Talk:Trickle-down economics/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Source Verification

Relevant text: In 2016, Nobel laureate Joseph Stiglitz wrote that the post-World War II evidence does not support trickle-down economics, but rather "trickle-up economics" whereby more money in the pockets of the poor or the middle benefits everyone.

Can someone validate that the source makes this reference on the pages listed? The book doesn't appear to be 155 pages long in any source I can find, and the term Trickle-Down only appears once in the glossary, which seems odd for a 20+page citation. I have no doubt Stiglitz has some kind of relevant views, but I want to be careful we are representing him accurately.

Squatch347 (talk) 16:36, 1 February 2023 (UTC) Squatch347 (talk) 16:36, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes it's right there in the text: [1] Andre🚐 17:05, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Have updated to a different cite using DOI:10.1111/1467-923X.12237 Andre🚐 17:08, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

This might be a good spot to give an example of what I am talking about below. I think the correct way to use this source would be to add it here (no doubt Stiglitz is a notable source, etc) with a comment akin to "Nobel laureate Joseph Stiglitz has labelled the US economic policies following WWII and the 2008 Financial Crises (both of these linked to the host articles) as examples of a trickle-down approach."

Then, on the two linked pages we would also post this source with a more elaborate reference to Stiglitz's argument that these policies increased inequality and hampered economic growth when understood properly at the individual level. That citation should link back to this page as well to tie the two topics together.

Anyway, I hope that helps elaborate on what I mean when I say the below and I think it more accurately comports to what we have on the comparable pages referenced here and elsewhere. The other large advantage is that editor with greater subject matter expertise are presumably more active on those pages than on this one an can better assist in adjudicating the addition. Squatch347 (talk) 18:48, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

That waters down the expert conclusions of a Nobel laureate economist for no good reason and serves to buffer the conclusion that trickle-down is bunk - which you claim that no serious economist believes in anyway, so why? Andre🚐 21:23, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't think it does that at all, his expert opinion is still referenced on all the pages discussing outcomes of actual policies. If anything it is far better because those pages have broader discussions from all the economists who are engaging in that discussion. Squatch347 (talk) 00:52, 2 February 2023 (UTC):

References

IMF discussion notes

In edit [2] I've removed the first citation as not referring to trickle down. For the second I'm happy enough for IMF discussion notes that are cited as a major source by a secondary source to be cited, but

"Staff Discussion Notes Volume 2015 Issue 013: Causes and Consequences of Income Inequality: A Global Perspective (2015)". imfsg. doi:10.5089/9781513555188.006. Retrieved 2023-02-03.

in the article does not have an associated secondary source. Even though itis obviously well researched and ha good authors and referenced in lots of other works I think we really do need a clear secondary cite. The citation beside it is also very unsatisfactory in not stating the particular pages supporting its use here. NadVolum (talk) 14:59, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes that's fair. I'll try to track down the specific page number, but if you want to see it in context there's a pre-publication PDF of the text floating around, which I will try to find again. Andre🚐 17:27, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Tax Debt Burden - Economical Growth

Someone noticed that number of papers have demonstrated no link between lowering tax burden with the economic growth.

I shall argue - again with the same postulations plus unused dimensions - to energy intensively interpret the statistics after the City of London and the Bank of England was established in 1689.

After that incident the Financial revolution conducted abruptly to the equity intensive Industrial revolution resulting numerous evidences regarding the enormous well-being around us nowadays emerged of positive economic growth climate plus manifested in continuance as economic growth both with the incresed purchasing power for the Western taxpayers but, however, especially on the emerging markets where the phenomenon created conveniences: one can likewise observe and scope the cultural evolution from the stock exchanges for the potential influencies towards monetary systems with the rational fiscal politics after the bourse of Amsterdam was founded simultanously; to interpret the irrefutable index developments in general during the past generations.

Therefore is quite complicated formula to form an optimal taxing rate mechanism due to the divesity of the rule of fiscal legistations and law environments for expressing principles let alone theories with justifications for the public sector interventions to tax or to mandate those Iniatives without implementing appropriate discussions with the sparking open dialogies among the economics and decision makers, but, finally those societys without tax at all need to take account when the public debt question is considered.

Any bonus information or commets? Kartasto (talk) 22:57, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

We need published source citations you would propose to use as the basis for article content. This sounds more like your personal insights. SPECIFICO talk 23:00, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

The article tells: "The concept of trickle down economics, that economic prosperity in the upper classes flows down into the lower classes, is at least 100 years old."

Surely the upper classes had - at least 100 years ago - no so fancy smartphones let alone cars compering to equipments own by the working class citizens nowadays in Poland: plus to be remamebred that not mentioned fiscal policy or the word tax at all. Kartasto (talk) 08:46, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

You say 'I shall argue..' That sounds like WP:Original research which is not what WIkipedia is about. Anything put in needs to have been published and reviewed. WP:Citation needed is not something you can ignore. This place is about producing an encyclopaedia of what's already out there, not a journal wher people expound on their own thoughts or describe their research. We write down how many teeth the literature says a horse has, we do not go out and count them. NadVolum (talk) 09:53, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

You have sentences taking up entire paragraphs above. If you use shorter sentences with a thought per sentence it will help make what you say more readable. NadVolum (talk) 10:40, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

WP:Citation needed. Anyway the topic of this article is not about reducing the tax burden but in the idea that having tax disproportionately favor the rich would lead to a better economy and indirectly benefit everyone more that a bottom up approach would. So even if you found a citation it probably wouldn't find a plce here. NadVolum (talk) 00:35, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

@Kartasto Well, all this you wrote is a bit unapproachable, but stressing that optimal tax rate is a multifaceted target which includes many considerations would be a lot better than dropping in these "low taxes are bad" plugs. Heavy Chaos (talk) 03:06, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

As of 2023, studies have not demonstrated a link between reducing tax burdens on the upper end and economic growth.

