Talk:Supply-side economics/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

... better known as fantasy economics

Research by the London School of Economics and Kings College London (University of London) shows that the claim is unfounded. See Keeping tax low for the rich does not boost economy.

Paul Krugman writes

The important point to understand is that there isn’t a serious debate about the proposition that tax cuts for the rich strongly increase economic growth. The truth is that there is no evidence – none – for that proposition.

— UK suffers a full-scale policy zombie apocalypse (reprinted from NYT)

The article as it stands has a serious NPOV problem because, as is recognised, it written too much from a US perspective. The issue is not that it is insufficiently global in perspective but specifically because it is framed and presented in terms of the Reagan, Bush and Trump administrations. It should be written as an exposition of the economic arguments and only incidentally illustrated by its uncritical adoption by those presidents and now most recently by the new UK government. It needs a big health warning up front, something better than {{disputed}}. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 19:31, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

External links

[1] I do not see the point of including working papers and CNN articles. This is an academic subject and we should draw from the wealth of high quality academic sources instead of putting a bunch of random opinion pieces and working into the external links section. 2A01:4B00:9D42:6E00:2CBA:7852:EB89:5817 (talk) 20:40, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

(a) it is not an academic subject, it is a political ideology masquerading as one. No respected economist gives it the slightest credence.

(b) the links, particularly the London School of Economics one, demonstrates that it is the economics equivalent of pseudoscience by producing the evidence that falsifies it and those who continue to cling to it are ipso facto charlatans.

So the only credible reason to seek to delete those links is because they contradict the evidence-free assertions of the proponents of this thesis. If you are so sure of its validity, why are you afraid of contradiction? Wikipedia aims for a neutral point of view and to fail to report the contrary perspectives would be a gross dereliction of that obligation. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 23:20, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

(a) The study of the relationship between deregulation/low taxation and growth is an academic subject. This is why we should use academic sources. Homeopathy is nonsense, but a medical topic. Hence the sources used in Homeopathy are not opinion pieces published in the Irish Times, but peer-reviewed medical research.

(b) Yes, there is plenty of good (peer-reviewed, properly published) evidence that extremely low taxation/deregulation does not have a strong effect on growth. We should cite that evidence. What we should not do is cite working papers or circumvent reliability guidelines by putting them into the EL section.

I have provided good reasons for the deletion of your links and you would do well not accusing anyone who undos your edits of being a proponent of an evidence-free theory. As far as I can tell, I have never expressed my personal opinion on this subject (contrary to you claiming that I am "so sure of it's validity"); it is perfectly possible for me to disregard supply-side economics and still object to the inclusion of anti-SSE sources that are of low quality. Equally, the only thing I am "afraid" of is adding low quality sources. If you review all of my edits, you will find that I also removed a link to an encyclopedia published by a libertarian think-tank [2]. 2A01:4B00:9D42:6E00:C8C9:FC0E:F73F:ED76 (talk) 23:47, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

OP, if that is your concern, why didn't you remove the self-published Sowell and Mundell ext. links? SPECIFICO talk 00:23, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, I certainly support their removal and am planning to remove them myself eventually. If I removed all bad links, very little would be left - an overzealous RC patroller would see an IP edit with a big bad red number and start a cycle of unexplained reverts. See the history of CMA for a taster. Sounds silly because it is. 2A01:4B00:9D42:6E00:C8C9:FC0E:F73F:ED76 (talk) 01:17, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

I see now that you have removed them-I suppose that deprives me of the opportunity to demonstrate that I am not a "charlatan" clinging to "pseudoscience" and just concerned about content quality. More generally, I am surprised at the degree of suspicion on this talk page; certainly something I would expect at AP2 or PIA, but this? 2A01:4B00:9D42:6E00:C8C9:FC0E:F73F:ED76 (talk) 01:22, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Not so sure the external links (including the one by Mundell) should have been removed. The fact that it may/may not be RS isn't relevant because as the policy states: Sites that fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources. A Nobel Prize winner talking about the subject qualifies.Rja13ww33 (talk) 02:42, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

