Talk:Supply-side economics/Archive 1

The author incorrectly mistakes the following opinion from an economics textbook for a fact:
The extreme promises of supply-side economics did not materialize. President Reagan argued that because of the effect depicted in the Laffer curve, the government could maintain expenditures, cut tax rates, and balance the budget. This was not the case. Government revenues fell sharply from levels that would have been realized without the tax cuts. - Karl Case & Ray Fair, Principles of Economics (2007), p. 695.

The key to the above quote is the end of the last sentence, which states revenues fell sharply from levels that would have been realized without the tax cuts. These are projected tax revenues in an alternative scenario that did not include supply-side tax cuts, not real tax revenues. No one could know what the real tax revenue would have been without the tax cuts. It could be higher or lower. To make a projection, one must make assumptions. The authors of this textbook seem to make an assumption that the tax cuts did not stimulate economic growth enough to fully pay for the tax cuts. But this is not a fact, just an opinion based on subjective data points. Art Laffer and other supply-siders could just as easily make assumptions about economic growth to demonstrate that the tax cuts did pay for themselves. They, for example, might say that without the tax cuts economic growth would not have been stimulated at all, and thus, since we did experience economic growth in the 1980s, the tax cuts were responsible partly for the economic growth that spurred additional tax revenue. And, in fact, GDP did increase significantly in the 1980s, even in real terms. A higher GDP means we have a larger tax base, which could mean higher tax revenues even at lower tax rates. But nobody knows if the tax cuts pay for themselves unless he can determine precisely how much the tax cuts spurred economic growth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Publicface (talk • contribs) 01:27, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Why does the Supply Side econ article have a "Weasle word" caveat while demand side econ does not?

October 2005 edits
Change "most" economists to "some". Unless you are going to cite comprehensive surveys of economists, the use of the word "most" is subjective.

Changed items that claimed the Laffer Curve never materialised to reflect that fact that it has (and included text about individual income tax revenues in the 1980s for support).

Change the paragraph on Volcker which claimed his tighter money policies started before Reagan took office. He changed his policies after the recession of 1981, not before. Some argue that he changed policies because his earlier policies were blamed for causing the 1981 recession (Bartley, et al).

I should also add support to the notion that Reaganomics (etc.) is different that Supply-side. Reagan was never able to achieve a deal with Congress to cut spending, for example.

THE TRANSFINANCIAL ECONOMICS PROJECT.

What could TFE offer supply-side economics. See my work in progress project. R.Searle.

http://kheper.net/essays/Transfinancial_Economics.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.188.183.89 (talk) 14:10, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

You incorrectly state
You incorrectly stated that tax revenues declined in the 80s when in fact they doubled. Due to the cold war defense spending, spending outran the increase in revenue.

I added/modified this in to the USA section "Revenues from individual income tax increased from $244 billion in 1980 to $446 billion in 1989, and federal budget deficits exploded due to the cold war, exceding the increase in revenues." My source for this is: http://www.house.gov/jec/fiscal/tx-grwth/reagtxct/reagtxct.htm

There are other questionable demonstrations of bias, however I think it is only appropriate for me to correct factual inaccuracies instead of enter a debate.

I also have to agree with the other posters here. It does seem that you really pushed your own view a little too much in to the story. And I also agree that the Keynesian theory article is a great example.

-thegnode

gi there. i don't liek lyars and propergander and I rlly object 2 repitition of lies.

1. The figuyres r not adjusted 4 inflayshon. ne1 who argues nominal numbers in economics when real numbers are needed is lying. Tax revenues doubled in every other decade. This compares a trough (recession) year, with a peak (near top of cycle year) making sliding two well known "how to lie with statistics".

2. The excuses about the cold war are also lies. The cold war didn't start in 1980, and Carter had also had a defense build up. These aren't unexpected revenues. Further with the end of the cold war, budget deficits should have gone down under Bush - instead they went up.

3.In 1981 Stockman and Reagan promised above trendline growth in revenues. They didn't produce. Attempts to revise, post-hoc, what they promised aren't POV, they are simply lies about what was said and done. The article is a lot nicer to the pack of liars which your side is than it really deserves to be. Stirling Newberry 16:24, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * From Peter Johnson (03:31, 13 November 2005 (UTC)): Re your item 3: What is your source for Stockman and Reagan's “promise”, what figures did they discuss, and what are the actual revenues?

Apart from a few non-objective wordings on the latter part of the article, I think it's well written.

- DJSupreme23

there is no way this page is 'neutral'. when you start pontificating on what caused recessions, rather than telling us what various economists think caused recessions, you have crossed the line.

just a simple rewording, like 'J T Egghead argued that clinton capital gains cut helped the boom' instead of 'clintons capital gains cut helped the boom' would make this article a lot better.

and give me a freaking break, you are trying to say that you know what theory explains q4 2003?


 * Why don't YOU give the rest of us a freaking break... tossing around (supposedly) economical buzzwords like "q4 2003" (yes, the fourth quarter of 2003, so what)? Please don't degenerate an encyclopedia article to resemble your presidential smudge-throwing slugfest of an election, with two inconsistent truths and all. Protip: stick to a general level and insulate any POV to sections so that the WHOLE article isn't labeled biased. There is nothing biased in supply-side economics in general, it CAN be defined and analyzed from a NPOV. You know, there are places in the world where the other of your two(!) political parties would be considered just a notch left from fascism. And the other (holy sh*t, that's scary, honest!) demands that biblical stories be taught to small children instead of biology. We need a US-pedia for this kind of crap, because there are some that seriously don't care . I mean, both sides have good arguments (and ripostes on other side's spelling mistakes or even more minor details...), and the one who wrote the last comment always seems to be right, of course /:  but that is the nature of an argument, really. --Sigmundur (talk) 20:15, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I was asked to revise this comment... I guess I could copy-paste the relevant point(s) out of the text mess: Please stick to a general level and insulate any POV to sections so that the WHOLE article isn't labeled biased. There is nothing biased in supply-side economics in general, it CAN be defined and analyzed from a NPOV. It's ridiculous that a hundred-kilo article is labeled biased as a whole, because that'll scare away normal people who'll think this article is untrustworthy, or just no good for some reason. The ranting was because there obviously is some kind of republican-democrat-(whatever)-deathmatch going on that effectively prevents the formation of a clear, concise, general article or even a dictionary-like introduction. Get over yourselves and slug it out under some minor subheaders somewhere in the middle of the article. Keep at least the introduction clear (also) for normal non-economist non-US people, that's all I'm saying. --Sigmundur (talk) 08:44, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Original hopes dashed by US-centrism
I had originally hoped that this page could offer a clear account of Supply-Side economic theory.

However others have elected to convert it into a US centric account of the Reagan era with quips about what worked and what didn't.

Whilst no theory can stand outside of its practice in reality it would be much clearer if we could logically separate explainations of the theory from debates about the effect in the USA during the 1980s.

I would prefer to see a clear account of the theory standing separate from discussions about whether the theory holds up in practice. This means that the headings covering theoretical issues would be better if they did not contain the US historical arguments.

Others seem more determined to prove the theory a failure than to clearly articulate what the theory says.

Terje. (19-JAN-2004)


 * I know I'm replying to a 2-1/2-year-old comment, and the article has since been reorganized, but it's an interesting point, so:


 * Given that prominent supply-siders love to say that all economic theories must be judged by real-world results (how many times did Laffer say that was his only point of agreement with Friedman?), it's hard to talk about their theories in isolation from their only real-world test. I suppose Thatcher's England half-heartedly applied supply-side economics, and there's an argument that Bush (Sr.) and Clinton applied/continued many of Reagan's policies without the theory or ideology (as, for that matter, did plenty of Latin American banana republics), but I'm pretty sure that Laffer and Canto wouldn't agree with such a characterization. Not focusing on the Reagan administration here would be like a 2015 article on neo-conservativism not focusing on the Dubya administration.