I think this statement needs proper phrasing and good citations. A far as I can see studies have if anything shown that such policies are bad for growth - so there is a link. Whatever however it decided it is something that will be disputed so if something like that is put in the lead the backup should be good. NadVolum (talk) 15:10, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

The best you're going to find for this is that studies are inconclusive. This is because the studies will be inconsistent, using various assumptions, model structures, and methodologies. What's needed is/are tertiary sources such as a survey of the literature in a peer-reviewed academic journal. It's not fruitful for WP editors to try to select among thousands of possible statements about the efficacy of whatever somebody calls trickle-down policy. SPECIFICO talk 15:14, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO I agree. Like I said elsewhere, I don't want to have arguments over scientific validity. By tertiary, do you mean meta studies? Heavy Chaos (talk) 17:00, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

An article that reviews the various studies and presents points of validity and criticism of the studies themselves, and differences and similarity of approach, and tells us to what extent the studies are respected or rejected by economists and policymakers, etc. SPECIFICO talk 17:25, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

If the statement is summarizing the article body in the lead, it doesn't need cites in the lead. However, I can see why this sentence would be under dispute. I was trying to mitigate that somewhat by phrasing it as a negative. However the main justification for this is the 2020 Hope Limberg paper, as well as the Jencks. Andre🚐 17:25, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Have we any studies saying the opposite even if they don't say trickle-down explicitly? If it doesn't mention trickle-down or something very similar we can't actually use it here but it would mean we couldn't in all fairness assert in Wikivoice that there's no link. NadVolum (talk) 22:33, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

What the current iteration says is "no studies have demonstrated a link," not that "studies have demonstrated no link." There is a difference. Maybe we should change it to, "studies have not demonstrated evidence of a link" or "studies have not conclusively..." Andre🚐 23:45, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

I guess if any reviewed study did show a positive correlation the right wing think tanks in america would have made us all quite well aware!. NadVolum (talk) 16:17, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Can Google Ngram be used as a ref for the history section?

The Google ngram shows what we all know: The term trickle down economics was in virtually zero use until the Reagan years. But can we note this in the history section? I mean, obviously we can, but are there legitimacy issues with using the ngram as a reference. In this instance it is to show, literally, the historical usage of the term. I think this use case would be fine, but I feel like interpreting graphs, even when they are this glaringly clear, is a slippery slope. Do they call that wp:synth? Heavy Chaos (talk) 23:39, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

It's a good observation but yes, it probably would be WP:OR unless it's a simple and obvious interpretation. The larger issue is that you don't normally want to cite Google Ngram because it moves over time and it lacks the ability to link to a permalink, nor does it indicate the source of its information. Also, I do think Google Ngram data is going to be pretty skewed to digitally available material, so it might be overstating the situation. Still, it's a good point. Andre🚐 23:44, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

I think it's acceptable to cite Ngram as long as it's a very basic observation. For example: The term "trickle-down economics" was rarely seen in published books until 1979. We would not be able to mention Reagan without SYNTH. Obviously, a secondary would would be better, but Ngram is the most comprehensive archive of published books I'm aware of, and is likely accurate, so while it may be considered borderline, I wouldn't mind it. I'll note that while it obviously doesn't have every published book in the world, Google's worked with national archives to OCR everything they could, so it's reasonably complete. DFlhb (talk) 08:36, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

I went ahead with adding it, almost exactly as worded by @DFlhb. I was careful to make no mention other than what the graph clearly shows: there's rare usage before 1979. If someone is inclined, I feel like the website template for the reference is not appropriate. This, I think, would count as a primary source, very much on the research tools side of things. Is there a better template? Heavy Chaos (talk) 21:24, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

OK, seems fair to me Andre🚐 21:30, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

I hadn't fully understood how the Smoothing setting works on Ngram. With the default smoothing of 3, the results for each year are as follows:

1978: 1.6%x10^-11

1979: 1.05%x10^-10 (hence why I picked that year).

But with smoothing of 0, those numbers change completely. I'll change to "the 1980s" to be on the safe side, since that's supported by all smoothing levels and requires no advanced interpretation. DFlhb (talk) 21:34, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Origin of term

I tried to add this but it was reverted for some reason I can't understand. In 1933, Jawaharlal Nehru wrote "the exploitation of India and other countries brought so much wealth to England that some of it trickled down to the working class and their standard of living rose" A scholarly source, an economist author.

This seems (to me anyway) a better founded first use than the humorist, which is more of a joke about money trickling up. Selfstudier (talk) 19:03, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

It was caught up in the large scale edits occuring. It looks like Andre added it back though, so we should be good. I think Rogers is probably still the best origin of the term since I don't think Nehru's use was widely circulated until much later, no? Squatch347 (talk) 19:21, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

The author, an economist, says that Jawaharlal Nehru "may have been the first to do so [use the expression] in an economic context" which is why I originally put it as an efn rather than press the issue but it's also OK as it is now. Selfstudier (talk) 20:00, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes, sorry for reverting that by accident along with the sourced content removals that I reverted. Please feel free to improve it further. Andre🚐 21:30, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm trying to add a timeline feel to the history section now. I agree strongly the Nehru quote is meaningful for the section and article. Heavy Chaos (talk) 23:15, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

I think there needs to be some sort of supported statement:

By [X date], trickle down economics was a well known term, though not always consistently defined nor applied