This article is awash in OR and SYNTH

Just glancing through this article after having stepped away for a while and i see that it is still chocked full of WP:SYNTH. Just a reminder, SYNTH says Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source. This means that if a source does not explicitly say its relevant to supply side, then using that source is assuredly improper. Anywhere we cite tax return data, analysis of budget data, GDP growth or anything similar can not be used unless is specifically says its relevant to supply side. Remember WP:OR states Even with well-sourced material, if you use it out of context, or to reach or imply a conclusion not directly and explicitly supported by the source, you are engaging in original research (emphasis mine). There are just too many instances of this in this article to list right now, but i will make an effort to deal with them in turn. Bonewah (talk) 13:45, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

I strongly agree. I'll do a couple of removals of OR that I know of. ---Avatar317^(talk) 00:24, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Trussonomics

To delete a whole section (that in effect describes the market reaction to SS "economics") really needs prior discussion. It is not difficult to find multiple sources that categorise Trussonomics as SSE. Try https://news.google.com/search?q=Truss%20%22supply%20side%22&hl=en-GB&gl=GB&ceid=GB%3Aen I don't have time now to do a chapter and verse debate but such a big deletion needs consensus that it is indeed synth. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 09:28, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Please re-read WP:OR, and specifically WP:SYNTH so that you can gain a better understanding of what OR means. (I think it is the most non-understood principle in Wikipedia.) As I stated in my edit summary, only ONE of the sources even mentions SSE. Please see Bonewah's comment above: "Remember WP:OR states "Even with well-sourced material, if you use it out of context, or to reach or imply a conclusion not directly and explicitly supported by the source, you are engaging in original research". (Note MY bolding here.) Also, from WP:SYNTH: "Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source."

For the record, this is newly added content (thereby has no implicit consensus of inclusion) and per WP:ONUS "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." - But a discussion would definitely be helpful in the long run if it helps more editors better understand OR and SYNTH, because I have found (and removed) quite a bit of it from economics related articles.

One issue we have seen going on at this article (and has been discussed in Talk) is that there is an ECONOMICS principle called SSE and its POLITICAL USE by politicians who support lower taxes and then use/co-opt this economic principle as justification (generally false justification) for their tax cuts; when this political policy causes problems/fails, some people blame the ECONOMICS principle, when that didn't truly justify the tax cuts in the first place. Here's an extreme analogy: terrorists justify their violence by citing their Islamic faith...their actions aren't an indictment on the whole philosophical movement of Islam. If SOME economists call this a supply-side policy, than we can say who calls it a SSE policy and SPECIFICALLY WHICH PARTS are SSE; the unfunded energy subsidies were not related to SSE in any way, but they were a HUGE contributor to the markets' reactions. Additionally, since this tax cut never happened, this "experiment" never ran, so other than the tax cut being POLITICALLY unpopular, there is no economics evidence that an un-tried experiment failed here, so to imply that conclusion (as the whole section did) is blatant SYNTH. ---Avatar317^(talk) 20:12, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

I know what OR is and also understand WP:wikilawyering. There certainly is a principle in economics known as "supply side" just as there is a "demand side" principle. But "supply-side economics" is an ideology, as has been repeatedly demonstrated. The google search I gave above has any number of reliable sources that describe Trussonomics as "supply-side economics": that many do so derisively is neither here nor there. The allegation of OR is without foundation since no original research [meaning creation of original material, unsupported by citation], is included. Nor, as far as I can see, is there any synthesis of sources. Perhaps it needs someone with more time than I have to write ref tags for the sources that Google can find so easily? How many do you need? There is no shortage. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 00:38, 23 October 2022 (UTC) [edited --01:02, 23 October 2022 (UTC)]

@The Anome:, as the main contributor of the Trussonomics material, it should be for you to argue for its inclusion, please. Otherwise, Avatar317 can validly cite WP:ONUS and delete it. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 01:06, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

