written says that the "very theory's existence" is in doubt. It exists, but most people just think it's not an empirically accurate one. Andre🚐 17:11, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
- I'm not offering any opinions or interpretations. I'm just stating facts. For example, it's a fact that the two sources I referenced above do not address trickle-down economics at all, rather they just use the phrase "trickle-down" in the critical sense of the term, not the theory. That's not an opinion. It's just black and white. As for Sowell, the piece you referenced is consistent with everything he's written on the subject that I've read. Quoting directly from the Sowell referenced here (see page 3): "It was an argument that would be made at various times over the years by others— and repeatedly evaded by attacks on a “trickle-down” theory found only in the rhetoric of opponents." In other words, Sowell here makes the very points I have been making--there are no proponents of a trickle-down theory and there are no people arguing for it. The Stiglitz piece reinforces the point that there is no clear definition of what trickle-down economics is. He defines it (page 28) as "...the notion that if the economy grows, everyone will benefit." Again, we're doing users a disservice by providing a definition of a trickle-down economic theory when every source we're discussing seems to have a different definition. We should acknowledge that there is no settled definition of what trickle-down economics is and acknowledge that the very theory's existence is disputed. Kerrni (talk) 16:53, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
- Sorry but you seem to be injecting your own opinion and original research. It's not going to fly to just strip out the economic sources already in the article due to your own interpretation. If we want to change the article text but keep the sources and rewrite what the article says, we can do that. Clearly, economists from Stiglitz to Sewell and others mentioned above and in the article do discuss the policy proposal that cutting tax on the rich trickles down to help the overall economy. Just because academics have rejected the empirical veracity doesn't make it not an economic theory and it is POV pushing to come in and put our own spin on this. Andre🚐 16:26, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
- It's relevant to your argument that trickle-down economics is a theory because you allege that some economists argue about it. Economists don't argue about it in academia, as I demonstrated above. The sources that are used to try and support this argument do not demonstrate this. Either they don't discuss the theory (e.g. footer (12) and (14)) or they aren't academic rather they're op-eds (e.g. (2) and (13)). Furthermore, as I explained, economic experts aren't arguing about this. An argument requires two sides and there are zero proponents of trickle-down theory, only critics of an undefined theory. Kerrni (talk) 16:22, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
- That really is irrelevant, because there's no Wikipedia policy that says you can't talk about an economic topic unless it's in the econ 101 textbook. Andre🚐 15:59, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
- I used more than anecdotes to make that point. There are no introductory or other economic textbooks devoted to trickle-down economics or have chapters on trickle-down economics. Paul Krugman's Econ 101 textbook doesn't include it, nor does Alfred Mills or others. The point stands on its own without the anecdote as do the other points I made. Kerrni (talk) 15:57, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
- Your own anecdotes on what you have studied isn't how we determine what to write in Wikipedia. If you have some sources for the claim that "trickle down is not a theory," please provide them. Andre🚐 15:33, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
- Picking up on a couple of your points. First, I disagree that it's a topic in economics in the sense that most economic topics are thought of. Having studied economics at the undergraduate and post-graduate level in the US and internationally, it was never covered in any lectures or text books. Other economists and commentators have made the same point. If it were really a topic in economics, we'd expect there to be entire books, chapters or courses devoted to the subject in the same way supply-side economics, Keynesian economics, socialism and other subjects are taught and debated. It's notable that there are none, for the same reason that there are no economists or policy-makers who consider themselves proponents of trickle-down economics. If there were truly a theory of trickle-down economics, there would be people debating on each side of it, but you only ever find critics of the so-called theory and no proponents. Second, you acknowledge that there is an argument about what the theory of trickle-down economics is and even that some people argue it is not a theory. In that case, it's important that we acknowledge that in the Wikipedia entry. Instead, in line three we make a blanket statement that "trickle-down theory more specifically advocates for a lower tax burden on the upper end of the economic spectrum". This runs counter to what we all seem to agree -- that there is an argument about what it advocates for and indeed whether there is a generally accepted theory at all. We should acknowledge that and not suggest something that is not grounded in fact. Kerrni (talk) 12:29, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
- Oh yeah and we have very long articles on all the various kinds of left-wing, liberal, alt-right, etc. Andre🚐 02:18, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
- Ok, made a few organizational changes a la above, but nothing text-wise. My first proposed change is to reword the article related from the Guardian that I moved to the text below. This moves the language out of wiki voice discusses how the term is used:
- The political campaign group, Tax Justice Network has used the term referring broadly to wealth inequality in its criticisms of tax havens. Heather Stewart (July 21, 2012). "Wealth doesn't trickle down – it just floods offshore, research reveals". The Guardian. London. Retrieved August 6, 2012.</ref>
Squatch347 (talk) 16:14, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
- No objection to that Andre🚐 16:20, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
- Updated Squatch347 (talk) 16:21, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
- Second change, I recommend striking the below paragraph. The referenced article doesn't include anything about trickle-down specifically or make a direct connection to the article.