At the moment, the history section goes from 1933 to 2007. Yikes! That doesn't explain why a term from a humorist in 1933 is so widely used now. Heavy Chaos (talk) 23:31, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

History section needs a clear regan connection and preferable a source that many associate the term with "Reaganomics". I'm out for now. Heavy Chaos (talk) 00:09, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

My concerns above about linking strongly to Reagan's era and giving a "By X date" impression/statement, the Ngram addition at the top of the history section well covers this concern. See talk section "Can Google Ngram be used as a ref for the history section?" [3] Heavy Chaos (talk) 19:49, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

References

Sowell is a conservative economist

His article says it and has 2 references. Andre🚐 00:02, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

It says he is a conservative, not a conservative economist. Those are two very different claims. Squatch347 (talk) 00:06, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

"Economist and conservative," work for you then? Andre🚐 00:10, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Why would that be relevant to his quotation? I mean I get what you are going for here, but why? Should we also note he is black and male? Those are criteria irrelevant to his economic analysis right? Squatch347 (talk) 00:16, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

His political views are relevant, his race and gender are not. Andre🚐 00:17, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Not sure why they are related to his professional views as an economist. We don't list the personal political views of every single person on any page vaguely related to politics. Unless there is a compelling reason to reference it, I would leave it off. Squatch347 (talk) 00:24, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

It's relevant because it affects how they are perceiving and interpreting. It's obvious that Sewell being a conservative says what he says, a conservative position. The Keynesians say things Keynesians would say. I will note you left in two instances of the word "liberal." It's obviously relevant and informative information, so I would leave it in, and you really haven't given any meaningful argument why to remove it. Andre🚐 00:27, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Whoa, we don't just assume bias from an author because they have a personal political opinion. If I left in two that was an oversight, but I am pretty sure I removed the liberal descriptor for the one I saw for Reich and the one for Krugman, I might have saved the wrong version. Removed now. Squatch347 (talk) 00:52, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

I didn't say a word about bias, I said that we should describe their political views. It is quite relevant that Sewell worked in the Reagan era establishment and had an opinion on the economic impacts of tax policy. To omit that is a disservice to readers. Andre🚐 00:58, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

I see you've removed all labels from economists. That reads surprisingly well; though I only really opposed the "Nobel laureate" or "Nobel winning" labels (it's pedantic, but Nobel never made that prize, and quite a few recipients were controversial for being non-mainstream). DFlhb (talk) 05:53, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

I must say I'm happier without the political labels. One doesn't achieve or get academic plaudits for having a political opinion. Being a Nobel laureate however is an achievement. And I don't care if they aren't part of some established school of economics! Plus with the way people are divided nowadays they might as well have a second or two to read what a person says before classifying them as in their own camp or not. NadVolum (talk) 15:39, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

I;m quite happy for working economists to be called economists as well, even in cases where they have no degree in economics as such. If they are generally recognized as economists that is a relevant accomplishment. I haven't put that back just the Nobel laureate one which recognizes outstanding accomplishment but happy if someone else does. NadVolum (talk) 16:07, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

have no degree in economics as such. If they are generally recognized as economists- who would that be? SPECIFICO talk 18:39, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't mean to imply anyone called that in the article was like that. As to what I said, in [4] you said calling Jared Bernstein an economist was fine. NadVolum (talk) 18:55, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Don't misrepresent other editors' views and don't post off-topic remarks on article talk pages. You also might familiarize yourself with Bernstein's academic background and other resources in his article so that you don't repeat your errors. SPECIFICO talk 19:08, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Well represent yourself properly then. Has he got a degree in economics? No - his qualifications are in music philosophy and social science. Did you say he was an economist? Quote "Bernstein is a policy-oriented mainstream economist, one of hundreds of thousands" in a discussion on this precise question. What's got you all riled up? I agree that he is an economist. NadVolum (talk) 22:59, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Comment on article sourcing and content. If you do not understand that a large body of macroeconomic policy concerns social welfare, the topic of his Columbia PhD, please do your background research without making personal remarks here. Or write an article about SPECIFICO and you can engage your thougths there. SPECIFICO talk 23:24, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

So no degree in economics as such. NadVolum (talk) 00:10, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

By the way I thought your remark there 'I stopped reading at "left-wing politicians". Next?' was a good illustration of one reason I said above of why we should stop labelling economists with their political leanings. NadVolum (talk) 00:30, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't any kind of tit for tat approach makes for a good article. It's fine in the interim, so we can gather good info and sources, but we should expect that those individual points will be moved and changes so that the article is actually readable and sensible. We want articles to flow through the information. At the moment, it's very disjointed below the history section. So, I think "republican" this guy, "liberal" that guy are ultimately non-meaningful labels for this article. Heavy Chaos (talk) 20:05, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

There's also the issue of timelessness. It's not conducive to paint "trickle down economics" as only the province of one particular politic (tax cutters), since that might not be true in the near future. Politics changes quickly. That Republican are "tax cutters" now doesn't mean they will be in the future, nor that Democrats never will be. And it ignores unknown unknowns. "Who" in the future might be neither Republican nor Democrat. Heavy Chaos (talk) 20:07, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

That's not relevant, the article is by its nature backward-looking and based on the reality we live in, not a hypothetical alternative. Andre🚐 22:41, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand my comment. Timelessness is a prose issue, not a content issue. You want to write the message in a way that mostly likely can't be misinterpreted by future changes. Heavy Chaos (talk) 19:42, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

