Talk:Reaganomics

message: There are some who insist that Reagan engineered a miracle economy, including by crushing persistent inflation, so saying the Fed's actions were "in part" to credit fuels that narrative.The source added by  makes clear that during the Reagan presidency it was Volcker's policies that crushed inflation. 
 soibangla (talk) 18:42, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: If the text said that it was partly due to the Fed and partly due to Reagan, then I'd agree with you. But it says partly due to the Fed, and doesn't state what the other causes were (such as external factors). I'd be very wary of saying it was solely due to the Fed without a source explicitly stating so. Bellowhead678 (talk) 19:14, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Where does it say partly due to the Fed? soibangla (talk) 19:45, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The Fed was responsible for bringing down inflation. Reagan was running big deficits trying to stimulate the economy, which is inflationary other things equal. If there are quotes about him trying to talk down inflation, one might write that he was aligned that way with what the Fed was doing, but inflation is a monetary phenomenon (the Fed).Farcaster (talk) 23:01, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  cause of inflation drop 

message: There is the section “Income distribution“ which lays out some bare stats. But there isn’t anything in the analysis section breaking down the practical impact.. And Ronnie Regs did get plenty of criticism for income inequality. Also, the analysis section seems to be lacking any criticism on the harsher side. And it seems pretty packed with analysis that paints Ronnie Reaganomics in a positive light. Some of which seems to say the same thing to a degree. I figured I’d ask here before editing as I’d imagine this discussion has happened before.DonkeyPunchResin (talk) 11:14, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: "Lacking in criticism"? It's almost all criticism. Of the 11 economists quoted.....only 2 have anything positive to say about this policy. In fact, outside of the first few paragraphs, it is pure criticism. If anything, I'd say it was unbalanced in the other direction.Rja13ww33 (talk) 15:08, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I’d dispute the accuracy of your assessment. But my main point is that the economists and other commentators are talking about abstract things like supply side economics effect on tax revenue, pages in the federal register vs regulatory rules, the use of “shall” “prohibited” or “may not”, etc. A major focus of criticism of Regeanomics, if not the main focus, is on the tangible effect it had on income equality. The analysis section is void of this criticism.DonkeyPunchResin (talk) 13:12, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: It may be worth a statement on that point. (Probably with a link to that page here.) But income inequality is a fairly deep topic....and taxes only address the topic after the fact. If you want to talk about wealth inequality (or after tax income)....that is a bit more relevant. The fact is, before tax income for the highest wage earners has risen over the last 50 years regardless of what the tax policy is.Rja13ww33 (talk) 17:15, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

text: I might grab something out of Krugman's book and drop it in next week. He spends some time with this in 'The Conscience of a Liberal'.Rja13ww33 (talk) 17:29, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I added Krugman's thoughts on this. Any comments.....let me know.Rja13ww33 (talk) 21:00, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. That’s what I was looking for.DonkeyPunchResin (talk) 18:16, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Analysis section is woefully lacking in criticism. In particular, criticism relating to income inequality. 

message: ...I think causes issues with some people, so I'm just going to help a little bit here - neoliberal ---Apeholder (talk) 05:04, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  The word "liberal" in "neoliberal"... 

message: I'm a Lemon Demon fan too, but his song doesn't have an individual article, and I don't think a reasonable person would expect it to (it's on a Bandcamp album, admittedly a very popular one, and other, more popular tracks¹ from Spirit Phone don't have articles either). Does it need to stay? 
¹Spirit Phone's article lists Touch-Tone Telephone from the same album as Lemon Demon's most played song on Spotify, and that song and Eighth Wonder as being mentioned in citable sources but not the others
96.19.2.200 (talk) 20:50, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disambiguation necessary? 

message: Comparing this hat
to this hat
I made an edit to add trickle down to the distinguish hat (the second one), but it was reverted. I chose "not to be confused" specifically because for a long time I actually believed they were the same thing, and that Reagan called his plan "trickle down". Turns out that's pretty far from the truth. The revert message suggested to make it a see also. At first, I thought ok, then was going to make the edit.
But after seeing trickle down in the see also, I really don't like propagating the false impression that I used to have. This makes me uncomfortable because the only reason I ever had that false impression was because of very successful POV messaging. Opponents called Reagan's policy trickle down. In fact, virtually all uses one can find of "trickle down economics" are critical shorthands. Many just outright dismissals. There aren't very many honest uses. Heavy Chaos (talk) 06:50, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Correct me if I'm wrong, but Reagan didn't call his policy package Reaganomics either. Obama, did end up calling his healthcare plan Obamacare, but only after it was labelled that by his opponents. We don't name articles or links based on what the originator of that policy called it, we call them by their WP:COMMONNAME. A lot of people, including textbooks and academics, refer to things known as Reaganomics or trickle-down economics - we have 2 separate articles with some linkage to represent that these are somewhat overlapping but not identical topics. But I don't agree with "not to be confused with" because it implies these are two altogether separate things. Yes, Reagan's critics called his policies trickle-down, but so do neutral academics and neutral news or other references such as books. More to the point, it's a common naming, but conceptually-wise, there's considerable overlap - so not to be confused, more like, see also, in my view. Andre🚐 07:37, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: In terms of what the articles are right now, they are altogether separate things. Reagonomics is a particular economic plan. Trickle down is a critical term, widely applied, which happens to have been popularized while being applied toward Reagan. "but so do neutral academics and neutral news or other references such as books [call it trickle down]". That's a misleading statement. If they are explaining the term trickle down, sure, that's neutral, but those are 1 per 100 for the critical uses that clearly aren't neutral. Further, academic use is virtually nill. You've been all up and down the trickle down article for months. You know this, but keep claiming the opposite. The trickle down talk page has already hashed this 10 or so times, 2 or 3 with you in there. Heavy Chaos (talk) 07:45, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