 * What would be useful is some discussion of what the supply-side theorists have been arguing since 1988. I know that some of them have abandoned supply-side economics for pragmatic political reasons--witness the many friends of the current Bush administration arguing for the exact same tax cuts for reasons of "fairness" rather than the Laffer curve, not to mention a few enemies of the Bush administration, like Wanniski, who said something about how even when Bush does the right thing he does it for the wrong reasons. But surely there are supply-siders who have written on, e.g., Clinton's balanced budget, Norway's 90s tax cuts, etc. and what they mean in the context of (or as a test of) supply-side theory. --Falcotron 02:25, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

The theory say if you give horses ( ie corporations/the rich ) more oats the sparrows ( ie the workers/the not rich ) get more horsesh.t and hopefully can pick out a few oats. However, in the real world the horse has turned around and the horsesh.t is falling in to China - there is that simple enough, hardly needed a PHD for that did we.


 * OK, that explains it all. To quote Fry, "It's like a balloon--and something bad happens." --Falcotron 02:02, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

What reality is
Reality is a gang of brutal facts beating up on a beautiful theory.

You've basically admited that you have a heavy POV, and are going to push it on the article. That's a violation of wikipolicy.

Stirling Newberry 04:21, 19 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Terje's reply
Its not POV to want the theory to be under a different heading to the debate about whether the theory is accurate. The theories that comprise Supply-Side economics are real theories. They are not POV.

Whether the theories are correct is another issue. And there should be room in the article to discuss such matters.

If the text outlining the actual theory becomes nothing more than an opinionated critisism then it does not make the topic more accessible. It makes it less accessible.

There is a heading for criticism of the theory and I originally introduced it deliberately to allow space for reviewing the theory in light of reality. That is where theory should collide with reality, not in the introduction or it the areas of definition.

One of the complexities I sense emerging within the text is that there are actually different schools of thought under the Supply-Side economics banner. Laffer and his offshoots tend to be purely focused on fiscal matters while Mundell and Wanniski seem to also have a considerable body of work devoted to monetary theory and the gold standard.

TERJE 24-JAN-2004

A quote from Milton Friedman
"Economic theories must be judged by their actual performance, and not their possible performance under ideal conditions."

Milton Friedman

Wanting facts to be someplace else, is POV.

An unsigned response
There is a time and place to judge and a time and place to describe.

I can describe a theory in detail without agreeing that the theory is correct.

However it is very hard to acurately judge a theory if you do not properly describe it to start with.

What you seem to be saying is that WIKIPEDIA should not include descriptions of theories that you disagree with. That is pure POV.

Supply-Side Economics is first and formost a theory about how economies work. It is not first and foremost a theory about how well Ronald Reagans policies will perform.

The Supply-Side Economics model may be totally and completely wrong. However that does not mean that its an unimportant theory or should not be properly described in Wikipedia. And for me a proper description of the theory should be concluded prior to any account of how it holds up under the light of reality. Although the discussion of how it holds up under the light of reality is of course also important.

Rebuttal by Stirling Newberry
"For me"

POV by definition.

"Although the discussion of how it holds up under the light of reality is of course also important."

And it should be in the article on supply side economics, where it belongs.

If you want control over something, set up your own web page and write it.

Stirling Newberry 18:46, 24 Jan 2004 (PST)

RE: "where it belongs" could also be considered POV. Therefore, your argument is invalid.

Angmar09 16:45, 23 Sept 2008 (EST)

Encouraging domestic consumption?
QUOTE: "Can you at least get your own POV right? Supply-side was not meant to encourage domestic consumption"

And nobody said otherwise. However the supply side economics is about enabling trade between the domestic factors of PRODUCTION. ie labour & capital. And PRODUCTION need not be investment.

And why take out the reference to Says law?

TERJE 26-JAN-2004

I am not an economist and don't know all the details of economics. I am a student who is trying to learn more about it and am taking classes in economics. That being said, the bias in this article is unbelievable. Throughout the entire article, even the survey of supply-side economics (the thing I wanted to learn more about) it is clear the writer is more concerned with blasting Ronald Regan and 'Reganomics". I am not interested in Regans attempt to impliment what he believed was supply-side economics, I am interested in what the theory actually is. In the historical oprigins section, the author mentions the basis of what is on the laffer curve, but doesn't explain how it works at all, instead he moves immediately on to saying Regan and other supply-side politicians don't understand the laffer curve. I'm not a politician either, but how do you expect me to get the laffer curve right if you don't explain how it actually works! This is an economics article, not a political one. Please remove the political slant on this article and explain what the theory actually is. I understand the basics of what it attempts to do, but I still am not any closer to understanding HOW it plans to achieve its goals or WHY doing those things will work. Please, if you are writting an article, don't make the subject more difficult for those of us trying to learn by arguing your political point through the whole thing. I am not interested in politics, I'm interested in economic theory and how it works and why it works the way it does. I know this is not nessecarilly a 'hard science' but the least you can do is explain it in a neutral way.

POV discussions of the Regan years
"Supply-side principles seem to explain a lot." and POV discussions of the Regan years and other things have led me to place this page in an NPOV dispute. I'm enough of an expert in economics to replace this page with something better, but I think the page should focus on the theory, its critics, and its effectiveness. For comparison, most other SSE pages encyclopedia entries with suggesting that the theory has been undercut.

Can't make heads or tales
Anyone, help: I can't make heads or tales of this quote from the article:


 * "In 1981 supply-side economist Robert Mundell, in 1999 to win the Nobel prize for "for his analysis of monetary and fiscal policy under different exchange rate regimes and his analysis of optimum currency areas", told Ronald Reagan that theory predicted that by cutting upper bracket taxation rates, and by lowering rates on capital gains, it would be possible to raise government revenues while cutting taxes."

The phrasing is awful and I'm not sure how to fix it. :(
 * How does this sound?
 * "In 1981 supply-side economist Robert Mundell told Ronald Reagan that the supply-side theory was predicted upon the concept that if upper bracket taxation rates are cut along with lowering rates on capital gains, it would be possible per the theory to raise government revenues while cutting taxes. While this simply an articulation of theory on the part of Mr. Mundell, it should be noted that his credibility has been somewhat increased on this issue as a result of him winning the Nobel Prize in 1999 "for his analysis of monetary and fiscal policy under different exchange rate regimes and his analysis of optimum currency areas".  Whether Mr. Mundell's advice to President Reagan was correct either then or now is not verifiable objectively as the doctrine of supply-side economics is just that, an economic theory used to explain either past economic events or to predict future economic events."
 * With these edits I am attempting to refocus the issue on the basis of theory and not unverifiable statements. While laudable that Mr. Mundell won the Nobel Prize, it does not make what he "told" Ronald Reagan correct.  It just means that he had a theory that appeared to be acted upon by the President.  I am not an expert on Reagan's economics and how he actually went about applying this theory, so further analysis by someone who knows better than I may be necessary to ensure this statement 1) stays in and 2) is properly reflected for what it is.Hadfordwrose (talk) 18:15, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality dispute (June, 2004)
Given that the neutrality of this article is disputed could somebody paste the disputed paragraph into the discussion area so that we might discuss the lack of neutrality and get it sorted out.

Terje 6-JUN-2004


 * Given the complete lack of response to my last discussion point I have removed the NPOV status on this article.


 * If you think that it should be NPOV please post reasons in the discussion area.


 * TERJE.
 * 19-JUN-2004

Dissent over a phrase & mediation
The phrase:-

Critics of supply-side economics, such as Paul Krugman, argue that this rhetoric is merely "a trojan horse for upper bracket tax cuts without economic justification."

Seems to have created some discent. Some people think that the opening section needs to contain this phrase multiple times.