In general I agree - WP:10YEARSTEST is a good example of the guidelines around this. But avoiding recentism and maintaining a long-term view doesn't mean future-proofing per se. We should look at what the RS say and what the events were over time but given that most of the events we're talking about here pertain to the 1980s, that is sufficiently distant to describe as such. In other words, we do not need to account for the fact that That Republican are "tax cutters" now doesn't mean they will be in the future, nor that Democrats never will be. That is speculation. We should focus on the actual facts and historical truth. I don't mind leaving the labels out to be clear, but I am responding to your ideas about unknown unknowns. We should focus only on the known knowns and known unknowns. It's just a historical fact that the Republicans and Tories are the ones trying to cut upper end taxes. Andre🚐 21:01, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Trickle Up Section

In regards to this edit [5], it is based on an opinion piece and may violate WP:NPOV without a balancing aspect, and certainly does not provide enough RS consensus for the term "trickle up" to merit it's very own section, with only one very POV citation (Non-paywalled version). The other citation [6] does not use or even mention the term "trickle up". So I will revert for now, until there is some consensus if and how this addition would be made. DN (talk) 21:27, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

First, let's look at what I posted.

To juxtapose competing economic and political ideas, the terms trickle up and bottom up have been used. For example, the principle behind the Obama administration's actions was referred to as trickle-up economics, but the term bottom-up economics was also used. Biden's American Rescue Plan was also referred to as trickle up. Accompanying labeling differed from most trickle down labels in that both Obama's and Biden's approaches were characterized as spending heavy programs, rather than tax cuts in any particular tax bracket. At the same time, some criticisms of Obama's economic policy were labeled trickle up.

Heavy Chaos (talk) 21:51, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

References

Thanks for helping put this in perspective, so that editors here can examine & discuss your changes more easily. As I mentioned before, most of these are opinion pieces. It would help if we had some WP:WEIGHT for inclusion such as a consensus of neutral RS along with some counter points, all preferably from academic sources or some well established news articles. That would help you build consensus, at least from editors like myself. Cheers. DN (talk) 22:04, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

I understand what you mean, but these are examples of usage because, indeed, people do use the term on occasion. There is no need for any particular POV guarding. It's just what people say. This is the overall tone of the article: when people have used these terms, and what they are referring to. If you were unaware, there is a Trickle-up economics page, but it is terrible, and I actually favor a small section on this page and deleting that one.

This source [7] does support what it is supposed to support. It does use the terms bottom up in juxtaposition with trickle down, specifically for Obama's policies.

If you want to replace [8] with [9], I'm okay with that. Heavy Chaos (talk) 22:04, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

[10] Does not use the term "trickle up" anywhere that I can see. Could you at least provide the page number? "people do use the term on occasion...."...All due respect, without RS to back up the changes you want to make and give it WP:WEIGHT, it is only your opinion and therefore likely WP:SYNTH and/or WP:OR. Until you find some better sources, IMO it's a non-starter in terms of discussion, no offense. TDE has a multitude of RS and consensus among RS and editors such as myself for inclusion, i.e. not just opinion pieces. While it can also be considered a political term, the scope of it is not limited by it's use among political actors, as economists also use this term and have documented it's use and effects around the world. BTW I would be careful accusing other editors of "POV gaurding", as it could border on violating WP:CIVIL. Cheers. DN (talk) 22:53, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

@Darknipples I wasn't accusing you of pushing a POV. I meant that it's not actually possible to push a POV unintentionally when the topic is "This is what people say". Regarding OR or SYNTH, if that applies here, it applies to this entire article, especially OR. People do use the term, which includes usage in opinion pieces. Demanding that before recognizing this in the article there also be usage in RS is a non-sequitur. But, if you insist opinion pieces need to be accompanied by non opinion pieces, I might be able to find some. I'll have to look harder at that ref; I lifted it from the trickle up article. Speaking of which, if you see no sense in there being a trickle up section here, then I presume you favor deleting the trickle up article? Heavy Chaos (talk) 23:11, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying, hopefully you see how that may have been misinterpreted. (Regarding Synth OR) The argument you are using here seems to have shades of the Fallacy of composition. As far as calling my request for RS instead of ONLY opinion pieces a non-sequitur, I question whether or not you are experienced enough to understand the importance of Wikipedia:Reliable sources. We will need to be on the same page in that regard before we can make any further progress towards consensus...(bold emphasis mine)

Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered (see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view). If no reliable sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it.

One last thing I would add to help you in achieving consensus. Make sure your sources (and preferably the material you specifically wish to add) mention "trickle up" in context to trickle down economics. If your source only discusses "trickle up" with no relation to the subject at hand (TDE) it is likely not to be worthy on inclusion in this article since in that instance it would seemingly bare no reference to this article (TDE). See WP:RSCONTEXT Best of luck. Cheers. DN (talk) 23:36, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

"Speaking of which, if you see no sense in there being a trickle up section here, then I presume you favor deleting the trickle up article?"...In this case, I would not assume anything at this point. Let's not conflate issues here, if I have an opinion about that article I will share it there. That said, I will take a look. Cheers. DN (talk) 23:43, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

After checking the trickle up article it would seem that this [[11]] would qualify as RS for inclusion of "trickle up" in the this (TDE) article (given it includes an inline citation and attribution etc...), especially since it includes mention of trickle down in it. At this time I would not say that it deserves it's very own section, but would be better suited in an existing section. Placement would have to be determined by consensus, but I am open to suggestions. Cheers. DN (talk) 00:04, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

I agree with DN it probably doesn't need its own section here, just a one sentence intro and link to the main article. Andre🚐 00:15, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't think there's enough legit info for the main article to exist, so I don't favor linking to it at all. I do think the the slight usage we do see, which is almost always in juxtaposition with "trickle down", is worth a paragraph, not just a sentence.