I think John Maynard Friedman has laid the supporting argument for the inclusion of this section very well. Neither WP:SYN or WP:OR applies, and WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a valid argument for removing it. — The Anome (talk) 01:22, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

It's UNDUE it's Recentism, notnews, etc. etc. SPECIFICO talk 02:18, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, Anemone, but I'm afraid you need to do better than that. "Oh yes it is oh no it isn't" won't cut it. Specifically you need to do the work to identify the additional RSs and cite them. I have just secured a brief stay of execution but that's as much time as I am willing to commit to this topic. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk)

"Trussonomics" was a full-on attempt at no-compromise supply-side policies in a G7 country. It was a total failure, both politically and economically, and all this has been repotted widely in media around the world, I will happily add more WP:RS, but cannot promise to do so in the next 24 hours, as I have other things to do first. — The Anome (talk) 16:28, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Given that the section you added has now been deleted twice (by different editors), it would be wise to use this talk page first, to give the sources you find and to demonstrate that they say this without need for you to make any inferences. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 16:40, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Anome, a full-on attempt at no-compromise supply-side policies -- it appears you are assuming or concluding that the Truss move was a canonical or prototypical, defining implementation of "supply side economics". But the particular moves she made and their economic and geopolitical context apply only to this one instance of "supply side policies" if at all. The Trussonomics article is fine, but it is UNDUE and COATRACK to load all that onto this page, which is about a much larger, longstanding subject and the surrounding scientific and political controversies surrounding SS. SPECIFICO talk 18:58, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Might I suggest trickle-down economics might be a good place for this content. Andre🚐 03:41, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Not to be confused with trickle-down?

The header states that this should not be confused with trickle-down economics. However to quote Mr. @John Maynard Friedman... no but seriously, with that name, you're asking for it! There is a discussion on that page about whether they are or are not essentially the same thing. Also paging @Aquillion, @Bonewah, @Squatch347 Andre🚐 18:46, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

re that hatnote, I suggest that WP:Mandy Rice-Davies applies. No, it should not be confused because they are just alternative names for the same thing, no matter how much the Cato Institute etc likes to assert otherwise. (My user-name is in honour of my home town, Milton Keynes in England and an occasional urban myth about the origin of its name.) --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 19:00, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

But so if it should in fact be conflated, the current note is not correct Andre🚐 19:39, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

I agree. I believe it should be deleted. Well I would, wouldn't I? But then again, I consider that we would serve the subject far better by merging the articles. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 23:23, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

The recent work on trickle-down economics I think shows very well that many many uses of the term are not referring to "supply-side" economics. That work shows clearly that it is a very loosely applied criticism for tax plans that are perceived to favor the rich. I recently read yesterday that it was used in the 40s to criticize Hoover and Andrew Mellon, though "rich-favored tax schemes" is not exactly correct, but was an accusation still levied. Similarly, most other uses I can find are not particularly accurate when they characterize these tax schemes as "rich-favored". Additionally, there's an idea I'm trying to break that natural wealth from colonies and other such territories sent back to the likes to England, etc, "trickled down" to the masses and produced the overall better conditions and wealth of those nations. We have a blurp that shows this usage, but getting that expanded will be hard, since this silly pejorative usage is so damn popular today. Anyway, the point of my message here, trickle-down economics and supply side economics clearly should not be merged and the hatnote is justified.

As an aside, I think your cite of "Mandy Rice-Davies Applies" is way off. The essay is merely pointing out that articles shouldn't have a disclaimer on every little thing, especially the obvious ones. EG "So-and-so is a rapist. He denies that allegation." It's not at all notable that he denies that point, because he would, wouldn't he. A notable point would be that he admits it! WP:weight applies much better to this idea. That he would deny it is so plainly clear that even mentioning it gives it undue weight. If we decided to put disclaimers on everything, we'd get tit-for-tat "this guy says this, but this other guy says that" kind of form. In fact, it's a form that is currently exhibited on the trickle down article, but just try deleting any of it and everyone loses their minds. HC (talk) 23:12, 7 March 2023 (UTC)