I think that having it as the closing phrase for the opening section is quite sufficient.

^^^ comment abover were by TERJE

I'm sending this to mediation. Stirling Newberry

Comments about mediation
It never would have needed mediation is somebody had been willing to discuss things in the talk section. However its here now so lets hope somebody can bring themselves to the discussion table.

My view is that the Krugman comments belong at the end of the opening section. Where they appear the first time at the moment seems disjointed.

The comment is:-

Critics of supply-side economics, such as Paul Krugman, argue that this rhetoric is merely "a trojan horse for upper bracket tax cuts without economic justification."

The context at the end of the section is about tax cut rhetoric used by supply siders. This is where the Krugman comment makes the most sence.

At present the comment follows on from an explaination of supply-side economics focus on production. To lead directly into Krugmans disquite about tax cut rhetoric is disjointed.

In any case if somebody wishes to keep on adding the comment back again adjacent to the production theory they should at least remove the duplication at the end. I don't think Krugmans criticism needs to be mentioned twice.

Thats my 2 cents worth.

Terjepetersen


 * I am taking this to mediation. Your statements above are inaccurate: you have repeatedly violated wiki standards on NPOV writing, and were the first to invoke formal review mechanisms. I am now merely following through on this. Stirling Newberry 12:04, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * The view that I have repeatedly violated wiki standards is purely subjective. It is your point of view but that does not make it a fact. Are you going to actually put a case as to why the Krugman phrase should be in the middle of the section rather than at the end? I would like to hear some reasons why you think its better in the middle. Terjepetersen


 * That's why I am taking this to mediation. Holding a discussion with you is impossible. Stirling Newberry 13:55, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * I think you folks are arguing a distinction without a difference. You are both right.  The quote is relevant and needs to be in there.  However, why not simply create a critics section so it doesn't look like you are diminishing the theory by adding the quote in at the end of a section.  This will add to the neutrality that is needed for this article.  You both seem irritated with one another, but both of you have made decent point.  This may be stupid from your respective points of view, but it would be nice to have this dispute fixed for the article's benefit and not the authors' egos.66.18.200.35 (talk) 17:53, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Where's the beef?
To quote that old Lady from the 80's Wendy's commercials, "Where's the beef?"

It would be interesting to see the proof for and against Supply Side Economics so we can tell if either side is valid. The only thing that comes close to proofs is this sentence in the criticisms "These criticisms point to the explosion in deficits, the failure of the 'Laffer Curve' to materialize and the conversion of price volatility to currency volatility as proofs that supply side economics does not work." Rather than say it, link to some articles that prove it. Show us charts and graphs. Yes I know "everyone" knows that the deficit grew, but what proof do we have that supply side economics caused it and not something else? Also while the economy grew under Ronald Reagan, how do we know that supply side economics caused it and not the Computer Technology Boom or something else? I am trying to learn Economics, and while it is good to understand the theories, it is hard when there is not much proof to back those theories up. I too can make theories based on observations if I wanted to. If we are gambling the future of the economy on a theory, doesn't it make sense to show some proof that we are taking the right steps? Could it be that supply side economics only works under certain conditions, and giving tax breaks to the poor only works under certain conditions as well (Robin Hood Economics? Take from the rich and give to the poor, like Robin Hood.)?

As far as the mediation, work things out but make sure that both sides are properly represented. We are all adults here, I think, and we should be able to reason things out logically and following the rules of order.

OrionBlastar 08:45, 29 Jun 2004 (CST)


 * The article does discuss the disputes between theory. Not enough, but far more than the other party to this dispute would like. I refer you to the talk sections above where TJ complains bitterly about *any* balancing material. I hope, in future, you will read disputes more carefully before making comments on them. Stirling Newberry 14:38, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

More about the Krugman phrase
'''Are you going to actually put a case as to why the Krugman phrase should be in the middle of the section rather than at the end? I would like to hear some reasons why you think its better in the middle. Terjepetersen 1-JULY-2004'''

P.S. It was me who originally created the section on criticisms and first populated it. I have no problems with criticism of SS economics. I just don't want the criticism to obscure what the theory actually says. The standard SS argument about the Reagan deficits is that they were caused predominately by a blow out in spending, not a decline in tax revenue. Of course that can be argued back and forth also. Terjepeteresen 1-JULY-2004.


 * I am sick and tired of your lies, your original statement was that the article was about supply side, and you bitterly resented any criticisms, except those stuck in a ghetto at the bottom. Stirling Newberry


 * How about we chill, people? Sound good?  I've moved the Krugman sentences in question the "Criticisms" section and revised it.-DMCer (talk) 09:35, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Details on the book that Wanniski
Details on the book that Wanniski wrote: https://www.supplysideinvestor.com/07-30-98.html

To deny he wrote it is just stupid. I own a copy so I am confident that it exists.

TERJE 1-AUG-2004

Garbled sentence

 * However the monetary policies that prevailed at the time under Federal Reserve chair Paul Volcker were based on a monetarist variant of Keynesian theory,

Is this assertion really relevant in this paragraph? Even if it were true, why is this here? The presence of this sentence is patently meant to assuage someone's discomfort over what appear to be uncomfortable facts. I learned this kind of stuff in secondary school. It's called apologetics. Moreover, shouldn't someone explain which monetarist variant they are referring to?CSTAR 16:33, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * P.S. The explanatory sentence, is hardly convincing:


 * i.e., that persistent low money-supply growth and high interest rates would cause high unemployment and "disinflation."


 * This is clearly a variant of something, but it is not clear that this is a monetarist variant of keynesianism.CSTAR 16:37, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The original argued simply that Paul Volker implemented the well known "disinflation scenario" of raising interest rates to squeeze out inflation, and that the results, in terms of unemployment, interest rates and GDP followed that model. id est there is no discernable difference between what happened and the baseline scenario, calling into question whether there was a significant "supply side economics effect" to the 1983-1985 rebound above and beyond "crude Keynesianism".

I'd be happy if someone could write a better explanation than exists in the article.

Stirling Newberry 17:38, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * As an outsider reading this article for the first time, the facts -- for instance the historical fact you just mentioned, get lost. Actually, if you put in what you just said, the whole paragraph would make a lot more sense. (I know absolutely nothing about this period having lived outside the US at the time. It's foreign territory to me)CSTAR 17:56, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I really don't know anything about this topic, so I came to this page to check it out. No offense to the people who have contributed their time, but as an encyclopedia entry, this stinks. The organization, writing, and content all stink. Instead of being anything remotely close to NPOV, it reads like two POV people yelling at each other, with the supply-side critic side getting in the most numerous and most blatantly POV barbs. Does this sound like something you'd read in an encyclopedia? "One of the reasons that "Supply Side" economics does not have credibility in the mainstream of economics is the tendency of its adherents to simply lie when the facts fall against them." And what's with the sudden addition of quotation marks and capitalization to the topic's name in that sentence? I don't mean to pick on one side here. A calm, rational supply-sider and a calm, rational critic should get together, scrap this whole article, and plan its organization from scratch. I'd help, but I didn't know anything about supply-side when I came to this page, and I feel like I still don't, after reading the entry. Make it sound like a neutral encyclopedia article. And tell me what it is, don't waste space quibbling over Reagan's tax cuts or Clinton's tax increases. Save those battles for another page. Check out the Keynesian economics page for an example of this kind of subject being handled much better. Just some advice from a Wikipedia reader; take it or leave it. --68.43.122.246 01:46, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I agree with much of what you said; I have avoided this article like the plague. One of the reasons I devoted considerable effort the articles on economic models and models in general, is to present the issue of falsifiability. Unfortunately supply side economics is one of those theories that does not seem to have any falsifiability criteria.CSTAR 02:01, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Some incorrect, obviously biased entries in this article
The following items are not disputable, since they are easily obtained facts/figures:

Tax Revenue almost doubled during Reagan's term. Whether or not you personally attribute it to Reaganomics is up to you, but this article not only refutes this fact, it also tries to move any credit away from Supply-Side and over to Volcker.