I don't get how RS is DN's problem with it though. The article already mentions trickle up in several places, including the lead, a source that puts it in the title, Stiglitz in the econ section, and Will Rogers' quote that started this whole thing. Additionally, Sowell said "flow up" in the same context. RS is using it everywhere! @Darknipples Would you be happy if I recited those in the proposed paragraph? Heavy Chaos (talk) 00:43, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

So what you're actually proposing is to merge the articles. That is a different discussion. I'm not sure I think they should be merged, but there's an argument there. If the article already links to it, which it does, that is fine as is. You can propose the merge if you wish. Andre🚐 00:50, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

@Andrevan If make a small mention here and delete everything there is technically a merger, sure. In effect, I don't see the difference. In practice, I suppose merger is generally more doable, concensus wise. Heavy Chaos (talk) 01:11, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

That would be a merge, yes, so don't do it please, since that should be proposed and discussed per WP:MERGEPROP Andre🚐 01:43, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

@Andrevan OK, well, let's see if DN comes back in the next few days, then we can get something about trickle up on this trickle down page, then purpose the merge. Sound good? Heavy Chaos (talk) 01:53, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

This is getting way beyond "economics" into oratory, polemics, and politics. Economists discuss demand-side and supply-side stimulus in a more or less rigorous way with a common analytical framework. The rest is wordplay. SPECIFICO talk 02:28, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

This talk page is filled with exactly that argument. This isn't an economics thing, it's an "oratory, polemics, and politics" thing. Yeah, wordplay. But what are you saying? I reviewed your few messages on this page and I can't tell any theme on what you would favor for this article. You messages seem incongruent. Are you saying we shouldn't mention trickle up at all, the point of this section? Are you saying something bigger, like, we should or shouldn't have content about something? I need you to clarify your viewpoint, and specifically what "this" refers to in this particular message. Thanks. Heavy Chaos (talk) 03:28, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Lead vs body

I saw the bits I added about Thatcher and Hayek added to the lead. I don't oppose this but it should be in both the lead and the body - the lead is supposed to summarize the body. Andre🚐 22:49, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Certainly, but it was in the history section. It didn't seem to belong there. Maybe the Usage>economics section is better, if you are thinking of using the original "Hayek, related to Thatcher" wording. Heavy Chaos (talk) 00:34, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm fine with putting it in the economics section. Andre🚐 00:14, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

A few sources

Business Economics, Theory and application, by Neil Harris (Butterworth Heinemann, publishers, 2001): “During Ronald Reagan's presidency the 'trickle down' theory of wealth creation was advanced, which argued that if the rich become even richer it would cause the wealth created to 'trickle downwards', making poorer people better off.” p. 197-198, [[<https://archive.org/details/0360-pdf-business-economics-theory-and-application-0750644540/page/197/mode/1up?q=trickle+>]]

$10,000 gold : why gold's inevitable rise is the investor's safe haven, Nick Barisheff, (Wiley publishers, 2013). “In 1981, things began to change. Ronald Reagan took office in January. He introduced a program of tax cuts designed to encourage business owners to grow. It was called “trickle down” economics, as hypothetically the tax cuts to the rich would stimulate job creation.”, p. 139 [[<https://archive.org/details/10000goldwhygold0000bari/page/139/mode/1up?q=trickle+>]]

State Department cable, via WikiLeaks Balancing Openness and Social Conservatism “He says that ASEZA [Aqaba Special Economic Zone Authority, Jordon] officials subscribe to the “trickle-down theory” of economics, in that the initial benefits of the development plans are intended to benefit the wealthy, but eventually tangible benefits will filter down to the lower rungs of society.” [[<https://archive.org/details/04AMMAN2554/mode/1up?q=trickle+down>]]

Thatcherism Trickle down?

The bit in the lead saying Reaganomnomcs an Thatcherism were Trickle down has been removed saying it is unsupported by the citation. The citation is

Redenius, Charles (April 1983). "Thatcherism and Reagonomics: Supply-Side Economic Policy in Great Britain and the United States". Journal of Political Science. 10 (2, Article 4). The Athenaeum Press. ISSN 0098-4612. Archived from the original on December 2, 2022. Retrieved 9 February 2023.

As far as I can see if that doesn't support that Thatcherism was Trickle down it doesn't support that Reaganomics was trickle down. It says hey pursued similar policies cutting taxes ina way that helped the rich preferentiually and saying that the economy should be freed andto be drven more by rich investors and entrepreneurs which would benefit everyone eventually - but in the meantime they needed to tighten financial control. And it explicitly calls that type ofpolicytrickle down.

What am I reading differently that could be interpreted to remove Thatcherism? NadVolum (talk) 23:51, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

The section which mentions the term "trickle down" refers to US policy, not British policy. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 19:58, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

The people quooted are American but it describes supply side economics as trickle down - that's why the title is 'The supply side alternative'. The whole article was about Thatcher and Reagan taking up supply side economics. It has 'In a moment of candor, David Stockman, Reagan's director of the Office of Management and Budget, stated that supply-side economic theory was merely "trickle" down economics renamed'", one might as well say the supply side economics being implemented unde Reagan wasn't actually described as trickle down because he didn't say Reagan was implementing that version of supply side economics. NadVolum (talk) 22:05, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

No, it's an Americanism and the term was applied in an American context. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 22:55, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Okay. There's lots of other ones saying it, I'll find anothe when I get back to this article. NadVolum (talk) 23:13, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Not encyclopedic

