Talk:Supply-side economics

Irresponsible Talk Page Removals

Why are all the recent Talk Page discussions removed from the Supply-side Economics Talk Page? Is deleting and repeating the same talks over and over again, supposed to be constructive for Wikipedia editors? The only discussion remaining is the Aggegate Supply Curve with no editor associated with it. Is this another piece of Wikipedia automation, run amok? Where are all the important discussions on this controversial topic? Why would an automation tool sequester all of these comments in an irretrievable location, like an archive, that no one knows where it is and would be unable to find without spending hours doing so, delete these topics and their discussions? Was the automation tool bored? Did it need to justify its existence? Why is this whole article so one-sided in its presentation? I came here to look for discussions on that topic, which have obviously been deleted, along with whatever whims have struck the Wikipedia administrator of the AnomieBOT. I can't imagine what destruction this BOT brought to the articles that it "cleaned" of information and discussions. Stevenmitchell (talk) 12:57, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Discussions on this page are automatically archived after a year of inactivity (which is already on the long side). It is very simple to search or browse the archives through the tools above. Or you can always start a new discussion. –CWenger (^ • @) 13:51, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Aggregate Supply Curve

There is no discussion of whether the AS curve is vertical. And I think that's stereotypical of people who have not studied either supply side or Keynesian economics.

Put GDP on the x-axis and price on the y-axis. Draw a vertical AS curve and a down-curved aggregate demand (AD) curve that levels off.

In this case, the only question that matters IS whether the AS curve is vertical. Because if it is, then the only way to improve GDP is to change aggregate supply. There is no discussion of any of this in the article, and it just amazes me.

The note that it's not to be confused with trickle down economics is inaccurate

As per this website:

Stockman was quoted as referring to Reagan's tax act in these terms: "I mean, Kemp-Roth [Reagan's 1981 tax cut] was always a Trojan horse to bring down the top rate.... It's kind of hard to sell 'trickle down.' So the supply-side formula was the only way to get a tax policy that was really 'trickle down.' Supply-side is 'trickle-down' theory." Of the budget process during his first year on the job, Stockman was quoted as saying, "None of us really understands what's going on with all these numbers," which was used as the subtitle of the article. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Stockman#Office_of_Management_and_Budget 2603:6011:3500:6FB:515E:E0A2:1033:A241 (talk) 17:16, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia's not to be confused with tag just means that there is another article on a similar topic or with a similar name, that this article may not be the one you expected, maybe you wanted that one.

It is not intended as an instruction (to Stockman or anyone else). At another level, it identifies that these are separate concepts, so an ideal topic for a "compare and contrast" essay. And not an easy one either! 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 18:04, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Criticism relegated to brief section, and seems in dire need of updates by newer RS

Given the amount of RS as it relates to "criticism" or even "failures" of supply-side, I believe this article could stand to be improved from an WP:NPOV standpoint. My concerns at this point are basically WP:BALASPS and WP:STRUCTURE. The advice given in WP:CSECTION seems relevant, and at this point, it would be easy for an inexperienced but well meaning editor to mistakenly create a WP:POVFORK, pointing to the note at the top "Not to be confused with Trickle-down economics."...Any thoughts or suggestions on how to better integrate this material into the article? Cheers. DN (talk) 03:18, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

I never take issue with updates to an article. But I don't know that I would agree with the statement that Supply Side criticism is relegated to just a "brief section". The article is peppered with analysis that challenge a lot of Supply Side claims.Rja13ww33 (talk) 03:38, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

There is mention of criticism in the lead etc...but if you read my previous statements, it clarifies my points. Cheers. DN (talk) 03:47, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

So are you saying the criticism in the LEAD is what needs expanding upon or in the main body? Because I wouldn't think "newer RS" would belong in the LEAD.Rja13ww33 (talk) 19:27, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

I pointed you to my opening statement, specifically..."My concerns at this point are basically WP:BALASPS and WP:STRUCTURE. The advice given in WP:CSECTION seems relevant...

...So I'm not sure why you are only referring to my reply. Sorry if I wasn't clear, but does that help?

Cheers. DN (talk) 19:46, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Sort of. A concrete proposal (i.e. change X to Y) would be best though.Rja13ww33 (talk) 19:53, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

I opted to start a discussion on this perceived issue in addition to what is already posted (As you can see there are already two different years old banners at the top of the article). One for "world view" issues, and a request for an expert from WikiProject Economics. I don't have a proposal at this time because I prefer to start with getting a sense of community opinions.

As far as a more concrete proposal, I would refer again to my opening, at the end in which I refer to the criticism section and ask Any thoughts or suggestions on how to better integrate this material into the article?...Relegating "criticism" to a small section at the bottom can be perceived as akin to a WP:POVFORK. Economics is not as abstract as other topics such as religion or politics, so at this point, I think the issue of neutrality is also a strong possibility here. Cheers. DN (talk) 20:22, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

I was just asking because sometimes people have something in mind that they hold back (at first).Rja13ww33 (talk) 20:25, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

I also felt your initial criticism of the criticism was vague. We could probably move some of the statements in the criticism section into the section or event (specific tax cut) that they refer to, like the last paragraph: "Studies, which have analysed the tax cuts in 2001 (EGTRRA),..." into the chronological area that discusses that tax cut.

I think that often when someone finds new information relevant to a topic, but can't figure out where it should fit in an article, it gets dumped in at the end, so that MAY explain why we have the criticism section there. ---Avatar317^(talk) 00:52, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

It's not necessarily my personal taste or "criticism of the criticism section" in any regard, it's purely what Wikipedia says about how to improve articles. In some cases a criticism section is warranted, but it's also common for editors that disagree with each other to try and compromise by creating a "criticism or controversy section." It seems this article has been fairly dormant for some time. It might be worth digging into the archive to see what happened to cause that at some point, but as long as progress is possible I don't feel the need to go to that trouble. Cheers. DN (talk) 02:00, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

The context you reference doesn't even seem like an actual criticism with the MOS:WEASEL juxtaposition of "however"...saying the decrease in taxes has provided "a generally positive impact"...

"According to studies that analyzed the tax cuts in 2001 (EGTRRA): the decrease in taxes have provided a generally positive impact on the future output from the effect of the lower tax rates on human capital accumulation, private saving and investment, labor supply; however, the tax cuts have produced adverse effects such as higher deficits and reduced national savings"

I have added an additional tag. Has no one noticed these POV issues before? Cheers. DN (talk) 08:47, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

History (Clinton years)

I'm not sure how this section relates to the article. Do the citations even mention SS? Cheers.DN (talk) 07:37, 8 April 2025 (UTC)