Spending increased heavily, both in the areas of defense and entitlement.

So, while our revenue increased, so did our debts and yearly deficits.

Also, the author shows his bias by stating that the plan was to "cut taxes on the wealthy". Again, easily researched. Tax rates for all brackets were cut. When you consider that some high brackets had more than 50% tax rates, you would expect those to come down in line with a realistic percentage. Does anyone believe that more than half of ones income should be taxed?

This article needs to be overhauled in a neutral voice. Facts need checking, and attempted nudging of opinion needs to be eliminated

Matt


 * Actually, the tax revenues went from $599.3 billion to $909.3 billion between '81 and '88. That's about a 52% increase.  When adjusted to Constant Dollars (FY 2000) the numbers are $1077.5 billion and $1235.6 billion or around 15%.  All of this can be found here on page 25.  Linked from whitehouse.gov.  Just FYI  Kidigus 04:44, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The raw numbers may not mean that much anyway without taking into account global trends. For example, didn't both Sweden and Norway increase tax revenues even more dramatically over the same time period despite relatively stagnant GDPs (but both shifting more toward export), nearly balanced budgets, and unchanging (and very high) income tax rates? On the other hand, didn't Japan do better than all of the above without any significant changes to their fiscal or tax policy in either direction? (On yet another hand, I could be remembering all of this wrong....) --Falcotron 08:07, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Rewrite
Since this dispute seems to be over, or at least for the moment, I hope there will be some effort to rewrite this article. There are a lot of things here which might be POV, and as an encyclopedia article it really doesn't explain supply side economics very well at all. I don't know enough about this to rewrite it, so I'm listing it on pages needing attention. Scheming Eyebrows 11:27, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC)

Did Keynes Refute Says Law?
Dictionary.com offers the following defintions for the word refute

re·fute 1. To prove to be false or erroneous; overthrow by argument or proof: refute testimony. 2. To deny the accuracy or truth of: refuted the results of the poll.

So I think its fair to say that the second definition is appropriate in the context of the article. Keynes did deny the accuracy of says law.

Although it might be clearer to simply say that "Keynes denied the accuracy of says law". Or as one editor suggested "Keynes challenged says law".

^^ TERJE 2005-01-03

He did. Get used to it. It's why we have General Equilibrium rather than Say's Law. Stirling Newberry 22:26, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well you can do wikipedia a big favour then. The section on "Says Law" and the section on "General Equilibrium" do not make any reference to eachother. Perhaps you could improve these articles by cross referencing them with some appropriate text.

^^^TERJE 2005-01-05

That's because General Equilibrium isn't derrived from says law, but from IS-LM. General Equilibrium is a permissive state of a market in clearing, that is, it says it is possible for there to be a free market that always clears given certain conditions, Say's Law is restrictive - it stated that markets had to generally clear. Go read some Hicks and Keynes, or even Stiglitz and Walsh, it would be good for you. Stirling Newberry 15:08, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Terjepetersen

Once again I am astounded by your utter superiority in all things.

^^^TERJE 2005-01-09

The "author" of this "article" seems to enjoy calling people liars simply because their facts are right and his are wrong. Tax revenues did not double in the 1920s or the 1930s, therefore Stirling Newberry is a liar. Carter did not have a defense buildup. Defense spending fell from 24.1% of federal government outlays and 5.1% of GDP in 1976 to 22.7%/4.9% in 1980. Therefore, Stirling is a liar here too. These numbers were 27.3%/5.8% in 1989.

Here are constant-dollar revenue and outlays:

1979 .................................... 1,017.8 1,107.3 1980 ....................................  1,028.3 1,175.1 1981 ....................................  1,077.4 1,219.4 1982 ....................................  1,036.9 1,251.7 1983 ....................................  961.7 1,294.4 1984 ....................................  1,016.8 1,299.5 1985 ....................................  1,082.6 1,395.7 1986 ....................................  1,107.3 1,425.7 1987 ....................................  1,196.1 1,405.7 1988 ....................................  1,235.6 1,446.5 1989 ....................................  1,298.9 1,498.7 1990 ....................................  1,309.3 1,589.9

I also note that revenue growth from 1960-1982 was 3.1% annually. From 1983-1990 it was 4.4% annually. I guess it was above the trendline, which makes the supply-siders right and Stirling Newberry a liar yet again. I've never seen such a defensive lying liar write such a lying article. --ArminTamzarian 22:10, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Trough to peak fallacy. Flunks econ 101. Stirling Newberry
 * Trough was 1982. Flunks dictionary 1. Author is free to propose other periods for comparison; he has declined to do so. Simply calling something a fallacy does not necessarily makes it so. Also ignores possible stimulative effects of 1982 tax cuts - author makes unwarranted ceteris paribus assumption, another fallacy. --ArminTamzarian 23:33, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Okay, here's another one:

"Supply-siders proceed to blame Clinton and Osama bin Laden, despite the lack of any rigorous model which explains the long drought in hiring that can be attributed either to the bubble bursting of 2000, or the September 11th attacks of 2001."

Ignoring the petulant, childish, and mostly inaccurate accusations made in this "article," there is rigorous evidence that the "long drought in hiring" is attributable to the 2000 stock market collapse. Perhaps Stirling Newberry has heard of Ray Fair. Fair's research shows that the low unemployment rates of the late 1990s were entirely a result of high stock prices, and that after 2000, unemployment merely returned to the level it would have been absent a stock market bubble.

See chapter 6 in Ray C. Fair, Estimating How the Macroeconomy Works http://fairmodel.econ.yale.edu/rayfair/pdf/2003A.PDF

I am therefore also flagging this as disputed.


 * Whoa, that's some pretty nasty accusation there! Ray Fair's model is one statistical model; he also says "what is not simple is finding a reason for the stock market boom in the first place".

Lying liar? C'mon please be civil.


 * I will concede that this article could use rewriting, possibly with a more conciliatory tone based on what at one time in the distant past may have been considered supply side economics, namely theory of economic growth ala Swan-Solow-von Neumann-Samuelson etc. CSTAR 22:42, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I was only responding in the same tone the author uses while defending his turf from all disagreement. --ArminTamzarian 23:33, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

-


 * Fair's model isn't a supply side model. It's a non-rational expectation neo-classical synthesis model based on monetary rule rates. But, using his model, the prolonged hiring drought is the result of rate decisions made post, not pre 2000. Stirling Newberry 22:39, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Is it really? Now, unlike the author, I do not have several doctorate degrees in economics and econometrics, but I don't see why whether the model is a supply-side model or not is relevant to its usefulness in examining the effects of exogenous variables on the US economy. Dumb people can only observe that the unemployment rate stays between 5.5% and 6.0% in the period 1995-2000 in the counterfactual scenario, which is also where it was for much of the period 2001-2004, leading to the hypothesis that the growth in employment according to the establishment servey has been slow because we are already at the same level of full emplyoment we would have had in 1995-2000 absent the bubble. Author is free to test and refute the hypothesis, but it is hardly "no evidence."--ArminTamzarian 23:33, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Since both objections have been refuted, and the poster placing them is making personal attacks and trolling, I am removing the tags. Stirling Newberry 22:39, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I was under the impression that comments like these are "personal attacks."
 * Hi there. I don't like liars and propaganda and I really object to repetition of lies.
 * 1. The figures are not adjusted for inflation. Anyone who argues nominal numbers in economics when real numbers are needed is lying. Tax revenues doubled in every other decade. This compares a trough (recession) year, with a peak (near top of cycle year) making sliding two well known "how to lie with statistics".
 * 2. The excuses about the cold war are also lies. The cold war didn't start in 1980, and Carter had also had a defense build up. These aren't unexpected revenues. Further with the end of the cold war, budget deficits should have gone down under Bush - instead they went up.
 * 3.In 1981 Stockman and Reagan promised above trendline growth in revenues. They didn't produce. Attempts to revise, post-hoc, what they promised aren't POV, they are simply lies about what was said and done. The article is a lot nicer to the pack of liars which your side is than it really deserves to be. Stirling Newberry 16:24, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