This article is not encyclopedic. It defines the topic as what critics don't like about it. Those critics may be absolutely correct but people should still be able to come and read what trickle down economics are. Another article defines trickle down economics as: 'employs policies that include tax breaks and benefits for corporations and the wealthy that trickle down to benefit everyone.' And that is what trickle down economics are. I AM NOT saying trickle down economics work or that they are a good thing. But it's our job to create an encyclopedia. If we can have an article about Hitler and the KKK that define what those actually are, we can have one here too. JaHolo (talk) 03:27, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

I can see you have a view, but what would be far more useful is a citation. The name of the book or the journal and title of the article plus issue and page number. Then other editors can assess it for themselves. You already found it - why waste other editors' time? NadVolum (talk) 09:13, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

You want me to provide a citation on why this article does not describe Trickle Down Economics? That's a ridiculous request and you know such a citation doesn't exist. Why waste other editors time? JaHolo (talk) 20:26, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Opposed and reverted your bold removal. This will not be acceptable. Andre🚐 21:46, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

on what basis? all you've said is that it was sourced. a piece of information being sourced doesn't mean it belongs in the lede. the lede should clearly summarize the topic. this one does not. most of it is devoted to explaining what critics think. that should go in a criticism section. and TDE should be clearly summarized. it isn't, anywhere. JaHolo (talk) 23:03, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

There's been extensive discussion of this in the talk page in the past, but the overwhelming consensus in past discussions is that "TDE" isn't a term used by economists in favor of supply side economics. It's mainly used in politics and by journalists, and by economics who want to criticize supply-side or other economic policy arguments like the Laffer curve. It's a "zombie bad idea" as the source you removed states. Andre🚐 23:16, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

then the lede should say that. what you just wrote is far more informative than the current word salad the lede is now, which doesn't even attempt to explain what trickle down economics is. I don't understand how anyone could think this lede accurately summarizes anything. it basically says "trickle down economics is a bad idea held by dumb people." ya ok, but WHAT IS IT. JaHolo (talk) 23:31, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm not claiming everything's great about the article or that no improvement might be made to it. But the edits I reverted just went ahead and removed a bunch of sourced material including what I just wrote. Andre🚐 23:33, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

This is absolutely an issue that needs to be addressed with the article. The article is heavily biased. The first paragraph should be rewritten. Criticism can be mentioned after defining TDE Nukey18mon (talk) 02:35, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, been discussed many times, you can't just charge in and allege bias. It's a process. Andre🚐 02:53, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Ok, how does that process work and how do we start it? Two of us have brought this up and you seem to just like to handwave us off like flies. JaHolo (talk) 05:45, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

(And we'll just pretend the process isn't Editor A makes an edit, nobody reverts their edit)JaHolo (talk) 05:53, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

It starts with coming up with reliable sources and doing your research. Have you tried Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library? Or a real library, university, school of any kind really ought to do, even. Andre🚐 06:01, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

That's a good idea, I'll head on down to my local university and see if I can find some sources like Paul Krugman's blog, the Guardian, the St Louis Star and CBS News that are used in this most scholarly and academically sourced article. On the other hand, I wont. Because I know you're just going to revert whatever change i make if it doesn't align with the tone you want the article to have. JaHolo (talk) 06:47, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

So, why are you even here? You think that improving the article is pointless, but whining on the Talk page that people do not agree with you is a helpful? You should either try to contribute (following the rules) or go away. If your opinion is so great, there must be good sources for it. If you bring those sources and people reject them, then you have something to complain about. "You will not accept whatever I give you" is just the usual cop-out used by people who have nothing but an unfounded opinion.

And your demand that people should still be able to come and read what trickle down economics are is already met: The article says, The policies are founded on the premise that spending by this echelon will "trickle down" to those less fortunate. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:13, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

This isn’t about opinions, it’s about fact. And the fact is that Wikipedia has a policy on neutrality, and that policy is not being upheld in this article. Who cares about opinion? We aren’t talking about the opinions section of the article. Nukey18mon (talk) 07:24, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

You do not understand the neutrality policy. Maybe you should read it. Here it is: WP:NPOV. It says, for instance: Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources. Since you people either refuse to give us reliable sources or fail to do so, we have to represent the viewpoints of the sources we have and omit the viewpoints of the sources we do not have. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:27, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

I have read it, understood it, and started the NPOC thread. The intro of this article violates the policy clearly. I have also provided 4 different sources in that thread if you wish to take a look. Nukey18mon (talk) 07:33, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

You should also read WP:IDHT. You were already told that those sources are bad, and now you are behaving as if that never happened. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:47, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Your link is irrelevant. The community obviously has a dispute if multiple people are debating this topic (which they are). Stop trying to shut down positive improvements to the article Nukey18mon (talk) 07:53, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

By that reasoning, you can say whatever you want and ignore whatever you want. You do not have to listen to others, repeat your refuted statements again and again and call them "positive improvements". You do not need valid reasoning, you can just type random text and call it a "dispute" and a "debate". Talking to you is pointless, and I will stop now. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:19, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Stop being delusional. I cited a source established as reliable that is already used in the article. You are losing this argument. Stop trying to push bias on Wikipedia articles. Nukey18mon (talk) 15:39, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

I tend to agree, the term "Trickle Down Economics" is generally a political pejorative for "Supply Side Economics". You will be hard pressed to find an economist who claims to be of the "Trickle Down School". 23.118.202.9 (talk) 15:15, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

And yet the other people in this thread pretend like there is no one else saying this Nukey18mon (talk) 15:40, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Payola