- Overall, there is ample empirical support for and against tax cuts as means of spurring economic growth. In a 2012 study in the National Tax Journal, Canadian economist Bev Dahlby & Ergete Ferede found that "a higher provincial statutory corporate income tax rate is associated with lower private investment and slower economic growth. Our empirical estimates suggest that a 1 percentage point cut in the corporate tax rate is related to a 0.1–0.2 percentage point increase in the annual growth rate."
Squatch347 (talk) 16:21, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
- Third change is below. More succinct for sure and highlights the IMF's usage. I've definitely come around to Andre's point earlier that this doesn't need to be moved off to another category, it fits here.
- The International Monetary Fund has used the term in papers to describe the impacts on GDP growth from income differences.
Squatch347 (talk) 16:25, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
- This IMF change seems too extensive and removes their actual conclusion. The important takeaway is what they described not just that they described it. However, I am fine with removing the National Tax Journal. I haven't reviewed that source but I will take your word for it that it doesn't talk about trickle down explicitly, and we have other sources for similar statements that are more explicit. Andre🚐 16:28, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
- I'm trying to avoid a WP:PRIMARY war. The point of the article is to highlight the various usages over time and I think summarizing their style of usage is a better reflection of the sources than a long list of random primary sources that may or may not summarize the IMF's thinking on the topic. Especially since our two sources come to differing conclusions. Squatch347 (talk) 16:33, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what you mean exactly. The IMF didn't just "use the term." The current text directly quotes the IMF. I'm happy to summarize what they said instead of quoting them directly. Or find some secondary sources that summarize the IMF's reports and statements. But I think it's too far to go to completely remove their statements and just replace it with "the IMF has used the term to describe the impacts." The important thing is that they did studies that found that the benefits didn't trickle down, so we can't lose that conclusion or we're diluting the IMF's research. Andre🚐 16:39, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
- Well, the issue is that they've used the term to mean different things, one being the GDP growth impacts from income distribution and the other to be income impacts from tax rate changes. (this sentence might be a better than my initial writeup) I think it is important to summarize how they use the term and what they mean by it; focusing on the their specific findings in (at least in one case) highly specific circumstances makes this more of a WP:FORUM rather than a description of a term's usage in different contexts Squatch347 (talk) 16:50, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
- The article can cover all the possible things including contradictions. I don't understand what you mean about FORUM. That doesn't apply to this that I can tell. WP:BALANCE Andre🚐 17:12, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
- It could sure, but not all of those things would be relevant. The topic of the article is the usage of the term. That is why the page Gay Agenda doesn't have a lot of random links to journal articles about homosexuality. The page isn't about the broader topic, it is about how that specific term is being used and in what contexts. That is how we keep wiki articles from becoming a cesspool of random journal articles that every person with a POV can add to the page with their two cents on the topic. Squatch347 (talk) 07:17, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
- I don't think that's a charitable view of the article as it stands. It is not a cesspool. It's a discussion of a term that is used quite a lot in the discourse to mean a bunch of rather specific economic and policy ideas. Andre🚐 14:58, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
- Given the types of sources we are using here and their relative impact factors I think cess-pool is a very accurate description. Even if the article were about the state of the discussion within economics, we aren't using reputable journals, we are using the ones with impact (meaning other economists don't read them) factors just above pay for play journals. We have done a good start at removing the working paper nonsense, but it isn't complete.