"Trolls" usually don't provide evidence. In fact, I am curious why anyone who challenges the author is expected to provide evidence while the author is not. I am restoring the flags.--ArminTamzarian 23:33, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Tags removed. Please stop violating wiki policy by name calling, and insistence on your POV. The article documents the, rather harsh, critiques of supply side economics. Which is why, despite having a Republican President, a Republican Congress and massive revenue reductions, the words aren't heard in the public discussion. You should think on why this is so. Stirling Newberry 23:59, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Mr. Newberry, are all three of these your statements? I don't like liars and propaganda and I really object to repetition of lies. The article is a lot nicer to the pack of liars which your side is than it really deserves to be. Please stop violating wiki policy by name calling, and insistence on your POV.

Please tell me that you didn't say all of those things. I'm hoping that some evil genius edited this discussion to make you and other supply-side opponents look very inconsistent.--Rroser167 21:34, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Irrelevant paragraphs
I'm removing several paragraphs which are nothing more than attacks on the proponents of supply side theory. If you wish to add them back in, defend yourself. --rotten


 * The reason for your deletion would suggest that the removed paragraphs were ad-hominem attacks (e.g. nothing more than attacks on the proponents of supply side theory). However, it is quite clear these paragraphs refer to statements or beliefs of supply-side supporters; how is it possible to discuss supply-side without making references to these statements or beliefs? You may argue or disagree about their factual accuracy, but that is another matter entirely.CSTAR 22:30, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't agree or disagree at all concerning their factual accuracy, but they were opinion, not fact. --rotten


 * I've lost track of the level of referential nesting here(e.g. the level of nestings in phrases such as "X said (Y said Z ...)").
 * I'm not sure which one of the following you are referring to:


 * "critics say supply-siders say X" is not a fact but an opinion, or
 * "supply-siders say X" is not a fact but an opinion, or
 * X is not a fact but an opinion


 * The phrases you removed were of the form "critics say supply-siders say  X",  which I think can be easily checked by looking at quotes of notable supply-side critics (e.g. say look at Paul Krugman's Op Ed pieces for the last few years).  Thus, I don't see the fact that these quotes were made is a matter of opinion, even though their content may very well be somebody's opinion and maybe even false.  But in an article such as this, aren't opinions of the various proponents a key issue? CSTAR 19:46, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Non-substantive fixes
I made a simple markup fix and some punctuation fixes. I plan on continuing through the sections with general non-content specific proofreading.


 * I'm only fixing things that should be fixed. I'm not going to touch things that could go either way, such as not worrying about every sentence with a few too many commas. I don't want to leave too large a footprint.
 * The Oxford comma was used in the first list I found, so I am using it for the other lists trying to standardize on a single style for the article.
 * The first and third paragraphs seem to repeat the generals of supply-side economics, and that should be fixed.
 * I'll be adding more to this list as it gets done or noticed.

There are some factual issues that should be fixed (but I really don't want to get involved in the fighting on this page):


 * Wanniski didn't entirely coin the term supply-side economics. The late Herb Stein did in 1976 by calling the group "supply-side fiscalists." Wanniski reformulated that into "supply-side economics" so as to be more inclusive. The term "supply-sider" would seem to have a more proper lineage to Stein. Wanniski, Bartlett, Laffer, and Stein all seem to agree on this point.

And there are some substantive explanatory issues that I don't want to touch with a ten foot pole.

--Jjayson 07:21, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Lack of discussion regarding NPOV dispute
If the article is in dispute then why is there no discussion happening?

TERJE - 14-JULY-2005

Microcosm of Larger Debate in Economic Policy
This discussion is actually quite representative of the ongoing debate at higher levels. I do not see the article as being overly biased. If the author is to be criticized it should be in adding the additional "history" of the theory. However, to sterilize it in such a way would not have given the reader the needed context to understand the issues at stake. I think the article along with the discussion is extrodinarily informative. It also says alot about the current state of economic theory and how hard it is to get the politics out of economics.

Rrj333 05:12, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Real Value, Historical Contexts, Inflationionary Drivers, Capital Disincentives, Oligopoly, Monetary Acceleration, Perfect Competition
The arguments above are conspicuously absent any of the above titled perspectives, except one that mentioned political manipulations of facts in regards to the real value of money, which should be qualified in the article or appropriately linked articles. Also, within that context, as an example, the current CPI figures are known to have subjective hedonistic qualifiers lending ambiguity to the value of the CPI. Other parties to these arguments appear to exhibit a need for further examination of available material.

I see no links to articles on inflation in this article, which would give appropriate insight into the validity of article statements. There is no mention of the price of oil, government financing or these causes in synergy with capital investment disincentive as drivers of inflationary pressure. The 1970's presented all of these scenarios as opposed to the Great Deflation from 1865 to 1900 which was primarily driven by the removal of 'greenbacks', therefore 'money', from circulation and the Great Depression which was also caused by removal of money from circulation. The differences between the financial structures of these different periods should give great insight into the causes of stagflation and the current ambiguous reporting of CPI.

The differences in non-inflationary war-driven recovery in both these periods were the result of the expansion of real money, that is, representation of growth in actual infrastructure as opposed to 'paper' wealth, money begetting money, a function of the Federal Reserve.

The article is well written and gives a very good description of it's subject. I suggest that it be given more detail in answer to all the arguments presented here. The persons presenting the arguments should be the source for the detail material, not only to assuage their own biases, but because of a ready modest familiarity and for further pursuit of a broader knowledge.

I suggest reading Secrets of the Temple, How the Federal Reserve Runs the Country by William Greider for a initial, good historical perspective. Another good book is The Wealth and Poverty of Nations by Davis S. Landes. I assume everyone is somewhat familiar with Adam Smith. 

PS: Found inflation/oil shock supply-push inflation articles. However inflation articles could be directly linked there within the text. 

209.214.107.28 23:53, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Historical Origins
I attempted to rewrite for clarity the fifth paragraph of this section ("Critics...), but it strikes me that contemporary disputes involving Paul Krugman and Lawrence Kudlow don't really have anything to do with the historical origins of supply-side anyway, and really belong elsewhere in the article.  Accordingly, unless someone has an objection, I'm going to relocate them to a more appropriate part of the article.