This article is in need of recognizing the political grift of paying the electorate for an election. Thomas Sowell's "trickle down economic" recognition of the actuality of the political crime. The legislative violation of the Hatch Act. JohnPritchard (talk) 14:38, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

When Donald Trump campaigns on "Tax Cuts For The Rich", the quid pro quo constitutes a political crime. Political grift in action. The truth of "trickle down economics". The legislative Hatch Act violation. JohnPritchard (talk) 14:29, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Likewise, this reporting on Clarence Thomas demonstrates the prevalence of criminal corruption in government. Government as exploitation ignores government as public service, the basic purpose to manage the common good in law and economy. A field of study typically obscured by the political passions of opinion. A convenience to political crime responsible for perpetuating the mysteries in the objective. JohnPritchard (talk) 15:30, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

In this historical review, Reaganomics: A Historical Watershed (2018), the history of "trickle down economics" is documented in the diverse contexts of theory and policy that constitute the complexity of the national experience. JohnPritchard (talk) 09:19, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Now we're talking, yeah! Andre🚐 09:50, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

No. See WP:SOAPBOX. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 11:06, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Link doesn't work, but here's a better one [12] Andre🚐 15:38, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Ah, thanks - JohnPritchard (talk) 01:01, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

NPOV dispute Introduction paragraph

The introduction to this article is heavily biased against trickle down economics. It defines TDE in terms of what critics believe its effects are, and not what TDE actually is. Any reader looking at a glance would not have a clear understanding of the topic because of this.

Suggestion for change: Define TDE in terms of its policies, followed by the theory behind it, then followed by a brief statement of critiques that is clearly expressed as such. The critiques should not be stated as fact, because they are opinion. I hope to see this done. Nukey18mon (talk) 02:43, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

What reliable source would you like to furnish to support your suggestions? Andre🚐 02:56, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Here is Wikipedia’s policy on neutrality.

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view Nukey18mon (talk) 03:25, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes, but what reliable sources are you offering to define what TDE is for the lead? Andre🚐 04:11, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Here are multiple reliable that all agree on the definition of TDE. My apologies for not understanding your initial comment

https://www.finance-monthly.com/amp/2023/06/economy-101-trickle-down-economics/

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/t/trickledowntheory.asp

https://www.economicshelp.org/blog/174/economics/trickle-down-economics/ Nukey18mon (talk) 04:45, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Actually, not a one of those is a reliable secondary academic high-quality source. Andre🚐 05:03, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Care to elaborate? Nukey18mon (talk) 05:52, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Those are just the random articles you found on blog sites or sites like Investopedia. We don't use those. We need to find textbooks, journal articles, reliable publications from reputable outlets, not a website that was built by uncredentialed users with no particular oversight or editorial standards or policies on fact checking, accuracy, peer review, or etc etc. You can read WP:RS for more Andre🚐 05:55, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Ok… how about this? We are talking definitions, so why not a dictionary? Merriam-Webster is already cited in this article, so it’s already been used as a reliable source.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/trickle-down%20theory Nukey18mon (talk) 06:07, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

We are NOT talking definitions, and NO, not a dictionary. This is Wikipedia. There's another place called Wiktionary, and you can head over there if you want. Andre🚐 06:14, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

You asked for a source, and I gave you four different ones, one of which from an entity already cited in this article. If you have an issue with the dictionary being used as a source, then I expect you to remove where it is cited in this article. Otherwise it is perfectly valid to be used in a new introduction.

We are absolutely talking about definitions. Encyclopedias contain definitions to provide context to the article. In fact, the article already tried to define TDE, but fails to do so without being biased, hence the reason for this thread. Nukey18mon (talk) 07:14, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

See WP:TERTIARY. Keep in mind, an encyclopedia is not the same thing as a dictionary. The source you are referencing states "a theory that financial benefits given to big business will in turn pass down to smaller businesses and consumers." This is a very narrow view of where the term TDE came from and what it is, ie Supply-side economics. I think that is the article you are looking for. DN (talk) 06:32, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

You asked for a source, and I gave you four different ones, one of which from an entity already cited in this article. If you have an issue with the dictionary being used as a source, then I expect you to remove where it is cited in this article. Otherwise it is perfectly valid to be used in a new introduction.

We are absolutely talking about definitions. Encyclopedias contain definitions to provide context to the article. In fact, the article already tried to define TDE, but fails to do so without being biased, hence the reason for this thread. Nukey18mon (talk) 07:09, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

You were not asked for "a source", you were asked for "reliable sources". The sources you gave did not meet WP:RS. It's not that difficult to understand that your reasoning is bad, and repeating it does not improve it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:24, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

One of the sources is literally used elsewhere in the article. If you have a problem with the literal dictionary, then fix it in the article. Be consistent. Nukey18mon (talk) 07:35, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Merriam-Webster is used for the history of the term, and that is what dictionaries are good for. Different sources are used for different purposes. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:46, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

So you admit that the subject of the article is the same as the subject of the dictionary entry? Then why shouldn’t it be used as a source of the definition? Nukey18mon (talk) 07:51, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

 Not done. I suggest you visit the...

Hello! Trickle-down economics, you are invited to join other new editors and friendly hosts in the Teahouse. The Teahouse is an awesome place to meet people, ask questions and learn more about Wikipedia. Please join us!

Have a nice day. DN (talk) 19:27, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

I suggest you propose specific text for a new lead paragraph that incorporates the currently-cited quality sources as well as additional sources of the same caliber. Basically Wikipedia reports what reliable sources report. Do you have any evidence that the cited sources are "opinion" as you claim? ~Anachronist (talk) 05:33, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

(od) " Define TDE in terms of its policies, followed by the theory behind it" You cant because it is not a formal economic theory. Its a (usually) derogatory slang term. Bonewah (talk) 18:50, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

No consensus for changes to lead and removal of cited context.