text: Correct me if I'm wrong, but they aren't synonyms. And we have links on the trickle down page clearly supporting that they are completely different topics and commonly confused, so wp:commonname supports my argument, not yours. Heavy Chaos (talk) 07:47, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure what you mean that I know something but I am claiming the opposite. As I've stated on the trickle-down page trickle-down is used by neutral textbooks and neutral academic sources. It's true that the most influential and significant usage is the critical usage. Regardless, it's not at all clear that Reaganomics and trickle-down economics have a completely independent venn diagram. Others can weigh in, but I am not sold and I believe that Reaganomics has a significant component that is identical to what is called trickle-down economics, and voodoo economics probably almost exclusively refers to that part of Reaganomics. As far as past discussions on the trickle-down page, as far as I know you didn't participate in those. So you'll have to make those arguments anew and others or myself can respond to them anew. You can't just handwave and say it was settled there, as it wasn't, there was no consensus against trickle-down being in part a description of a certain economic theory discussed neutrally in academic sources (though predominantly critically). Nor is that strictly relevant to this article. Andre🚐 07:56, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: "It's true that the most influential and significant usage is the critical usage." Then you have to concede, per wp:COMMONNAME. They can and largely do confuse them. "it's not at all clear that Reaganomics and trickle-down economics have a completely independent venn diagram". Completely independent is not the goalpost we're shooting for, is it? It's about confusion for the majority of readership, which you conceded. "So you'll have to make those arguments anew and others or myself can respond to them anew." No, consensus doesn't mean that. Tally them up. There's a significant majority of users that are on my side of the fence here, but you refuse to accept it. Even when it was tallied for you in Oct 22. You reached for straws to keep debating. Consensus doesn't mean "if I outlast you I win". Heavy Chaos (talk) 08:20, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Most of the time trickle-down is used critically, while Reaganomics is certainly used more positively. That does not mean fundamentally they are really different, though, do you have a source for that? Because the current articles say they have a lot of overlap. So it's not that they are confused, they may be conflated, because they have a lot of shared topic area. But I don't think we should use that hatnote because it implies they are disparate. As far as the consensus in October 22, Wikipedia:consensus is not a vote. You do not tally them up. If the arguments are roughly of equal size and weight and strength, that is a WP:NOCON result. We can start a new RFC on the topic if that is in doubt, but there is no consensus for the change you're proposing: you'll need to discuss and obtain one. A third and a fourth opinion could make it clear that I am in the minority with my argument, but that is not a given. You have to do the work of collaboration not just claim it was done already. Andre🚐 08:28, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "See also" vs "Not to be confused" hat for [[trickle down economics]] 

message: There is research that because of the Neoliberal policies enacted by Raegan and later Bush and Clinton, there is a noticable stiffling of Scientific innovation. I see no mention of it here. Should perhaps be added?
Note: I understand "Jacobin" is left leaning. I also note that they are consistently rated as "High" or at least less problematic than many other media sources when looking at fact check sites such as:
- https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/jacobin/
- https://adfontesmedia.com/jacobin-bias-and-reliability/
 
Sources:
- https://jacobin.com/2023/05/science-neoliberal-model-innovation-publications-quantifying-wage-labor/
- https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-022-05543-x
- http://www.countdownnet.net/Allegati/31%20Neoliberalism%20and%20technology_Perpetual%20innovation%20or%20perpetual%20crisis.pdf 94.110.113.219 (talk) 23:59, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: On our RS list, Jacobian is also listed as a biased source. Also, these sources don't specifically mention Reaganomics. At least one of the sources says the blame lies with "...academia’s increasingly competitive, metrics-driven model, which discourages creativity and risk-taking." And finally, the era of the computer/.com revolution was without innovation? Per EXTRAORDINARY, we are probably going to need a number of high quality sources to back that up. Rja13ww33 (talk) 01:55, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  No mention of the stiffling of actual scientific innovation.