Rrburke 04:10, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Changes of December 14, 2005
I worked on the paragraphs about the Reagan-era tax cuts a bit. I'm trying to be as NPOV as possible, but it has to be said that real tax revenues fell and did not rebound for quite some time. Later I removed a paragraph criticizing Krugman. It's fine to call him a bubble head, but that has nothing to do with the historical origins of supply side. Rrburke, I would say to leave the paragraph out completely, or if you feel it contained something relevant to this article, to only replace part of it. Asacarny 18:12, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Clean up .. oh man
I'm trying to do a bit of a clearup here The article's very long and seems t have a load of repetitions and quite a lot of routine Keynesian/neoclassical jousting which also doesn't really need repeating. However, if I accidentally take out something that's really useful, pelase do bung it back in.The Land 10:51, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I believe Al Franken is more of an anti-tax cuts for teh rich than anti supply side economics

Voodoo economics
Voodoo economics redirects to this page, but this article makes no mention of voodoo economics. Could some knowledgeable person include some information on the term 'voodoo economics' in the article? Ashmoo 01:30, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, there's (now?) an indirect reference to voodoo economics ('It was also mentioned (as "voodoo economics") by Ben Stein in the popular 1986 movie Ferris Bueller's Day Off, in reference to the phrase used by George H. W. Bush during the Republican 1980 primary to describe Ronald Reagan's supply-side influenced plans for massive tax cuts.'). But I like the idea of voodoo economics redirecting here, instead of something about the curare market. --Falcotron 03:15, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Some numbers we should find and add
I think one major test of one assumption about the Laffer Curve (to wit, that income tax rates in the late 70s were to the right of the peak), would be to see how total personal income tax revenue changed as a percentage of GDP from before the Reagan tax cuts to after. I'm going to try to gather those numbers. Isn't that the acid test? A cut in personal rates should generate an increase in revenue from that tax, controlling for economic growth. Opinions? As of yet, I haven't seen these data presented per se but I think I could manage something. Boris B 22:07, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Huh. The Tax Policy Center is pretty blunt about this.  All the revenue-effect numbers for the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981 are negative (absolute and when taken as percentage of GDP).  Am I missing something here?  If this information is cited to by the article, I missed it.  Boris B 22:16, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

-Boris, why wouldn't we use tax data in dollars? If we look at GDP, we are looking at a particular bundle of measurements, including gov. expenditures. Let's say our island, ec-topia, lowers the tax rate from 20% on fish and cocnuts to 10%, while at the same time authorizing the expenditure of two new war canoes, dramatically increasing GDP. In that case, maybe revenues go from 100 FC's (fish'n'nuts, the currency of ec-topia) to 120 FC's, while GDP goes from 100 FC's to 130 FC's. By looking at GDP (and thus including the factors that go into GDP, instead of looking solely at revenues), we see a lowering of reveues, when in actuality reveues increased 20%. Do you see why I want, when discussing reveues, to look at reveues solely? USMCM1A1 16:28, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Seperating Reagon/US from Supply-Side Theory
Terje (tay-yah) is absolutely right in that this discussion is US-centric, and in many ways is a conservative/liberal debate on Reagan, a very polarizing figure. As someone who is neither, and is interested in supply-side theory outside of political bias--nterested in the debate over whether we must focus on produciton or consumption--I'd like to see the two subjects split. Can we change this article drastically? Would it be ok to split off the Reagan stuff to the "Reaganomics" arti9cle and just link to that article, while reserving this article for ss theory in a more general sense? Then in turn we could make the discussionmore global and less US-centered--talk about tax, monetary and tariff policy in Europe, Arica, Asia as well as the US to help illustrate the subject. USMCM1A1 16:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I am all for that. However I was all for that 2 years ago and the idea does not seem to have got far. Terjepetersen 02:11, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

limited usefulness
This article needs a much longer intro paragraph overviewing supply-side economics for the layperson, before it gets into the history and relations with other schools of economic thought, etc.
 * I tried to address this by putting a pithy explanation of the theory and a bit more through state of play of the current arguments and research on supply side policies by adding a second and third intro paragraph. Hopefully that addresses this concern. --Flyboy121 23:58, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Issues in econometric/statistical testing
Just some points to make.

1. Tax Revenues in general increase with economic growth, even with neutral fiscal and monetary policies. Take for example an economy with a 10% tax rate on $100 bln in GDP, so $10 bln in tax reveues. With constant taxes, you still usually have positive growth, say 5%, so now the economy is $105 bln, and the tax revenue is $10.5 bln. To show that tax cuts increae revenue, one must show that income tax revenues increased more than they would have without the tax cuts, and ideally the revenue increase would be statistically significant.

2. To do this, some sort of lags should be discussed and agreed upon. Does the increase in Revenue occur immediately? That year? In the next four years? One can use lags to justify anything, i.e. Reagan's economic policies explain growth under Clinton, Clinton's economic policies explin good growth under Bush 2, etc. Also, how long do the effects occur? Is there are permanent increase in productivity and savings, or does it revert to a long-run average after several periods?

I'm sure some academic work has been done on this, but I don't really see much being cited. One last point that isn't statistical, but that I've noticed in looking at this. Payroll taxes were raised to pay for Social Security, so this shouldn't be included to show that supply-side policies increase Revenue. If Social security tax revenue decreases, then this supports the supply-side hypothesis, if it raises revenue, this sontradicts the supply-side hypothesis. The opposite would be true for income tax revenue, where the marginal rate was lowered.

One idea is to use a differences in differences approach. This means you see the increase in Income Tax Revenue over Reagan's time in office, and compare it to other 8-year time periods when taxes were largely constant. This is easier said than done, and with any economic test, one can't control for other things going on in the economy, but this I think is the least bad way of testing supply-side's effectiveness. One comparison that is made is with Clinton's time in office, and there a tax increase ushered in a period of record economic prosperity, which would not seem to support supply-side. Comparing with other countries can be informative, but you include endogenous characteristics of those economies, i.e. maybe Japan has lower overall unemployment or historically more fiscal discipline or lower taxes than the US. (The first and third are mostly true). But again, more rigorous studies should be cited, rather than petty political fighting, as occurs earlier in the article. --OneWorld22 09:14, 26 October 2006 (UTC)


 * As you note, there is some recent academic work on these effects. I tried to add a couple of links in a new section on post-2000 research.  For an easy to understand overview, check a couple recent pages on Greg Mankiw's blog  and  which also have links to the academic research.  It comes down to the measure of 'labor elasticity' which is how much people respond to tax rates by working more or less.  Critics of supply-side economics say that this elasticity is low (a value of 0 means that people would work the same no matter how much tax levels change, wheras 1 is the highest level of elasticity, the amount of hours worked expands and contracts perfectly with tax policy).  In general, this is a point of much contention, with the CBO using a value of 0.14, whereas Mankiw contends that most economic research would suggest a value of 0.5, and some research suggests it may be higher.  The exact values of these differ based upon what type of tax you're looking at, what country the dataset is coming from, the number of years it covers, as well as how well the researchers control for external factors, such as war, weather, or cyclical changes in the economy.   It also depends greatly based upon how much time lag you factor in.  Real world empirical economies are too complex, and these effects occur over a sufficiently long time horizon (a couple years, min), that controlling for all the factors is very difficult.


 * You also mention "and compare it to other 8-year time periods when taxes were largely constant". Over no 8 year time periods were taxes fairly constant, and this is what makes these comparisons especially difficult.  During the Reagan years, dozens of tax bills were enacted, the largest ones cutting taxes, and later in his term actually slightly raising taxes, although they simultaneously simplified the tax code.


 * The summary though, tax policy definitely has an effect on economic growth (how hard would you work if tax rates were 100%?), and while the increased growth replaces some of the lost revenue, it doesn't appear to replace it all (unless maybe to look over an insanely long time horizon, of which is impossible to measure). Hope this helps. --Flyboy121 00:22, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

What is the 'Free Institute of Economic Research'?
This unaccredited institute has been putting articles on subjects like Welfare Economics, European Union, and related. I have tried to find about them online, to no avail. It is a breach of NPOV to use wikipedia for self-promotion and advance of private agendas. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 130.58.194.209 (talk • contribs) 04:09, 19 Nov 2006 (UTC)


 * It is basically a forum for the kind of free market nutter whose major talent in comparative economic analysis seems to lie in comparing growth rates between economies which start out at vastly different levels of both wealth and income generation in the base years selected.