See edits...It seems Bonewah feels there might be a POV issue? DN (talk) 21:05, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

(removed from lead)

• "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."

(removed from section Usage)

• "Despite a lack of practical-use evidence for the Laffer curve, it is often cited by proponents of trickle-down policy.

DN (talk) 21:10, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

I have already reverted this edit by Bonewah once before, and asked them to take it to the talk page. Since they have decided to remove again without discussion it should be restored until there is consensus to change the lead. DN (talk) 21:18, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Pinging Andrevan since they are the one that originally added this to the lead...DN (talk) 21:29, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Of course, I'll revert it. The Laffer curve is nonsense and debunked over and over again. Andre🚐 21:58, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

I removed the line about 'a number of studies..' because it is OR. None of the sources we cite make this claim and so it is inappropriate for us to make this claim. I removed the Laffer curve stuff for POV reasons, and OR, specifically the claim "Despite a lack of practical-use evidence for the Laffer curve.." as neither citation backs that up. I think its improper for us to claim that 'proponents of trickle-down' do anything as we already defined trickle-down and a a slang or pejorative only used by those who are against what they want to describe as trickle-down. Bonewah (talk) 18:35, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

It's a summary of the body, it's not OR. Andre🚐 20:48, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

@Andrevan Deja vu? DN (talk) 21:07, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

deja vu is a daily fact of life for me, I'm afraid. Especially when it comes to the Laffer curve. Despite having been bunk since the 90s, or arguably never not having been not bunk, Andre🚐 21:45, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

The rules are quite clear here. per WP:V " All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports[b] the material" I am challenging 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.". Please provide a reliable source that directly supports that claim. I am challenging the claim "Despite a lack of practical-use evidence for the Laffer curve, it is often cited by proponents of trickle-down policy." Please provide a reliable source that directly supports that claim. Bonewah (talk) 14:22, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

I think you're misunderstanding how WP:LEAD works. The statement in the lead is a summary of the usage and economics section. Andre🚐 15:34, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Nothing in WP:Lead obviates the need to adhere to WP:V Bonewah (talk) 18:15, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

The part of V you're quoting isn't relevant. There's no quotations, and the material has a citation. The lead does not need to include the citation, if it's in the body. Andre🚐 19:19, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

And if (per WP:LEAD) it is just a summary of the body, you should have no problem in providing the citations. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 18:48, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

They're cited in the article. [13] [14] those are the cites on the body statement. And the other statement the cites are [15][16][17][18] and [19] [20] Andre🚐 19:18, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

So, since it has been challenged, reinstate the sentence with those citations in support and it leaves no vacuum to fill with further argument. Doing so will shut down the NOR assertion and we can all move on. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 20:04, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Well, those citations are all already in the article body. And I'm not sure the present state of the article has excluded the text - the removal was already reverted, wasn't it? Andre🚐 21:57, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Are you not familiar with <ref name= "citation name" />? "Methinks he doth protest too much". Just do it and let's move on, for goodness sake. The article doesn't use WP:LEADCITE, I don't understand the resistance. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 11:38, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

• Restore The text that was removed represents the overwhelming view among mainstream economists. SPECIFICO talk 19:23, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

  I agree but I would still expect the any questioned statements to comply with WP:V. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 20:04, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

  Perhaps more context/citations will help.

DN (talk) 05:13, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Ok, quite a few citations here, so lets see if any of them actually support the claims in question. To review, the lines to which i object are:

• 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
• Despite a lack of practical-use evidence for the Laffer curve, it is often cited by proponents of trickle-down policy.

And to further clarify, WP:V at a minimum requires that the reliable source directly supports the material. So it wont do, in my opinion, to simply cite a bunch of sources and say, therefore, "a number of studies have shown that there is no obvious link..." or "Despite a lack of practical-use evidence for the Laffer curve..". The source itself must actually say that, or something close to it. If they dont, then we would be performing WP:OR in that we are reaching a conclusion not stated or implied by the sources. Do the other editors here at least agree to that interpretation of policy?. If so, ill go through the sources provided, and, if i find one or more that directly supports the claim, ill add it as a citation. I should add here that i further object to the line in the lede, but that objection will be irrelevant if it must be removed because of either V or OR. Bonewah (talk) 14:25, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

There's no consensus to remove it. It's being discussed now. I'm adding some citations to the lead now since you seem to not like them in the body. Andre🚐 14:28, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Feel free to add whatever citations you like, ill examine them in a new talk page section. Bonewah (talk) 14:31, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

As a technical note, does anyone know how i can access scientific papers behind a paywall, such as this Bonewah (talk) 14:53, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library is a good start Andre🚐 15:10, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

I see the Laffer curve context has been excluded, and the last sentence was changed to "As of 2023, studies have not shown that there is a demonstrable link between reducing tax burdens on the upper end and economic growth." We seem to have a collection of attributions that all seem to say the same thing. My current concern is if there is an existing "overall consensus" (whether TDE works or doesn't work) from economics experts and academics, then we should include it as the "mainstream view" and avoid presenting a WP:FALSEBALANCE. I can understand if it's not that simple, but it's something to consider. Cheers. DN (talk) 20:26, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

The "Despite a lack of practical-use evidence for the Laffer curve, it is often cited by proponents of trickle-down policy." is in the Usage section. but I'd be interested in putting that in the lead too. We'd need to find a source though for the academic consensus writ large. Andre🚐 21:16, 21 December 2023 (UTC)