Talk:Supply-side economics/Archive 3

Laffer curve doesn't illustrate supply-side because it peaks around 70%
The introduction paragraph stating that the Laffer curve illustrates supply-side theories is false, because an economy can be either to the left or right of the Laffer curve's peak, and it says nothing about tax incidence, which is far more highly determinate of outcomes than the total tax rate. EllenCT (talk) 03:08, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The sentence in question is not false. It is true, which can be verified by reading the cited source. Of course an economy's tax rate could be either to the left or right of the Laffer curve peak (no one knows for certain where the peak lies or what the shape of the curve is or if there is even a single peak or multiple), the idea is that the peak somewhere between 0% and 100% is the optimum tax rate, and if it is suspected that the tax rate is to the right of this peak, a tax cut (often advocated for by supply-siders) could optimize tax revenue while also boosting output and employment due to the tax cut's economic effect. Laffer theory is a central theory for supply-side economics; no where does it say that this is the only central theory of supply-side economics or that the Laffer curve illustrates all supply-side theories, which seems to be what you are assuming. Abierma3 (talk) 05:24, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, since you admit that nobody knows exactly where the peak lies, how can you say, "that lowering tax rates has a positive impact on work, output, and employment and generates more government revenue"? That would only be true if the peak were at 0%, which would mean no courts to enforce contracts, for example. Therefore the sentence is false and will be removed. EllenCT (talk) 17:59, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter where the peak lies, lowering tax rates will have a positive impact on output and employment. This is known as the economic effect (stimulus) of a tax cut. You cut off an important part of the quote ("...generates more government revenue than would otherwise be expected from the lower tax rate due to the tax cut's economic effect"). For instance, if the tax rate is cut in half, it would be expected mathematically that tax revenue would also be cut in half, but due to the stimulus effect of a tax cut, there will be more government revenue generated than expected (i.e. it will not be cut exactly in half, but will be greater). The sentence is true. Please read the cited source. Abierma3 (talk) 06:52, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * If the peak is to the right of the current tax rate, cutting taxes does not have a stimulus effect, it has a dampening effect. Do you have a peer reviewed source from the WP:SECONDARY literature, like the Journal of Economic Literature or a literature review published in a high-impact peer reviewed academic journal? We need to follow Wikipedia's reliable source criteria instead of depending on advocacy organizations' websites. EllenCT (talk) 14:00, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Cutting taxes has a stimulus effect, no matter where the peak is. See this paper: "Even critics of supply-side economics concede that tax cuts may produce substantial revenue reflows, lowering their net cost." Keep in mind the sentence is not saying that overall tax revenue will be greater, but that tax revenue will be greater than otherwise expected for that lower rate (i.e. "lowering their net cost"). If the peak is to the left of the current tax rate, it is possible that overall tax revenue could increase if the economic effect (stimulus) of the tax cut overpowers the arithmetic effect (but this is another story, it is not what the lead is stating). Also, see this journal article, it says, "The Laffer Curve is the most evident illustration of the key postulations of the supply-side economics." Thus, it is lead worthy and should be explained whether mainstream economists praise it or criticize it because this is the supply-side economics article and it is a key concept of supply-side economics (the viewpoints of critics are also in the same paragraph for NPOV balance). Abierma3 (talk) 15:42, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * None of those sources is a WP:SECONDARY source, such as a literature review or a meta-analysis. Yet, in this edit summary, you wrote, "Laffer Curve should be emphasized as peer-reviewed secondary source says: 'The Laffer Curve is the most evident illustration of the key postulations of the supply-side economics.'" However, the source cited not only isn't a secondary source, it's not a peer reviewed source. In fact, it's an advocacy organization source just like . Are you aware of the difference between an advocacy organization's publication, a peer reviewed academic journal article or book chapter, and a secondary literature review or meta-analysis? EllenCT (talk) 21:17, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * BNAS, the source that says, "The Laffer Curve is the most evident illustration of the key postulations of the supply-side economics," is a peer-reviewed source. Laffer Associates is not an advocacy organization, but rather a private company (research and consulting firm) that happened to be founded by Arthur Laffer, and the author (Bruce Bartlett) is credible, so your classification is debatable. I am aware. Abierma3 (talk) 07:17, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Journal articles are secondary sources; the primary sources are things like interviews with natives that anthropologists do in the process of preparing the journal articles. However, since supply side theory applies irrespective of where on the Laffer curve one is operating, and indeed also applies to supply curve manipulation even if that manipulation has nothing to do with taxes, I agree that the Laffer curve is not central to supply side theory.Warren Dew (talk) 04:14, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Trickle-down economics
LjL apologies if I offended you by my earlier reversion, I did not mean to. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Supply-side_economics&diff=686511847&oldid=686511549 Volunteer Marek made this edit earlier, saying that as supply-side was not a theory, then we should not make a distinction about the fact that trickle-down is not an actual theory. Once you added citations showing that supply-side economics is a theory, then it makes sense that this earlier point did not stand.