Paul Krugman Criticism
Is there any particular reason why Paul Krugman's criticism of supply-side economics is in the introductory paragraph, instead of the criticism section? There is also criticism in the "Historical origins" section which I believe should be moved to the criticism section! What do you guys think?Invasion10 08:14, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Two Reaganomics
Why are there two sections called "Reaganomics"? I think they should either be merged into each other, of come up with a different title for one of the sections.....Happyme22 14:15, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Combined the two Reaganomics sections into one. Russ Anderson (talk) 04:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Criticism section
The Criticism section is a complete waste. Completely misrepresents the legitimate criticisms in favor of straw man arguments that BrendelSignature can happily knock down. Also a rambling re-hash of other sections that have nothing to do with criticism. My re-write, which BrendelSignature decided to revert had ... wait for it... wait for it... actual cites to people who really do disagree with the likes of BrendelSignature and other right-wing hacks. Critics complain about the founder's academic credentials. Has anyone said that in the past 10 years? 20 years? Ever?. Every single criticism that I am aware of is really a criticism of right-wing hacks claiming tax cuts have paid for themselves. The following is what BrendelSignature doesn't want you to see ( 71.129.147.6 23:33, 23 October 2007 (UTC) ):

Many critics of supply-side economics are actually critics of politicians and pundits who misunderstand the Laffer curve, typically claiming that every tax cut will increase revenues. For example, in 2006 Sebastian Mallaby of The Washington Post quoted George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Bill Frist, Chuck Grassley, and Rick Santorum mistating the effect of the Bush Administration's tax cuts. On January 3, 2007, George W. Bush wrote an article claiming "It is also a fact that our tax cuts have fueled robust economic growth and record revenues." Andrew Samwick, who was Chief Economist on Bush's Council of Economic Advisers from 2003-2004 responded to the claim:

"You are smart people. You know that the tax cuts have not fueled record revenues. You know what it takes to establish causality. You know that the first order effect of cutting taxes is to lower tax revenues. We all agree that the ultimate reduction in tax revenues can be less than this first order effect, because lower tax rates encourage greater economic activity and thus expand the tax base. No thoughtful person believes that this possible offset more than compensated for the first effect for these tax cuts. Not a single one."

Only cutting tax rates to the right of the Laffer curve's peak rate will increase revenues. Cutting tax rates to the left of the peak rate will decrease revenues. Depending on the model and values of variables that are used, some have estimated the peak rate to be between 60-80% for labor tax and 50-60% for capital tax


 * Me, a right-wing hack? That is funny! But let's discuss changes to the article. I must have mistakenly reverted the above; along with reverting the edits of some anon IP who thinks including the critique of supply-side economics by a Nobel Price Laureate somehow violated NPOV (quite the opposite in order to comply with NPOV, an article must feature critizism, the more critiqued a subject has received - this one has received a lot of it - the more there will be in the article). I found a better quote (one that is not referenced through a blog) to replace your but have reinsterted much of your text. BTW: The Laffer Curve also makes the false assumption that a 100% tax rate = $0 revenue - so even if you understand it, you'll still be wrong ;-) Again, I've reinstated your edit - sorry but sometimes its difficult to tell all the IP numbers apart. That said, we can agree on having Tobin and Mankin provide a balance by showing readers two different views or we can have an RfC. Regards,  Signature brendel  05:45, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Introduction
User:BrendelSignature, please stop the edit war in the introduction and deleting references simply because the author is a Republican. In your edit history, you claim " This section is POV (too right-leaning) => the voice of non-supply-siders must be heard ". I do not understand this assertion because the paragraph clearly states "Most modern research doubts this claim ... the resulting increase in economic growth is probably not significant enough to actually increase tax revenue," which is precisely the point of non-supply-siders. So it seems to me that in the "right-leaning" version, the voice of non supply siders are being heard. In fact, your version quotes a number of highly partisan left leaning sources (Chait, the Brookings Institution, and the Economic Policy Institute), while simultaneously deleting the sole reference to a right leaning economist (Mankiw). It should also be pointed out the your sources are partisan policy institutions, while Mankiw's research was published in academic, peer-reviewed journals.

Furthermore, the Tobin quote is over fifteen years old, and since that time, a lot of economic research has been done to attempt to measure the elasticity of tax policy Mankiw effectively summarizes the breath of this research, including the entire range of estimates  The Tobin claim is one-sided and absolutist, and including it, but no quotes from pro-supply side sources is _not_ NPOV. The latest research does not absolutely prove or disprove the supply side claims-- as the comment which you have relentlessly suppressed expresses, Supply Side economists pointed out an important, and apparently true dynamic: cutting taxes boosts the economy. What they were wrong about was the magnitude.

Finally, pay attention to the context of the paragraph in which you make your edits. In the current version, the sentence on dynamic scoring makes no sense because the immediately preceding statement has nothing to do with the elasticity of tax policy, but instead is a highly partisan statement about the current administration.

Your edits suppress this nuance, and attempts to push a partisan agenda that supply siders had no valid points. This is not in the spirit of Wikipedia, which attempts to show ALL sides, and because the latest research does not reflect your POV. Flyboy121 02:01, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Before I started editing the intro did not properly educate readers that this concept is not accepted by most economists. The Brookings Institution is not highly partisan, it is a centrist think tank. I recall the Wall Street Journal being one of the only sources in the intro. The "Economists' Statement Opposing the Bush Tax Cuts" was retrieved from the center-left Econoomic Policy Institute and is a reputable source if I have every seen one - singed by the most respected economists of our time. Citing only the rightist Journal, on the other hand, is hardly NPOV.


 * As for cutting taxes, no it does not always boost the economy - the top marginal tax rate would need to be in excess of 55/60/70% (depending on how tax funds are used) in order for a tax cut to really have an effect. No credible economist (well perhaps less than 10%) believe that the Bush tax cuts, for example, boosted economics growth (see the “Economists’ Statement” I added, signed by 10 Nobel Price Laureates). Supply-side economics is a highly controversial and criticized concept; most mainstream economists to this day will tell you that cutting taxes with currently low taxes will not spur economic growth. Giving undue weight to the few economists who disagree is misleading our readers.


 * The criticism must receive due weight in the intro and the rest of the article. Tobin, a Nobel Price Laureate, (his quote published in a peer-reviewed journal) is certainly one way to balance the into. As only a small minority of economists agree with conservative ideas (less than 15% according to most polls) giving the likes of the CATO Institute or Mankin as much as voice as Tobin and Brookings Institution would mislead readers on the currently dominant school of though among economists. The paper you cite in particular relies "neoclassical growth model," while mainstream economics relies on Kenysian economics as much as neoclassical. Mankin is, therefore, not quite representative of most current economists, but I will leave him in the intro for the sake for balancing views (even if that means drowing out the majority. Claiming his paper to be indicative of most recent rearch, however, is too much of a stretch - he represent one view, one that may very well be less representative than Tobin, even though his quote is 15 years old. Non-supply-side claims and the heavy criticism supply-siders have received must be mentioned in the intro with due weight in order for this article to be NPOV.


 * My edits do not push a partisan agenda - I am merely trying to have this article reflect the majority opinion among economists (which some conservatives may perceive as leftists - but that's irrelevant to us as WP editors). Nonetheless this article is to be representative of the scientific community – it is the mission of Wikipedia to reflect reputable sources, in this case to reflect academia/economics departments, as accurately as possible. Regards,  Signature brendel  05:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Dude, you need to calm down. Lay off the bold face, it is shouting in text.  However inadvertent, you edits were highly partisan.  Look at the history and click on 05:50 24 October and reread the intro.  The first para has one pro-SSE and one anti- sentence, and two factual sentences, one historical in nature.  The next para has a one sentence summary of the theory, followed by a critique of Krugman.  These paras have remained consistent, and i think we'd all agree is balanced.


