Talk:Trickle-down economics

message: Per above, i will use this section as a discussion of the contested lines above. Bonewah (talk) 14:32, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: * archive copy of bloomberg article.  Does not support either claim.  The article neither mentions any other study nor the laffer curve at all.  Therefore, it does not directly support the contested claims. Bonewah (talk) 14:34, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

text: *:Incorrect. It's not cited for the Laffer curve claim. But it does support the claim that,   Andre🚐 14:37, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, but that is not a line to which im objecting. Bonewah (talk) 14:41, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

text: * CBS new article covering the same study as bloomberg article above. Does not support either claim. Bonewah (talk) 14:40, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

text: *:I don't understand your point. It's not cited for the Laffer curve, and it supports the claim that studies have shown that trickle-down doesn't work. Your arguments are invalid. Andre🚐 14:42, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: My point is that you need a citation for the claim that "As of 2023, a number of studies have shown that there is no obvious link between reducing tax burdens on the upper end and economic growth." You cant simply cite some studies and then draw broad conclusions not stated in the sources themselves for the same reason I could not say that "As of 2023, a number of studies have shown that there is positive relationship between reducing tax burdens on the upper end and economic growth." and then cite a bunch of studies. You can cite the studies, if relevant and consistent with the other rules of Wikipedia, but not to support the broad conclusion that I object to. Bonewah (talk) 14:49, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, no, it's a summary. We absolutely can if there's a consensus that this is an accurate summary, that due to the copious secondary sources interpreting that trickle-down is a myth, it's a myth and no study has shown any evidence of it. We can change the wording, but your argument is a bunch of bunk and unproductive and WP:1AM. Andre🚐 14:50, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

text: Looking at the archive (2), I noticed another citation which was discussed that seems relevant to this discussion. DN (talk) 20:16, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations for contested content 

message: The lead was recently rewritten in this series of edits to say that "trickle-down economics" is another term for "supply-side economics", a statement that obviously contradicts the body and numerous sources describing its usage as something that predates supply-side economics entirely. When I reverted it, it was reverted back in with the statement that it had been discussed; however, I can see no such discussion (nor can I imagine that such a WP:BOLD rewrite would have withstood any serious scrutiny, because, again, it directly contradicts the body of the article and most high-quality sources, relying entirely on lower-quality news sources.) As far as I can tell, the rewrite had no discussion at all. In fact, the only discussion around the time of the rewrite focused solely on the Laffer curve. The proposed rewrite to the lead contradicts most sources, severely damaged the quality of the lead, and fails to accurately summarize the entire article or the relevant sources per WP:LEAD. --Aquillion (talk) 17:26, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: The core problem i have with your rewrite is that it does not clearly state that TDE is a pejorative and not used by economists. I agree that the term predates Supply side econ and so the lead should reflect that. I think your edits are superior to what we had, but, again, i think we need to emphasize what the sources actually say, that TDE isnt an economic term and never has been. Ill revert my reversion and offer some tweaks to address my concerns.  Thanks Bonewah (talk) 16:06, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

text: I agree.  I have no problem with the lede rewrite, save that it does not spell this out, and, frankly, the last line is doing exactly what DOR (ex-HK) is saying.  Which is, acting as if some study or whatever 'disproves' something that isnt an economic theory in the first place. Bonewah (talk) 15:38, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent lead rewrite