The second source states "Others viewed it (supply-side economics) as traditional Republican "trickle down" economics, meaning that the benefits accruing to wealthier taxpayers would filter throughout the economy" which is a rhetorical term, as Sowell writes here http://www.webcitation.org/6AvD7JHEC, no economist has ever claimed that tax cuts will boost the economy by themselves (what these "others" are viewing it as). Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 21:41, 19 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I am not sure I follow completely, but you reverted my edit resulting, among other things, in removal of a source (which smells reliable enough to me) that plainly stated that trickle-down economics was, itself, a theory. How do you justify its removal, as well as the re-addition of a claim that it is not a theory, directly contradicting the source? LjL (talk) 21:46, 19 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I read this as another source which criticises supply-side economics but I have now added it back in. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 21:54, 19 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks, but its point - and the quotation from it - is that "Trickle-down economics refers to the economics theory which states [...]", yet in your current revision, the article still insists on stating that trickle-down economics is "a rhetorical term which is not an economic theory.". Can we not contradict the source? LjL (talk) 21:56, 19 October 2015 (UTC)


 * My point is that the theory to which it is likened to by critics does not exist (that giving money to the rich through tax cuts will trickle down to the poor - no one has advocated this). However the theory of supply-side economics (also called trickle-down economics by some), that the rich will work harder and invest more if taxes are lower, and that this extra wealth will trickle down to the poor, does exist. However the critics are referring to the former "theory" rather than the latter and so the source you added does not contradict this. I agree it could be clearer, could you suggest an alternative wording? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 22:05, 19 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I found it easier to be bold and change the wording than to explain how I'd change it here. This is the result, tell me what you think. LjL (talk) 22:12, 19 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Just for the record, the original "trickle down" theory did claim that giving money to the rich - but through government spending, not tax cuts - would trickle down to the poor; this was the approach taken by Hoover toward the Great Depression. That theory, of course, was entirely a demand side theory and had nothing to do with supply side economics, though.Warren Dew (talk) 04:05, 27 December 2016 (UTC)


 * This is an old discussion. Supply side economics are widely seen as the cause of the Great Depression.  Supply creates its own demand, unless the over supply creates deflation.... The government becoming the employer of last resort ended the Great Depression under Roosevelt.  18:05, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Discussion of removal of paragraph on Laffer curve from lede
Lipsquid: you reverted my edit to the lede that removed the final paragraph discussing the Laffer curve, asking what was unsupported. The sentence that the references do not support is "The Laffer curve is a central component of supply-side economics", the topic sentence of the paragraph I removed. The references support the rest of the paragraph explaining the Laffer curve, but do not support that it is central to supply side economics, making it inappropriate for placement in the lede.

For reference, the Laffer curve is actually not central to supply side economics, which is about the supply curve, not about the Laffer curve. In particular, supply side economics is about manipulating the supply curve, in contrast to the demand curve manipulation generally associated with Keynesian economics. This is true whether or not the manipulation results in increased government revenues.

For these reasons, the paragraph on the Laffer curve should be removed from the lede. Warren Dew (talk) 04:00, 27 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Per Laffer himself "The Laffer Curve is one of the main theoretical constructs of supply-side economics" I added a citation to avoid future confusion.  Lipsquid (talk) 04:40, 27 December 2016 (UTC)


 * That isn't saying the same thing, though. That's just saying it's a corollary of the theory, not that it's "

central to" the theory. I will edit the sentence to reflect the actual Laffer quote.Warren Dew (talk) 23:02, 27 December 2016 (UTC)


 * If you think there is better prose that would be more true to the reference, I encourage you to make improvements. I reverted your edits, but I want to be clear that I am not personally tied to supporting the Laffer Curve, I just want to have the best possible article and to reflect the opinion of the most reliable sources available on the topic. Best Wishes, Lipsquid (talk) 23:28, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

ERROR FOUND
There is an error noticed on the page... it says "in 1999, during the Ronald Reagan Administration." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.201.154.104 (talk) 20:29, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It means the Nobel Prize was won in 1999, but I have clarified this by rewording. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 20:34, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Tax cuts never work
This article promotes the POV that tax cuts have never worked. We get only an unsupported claim that Reaganomics helped improve the economy, followed by authoritative pronouncements that "it is not so." That seems one-sided to me.