 * As for the paragraph in question, there is one pro-SSE sentence (the first). There are then Four anti- sentences.  The last two are factually based and don't push either agenda.  The pro sentence has third-party hedge words such as "argued" and "could".  Your edits include harsh, judgmental phrases such as "proven false" and "deserve the ridicule".  You call this fair?  Also, the reason I had originally deleted the Tobin quote is because the phrase "deserve the ridicule" violates Wikipedia's policy to avoid personal attacks.  And don't claim a link to Chait's book is balanced or reputable.  Read the title.  And please, spare me the counting of the Nobel Laureates.  I can name some too, Friedman comes to mind without even googling.  Appeal to Authority is a fallacy.


 * I'm not going to get into silly definitional arguments about center left vs. left or center right vs right wing. Admit your biases.  Call a spade a spade.  Whatever your memory, my previous edit (04:25 24 Oct), had two sources, one the left leaning NYT, one the right leaning WSJ.  You are also a little over-confident that every economist agrees with you.  You claim "no credible economist... believes that the Bush tax cuts boosted economic growth".  This is laughable.  What about Mankiw, for example?  He is credible enough to teach economics to every single Harvard freshman. I found it highly ironic that in your edit of 05:36 on 22 Oct you note "citing the righitst (sic) Journal is POV; Harvard is NPOV", when the link you delete is to a Harvard professor.  You also note "Mankin (sic) is, therefore, not quite representative of most current economists".  If you'd taken a look at the the Mankiw paper cited in the "Research since 2000" section, you'd note that it is a review of the tax elasticity research of other economists, not his own view.  Quit labeling people as rightist and immediately discounting their claims, without evaluating them.  Much to your chagrin, Mankiw is a mainstream economist.


 * You do not address your most egregious bias though. In the comment to your edit on 05:49, 24 Oct, you claim "the voice of non-supply-siders must be heard" when the comment you deleted was "Most modern research doubts this claim ... the resulting increase in economic growth is probably not significant enough to actually increase tax revenue."  This is the voice of non-supply-siders.  --Flyboy121 03:31, 26 October 2007 (UTC)  (Full disclosure: the edits from 71.79.18.77 were also me, the other anon edits are not.)


 * Update: I'm actually on a WP break for a week but found some time - I reverted 69... something as all he did was a POV edit - removing mention of Tobin as a Noble Price Laureate (presmuably to discredit him), re-add the unacceptable uber-generalization that Mankin serves as representative of "recent research" overall (he most likely isn't) and removed mention of Mankin relying on Neoclassical analysis. Although I am attempting to assume good faith, the fact that 69... misrepresented his edit as re-adding the POV tag (something I never removed) while his real objective was to make Tobin look less credible and Mankin more credible - indicative of pushing a conservative POV (making the liberal out to be less credible, while trying to make the conservative appear more credible). Note that all of Flyboy's additions - Mankin - were kept. Regards,  Signature brendel  03:07, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Brendel, please make sure to actually read your references, and not just the characterizations of those references, especially from political figures. The claim you inserted about "lowering taxes will may spur growth sufficiently once tax rates reach above 50% or 60%" was incorrect.  The paper actually argues that self-financing occurs at those levels.  It says the spurring of growth still occurs at lower levels of taxation, and only reinforces my point.  Also, your edit at 3:23 on Oct 30 deletes a claim and your note says "requires another source".  Look at that sentence again, it has two sources, one is Mankiw/Weinzierl and the other is Kimball/Shapiro.  Please look closer before deleting claims that don't fit your POV.  As I noted before, that Tobin quote is not in compliance with Wikipedia standards, it is judgmental and makes personal attacks.  I deleted it, and replaced it with quotes from your own reference.  Please, quit trying to push your POV in this edit war, and pay closer attention to what the references actually say.  If you wish to include a characterization of a source, quote that, not the original source, because all you may be doing is propagating other people's errors.  Oh, and please learn how to spell Mankiw, that repeated error does not speak well of your editing skills.  Whatever your personal views, the Laffler Curve is well accepted by almost all mainstream economists. Flyboy121 04:26, 31 October 2007 (UTC)


 * My editing skills are not the question here. Your most recent version was way too POV. You must cite strong critisim in the intro. Tobin did that. We also cited the other point of view - Mankin. That was a fair compromise. Tobin does not violate WP standards - it does not make any personal attacks (Supply-side economics is not a person, now is it?!) and was published on the Harvard International review. The view that supply-side economics is a failure is common and must be featured in the intro in order to make this article balanced. I will not allow this article to be right-wing POV - and no the Laffer Curve's assumption that 100% tax = $0 tax is not widely accepted at all - supply-side econ. and the Laffer Curve are not mainstream economics. My views are quite congruent with those of the vast majority of economists. Again, the view that this concept is faulty must be featured in the intro in order to make this article NPOV. It is not me who is trying to push a POV - I am merely trying to provide a balance to the rightist and mis-leading lean of this article. I will not quite trying to make this article neutral and rid it of excessive rightist POV - though I will use different tools, i.e. RfC.
 * As for Mankin, is an AEI fellow - his views on public policy are not congruent with most economists. That is not to say he isn't credible, I myself like to browse his blog from time to time - but that doesn't change that fact that he is right-of-center. He is, therefore, a perfect choice to represent the minority of conservative/libertarian/neoliberal economists in this article.
 * That said I will return to this article in a week (to let emotions cool of). Give the idea of having Tobin and Mankin as two balanced opposing views in the intro some thought. In a week we can start the RfC if everything else fails. Signature brendel  06:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Do you read your own references? There are two items at issue here.  #1 does the Laffler curve exist?  #2 is the Laffler curve significant enough to mean that tax cuts pay for themselves?  As far as mainstream economists go, most agree with #1, yet almost none agree with #2.  You seem to confuse the two issues, and say that b/c most economists doubt #2 then the entire concept of the Laffler curve (#1) is wrong.  This is a logical fallacy, but you seem intent on including language that confuses the two issues (the Tobin quote), and deleting quotes that attempt to explain it.  The current version is seriously too left wing, and does not acknowledge the fact that most economists (even those you cite) agree that the Laffler curve has some effect.  And yes, the Tobin quote is a personal attack, "deserve ridicule" is on offensive phrase.  Similarly, the phrase "sober economists" is an implicit insult.


 * What is your fixation on Mankiw, I was not simply quoting him, but five other economists, including your references. You also claim about Mankiw, "his views on public policy are not congruent with most economists".  If this is true, then why is his textbook the most popular introductory text for college economics?  (http://www.amazon.com/Principles-Economics-Student-Gregory-Mankiw/dp/0324224729)  I'll certainly agree that he is right leaning, as is AEI, but you must concede that Brookings and Chait are left leaning.  Please back up your assertion that Mankiw is out of the mainstream with a reference, and not simply your own personal assertions. You say "that this concept is faulty must be featured in the intro"  and my revision does not include criticism, but the paragraph stated explicitly "Most economists, however, doubt this claim", and then backs it up with data (your data).  This is criticism.  Please don't confuse personal attacks w/ criticism.


 * More importantly, why do you continually delete references and quotes that disagree with your view? You are pushing a POV that even your own sources disagree with.  You claim that you are not trying to push a POV, yet the only quote in the current para is old and represents your POV, yet you delete quotes of a half dozen current economists who disagree w/ your POV.  I challenge you to find one quote, published recently that says "The Laffler curve does not exist".  There are many who say it's effect is small, but please show me a quote from a economist who says it simply does not exist.


 * Please, find a more reasonably phrased criticism than that Tobin quote, and quit deleting quotes that disagree with you. You claim to want "two balanced opposing views", yet you delete the quotes of Trabandt and Uhlig.  You too are pushing a POV.  The current revision is seriously left-wing, and leaves out significant points.  Flyboy121 02:46, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Brendel, it has been nearly a month, and you have not edited or commented on this article. I take it to mean that you're happy with the current version.  Please let me know, if I don't see a comment or edit from you in the next week or so, I'll remove the POV tag from the top of the article. -Flyboy121 (talk) 03:54, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 22:08, 3 May 2016 (UTC)