- With that said, we aren't discussing the term like you said, we are discussing the findings of people who have labelled a policy they oppose as something. There really isn't any justification for that from an encyclopedic point of view, which is why we don't do it on any other article here. Squatch347 (talk) 06:14, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
- I don't think that's a charitable view of the article as it stands. It is not a cesspool. It's a discussion of a term that is used quite a lot in the discourse to mean a bunch of rather specific economic and policy ideas. Andre🚐 14:58, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
- It could sure, but not all of those things would be relevant. The topic of the article is the usage of the term. That is why the page Gay Agenda doesn't have a lot of random links to journal articles about homosexuality. The page isn't about the broader topic, it is about how that specific term is being used and in what contexts. That is how we keep wiki articles from becoming a cesspool of random journal articles that every person with a POV can add to the page with their two cents on the topic. Squatch347 (talk) 07:17, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
- The article can cover all the possible things including contradictions. I don't understand what you mean about FORUM. That doesn't apply to this that I can tell. WP:BALANCE Andre🚐 17:12, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
- Well, the issue is that they've used the term to mean different things, one being the GDP growth impacts from income distribution and the other to be income impacts from tax rate changes. (this sentence might be a better than my initial writeup) I think it is important to summarize how they use the term and what they mean by it; focusing on the their specific findings in (at least in one case) highly specific circumstances makes this more of a WP:FORUM rather than a description of a term's usage in different contexts Squatch347 (talk) 16:50, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what you mean exactly. The IMF didn't just "use the term." The current text directly quotes the IMF. I'm happy to summarize what they said instead of quoting them directly. Or find some secondary sources that summarize the IMF's reports and statements. But I think it's too far to go to completely remove their statements and just replace it with "the IMF has used the term to describe the impacts." The important thing is that they did studies that found that the benefits didn't trickle down, so we can't lose that conclusion or we're diluting the IMF's research. Andre🚐 16:39, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
- I'm trying to avoid a WP:PRIMARY war. The point of the article is to highlight the various usages over time and I think summarizing their style of usage is a better reflection of the sources than a long list of random primary sources that may or may not summarize the IMF's thinking on the topic. Especially since our two sources come to differing conclusions. Squatch347 (talk) 16:33, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
A 2015 report on policy by economist Pavlina R. Tcherneva described the failings of increasing economic gains of the rich without commensurate participation by the working and middle classes, referring to the problematic policies as "Reagan-style trickle-down economics", and "a trickle-down, financial-sector-driven policy regime".
Reference here is not peer-reviewed, nor even published, it is hosted on an internal website. I don't think it is WP:DUE. Squatch347 (talk) 06:58, 2 November 2022 (UTC) Edit: the more I look at the paper and the author, the more it is clear that this is a modern monetary policy paper (which is why it isn't published) which is pretty fringe. Definitely pretty confident now that this source isn't DUE. Squatch347 (talk) 07:13, 2 November 2022 (UTC)- No, it's from the Levy Economics Institute of Bard College, not an "internal website." The author is an assistant professor of economics at Bard College. Not fringe. Just because you don't like or agree with the paper doesn't make it unusable. Andre🚐 15:16, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
- Yep, and we don't cite papers solely published on the author's employment page. Per WP:PRIMARY a primary reference must be published in a reputable source, ie not something just put on their website. And, if you look at the page, and her wiki bio, you'll notice it is tagged with modern monetary theory. MMT is fringe economics per its main page. We don't include fringe positions as primary sources. Squatch347 (talk) 13:41, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
A 2017 IMF paper found that
(i) Personal income tax (PIT) cuts stimulate growth but the supply side effects are never large enough to offset the revenue loss from lower marginal tax rates; (ii) PIT cuts do 'trickle-down' the income distribution: tax cuts stimulate demand for non-tradable services which raise the wages and employment prospects of low-skilled workers even if the tax cut is not directly incident on them; (iii) A revenue neutral tax plan that reduces PIT for middle-income groups, raises the consumption tax, and expands the Earned Income Tax Credit can have modestly positive effects on growth while reducing income polarization; (iv) The growth effects from lower income taxes are concentrated in non-tradable service sectors although the increased demand for tradable goods generate positive spillovers to other countries; (v) Tax cuts targeted to higher income groups have a stronger growth impact than tax cuts for middle income households.
- This needs to be trimmed pretty seriously per wp:due we have seven lines of block quote for a single paper and that is far more than is necessary to get the point across. I would suggest
The IMF has generally used the term "trickle down" to represent income or wealth effects resulting from tax cuts, including a 2017 paper on personal income taxes.
- Squatch347 (talk) 14:03, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
- This needs to be trimmed pretty seriously per wp:due we have seven lines of block quote for a single paper and that is far more than is necessary to get the point across. I would suggest