We should mention the cuts in tax rates in the 1920s which (according to Thomas Sowell) led to:
 * rising output, rising employment to produce that output, rising incomes as a result and rising tax revenues for the government because of the rising incomes, even though the tax rates had been lowered

I believe there was a Democratic president who advised, “... it is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now.” [JFK?] --Uncle Ed (talk) 16:11, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Sowell also cites a 2006 quote from the NY Times:
 * when tax revenues rose in the wake of the tax rate cuts made during the George W. Bush administration, the New York Times reported: “An unexpectedly steep rise in tax revenues from corporations and the wealthy is driving down the projected budget deficit this year.” --Uncle Ed (talk) 16:15, 6 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I would support the addition of this content - thanks for highlighting it. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 16:39, 6 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I added two sections, on the tax cuts of the 1920s and the early 1960s. --Uncle Ed (talk) 16:49, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

What's a tax cut?
Here's an odd phrase:


 * However, under Reagan, Congress passed a plan that would slash taxes by $749 billion over five years.

Was Reagan's purpose to cut tax revenue - so that rich people would pay a smaller absolute amount of taxes? Or was Reagan's purpose to cut tax rates, so that rich people would carry out more economy-stimulating activity that would increase tax revenue?

Critics of cutting tax rates tend to describe these as lowering "taxes" by a certain huge amount (like nearly $1 trillion). Advocates of cutting tax rates generally speak in terms of lowering a percent of income that investors have to pay, which (they predict) will result in increasing the amount of "taxes" that the government receives.

The question is whether cutting a tax rate results in less tax being collected. Another question is whether we contributors are smart enough to define the difference; maybe some quotable source out there has already done that job for us, although I daresay there's controversy about it. --Uncle Ed (talk) 21:33, 10 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Better refer to experts: http://www.igmchicago.org/surveys/laffer-curve Daniel Vallstrom (talk) 05:10, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Contradictory Claims/bad sourcing on 1920's data
Differing claims are made in the "Effect on tax revenues" and "U.S. monetary and fiscal experience" sections of the article.

The earlier section shows that revenue did not increase during the 1920's as a result of tax rate cuts, and the citations [23]&[24] support this with real world data published from the primary source, namely the IRS and reports generated from that data.

Under the 1920s subheading in "U.S. monetary and fiscal experience" there is an opposite position taken that tax revenue did increase, as supported by citations [31] & [32]. Examining these sources, they are both secondary, and neither has significant sourcing or data for the claims made therein. Citation [31] in particular does not source any data it presents. Citation [32] conceals its lack of evidentiary reporting by having 4 footnotes, with only the first actually being a source. It also does not make the claim it is being used to support; while it states that higher income tax brackets increased their share of the tax revenue burden, it does not claim that total tax revenue increased, in real or actual terms.

I am new to wiki editing, so I wanted to bring this concern to the talk page first. But it seems to me that the [31]&[21] sources cited due not meet academic rigor and should be removed, or replaced, with the claims they support revised.

WLD000--68.117.200.61 (talk) 07:09, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The source [24] comes from a blog, and does not actually give the amount of income tax revenue, merely the tax as a percentage of GDP. The first source does give the amount of revenue though, but it does not say that there was a tax cut in 1920. There also seems to be a misreading of the table, the highest revenue was in 1919, tax levels did return to 1920 levels by the end of the 20s. So I think the first section should be removed, as it does not provide a source for a tax cut in 1920. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 07:59, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

I need to correct something from what I originally wrote. I mistakenly pointed to citations [23]&[24] when I has intended to note [21]&[22]. I'd recommend those sources be examined prior to deleting what seems to be the more thoroughly researched section.

WLD00068.117.200.61 (talk) 03:37, 21 June 2017 (UTC)


 * The sources which are now [21] and [22] are what I examined above. I will remove them now as per WP:OR, the content is trying to draw a conclusion from data, and is also misleading as I have described above. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 16:34, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Dr. Paul Craig Roberts
This article is mentioned in the press.

Appended to his latest article, Dr. Paul Craig Roberts makes some critiques and also provides a reprint of his, "Supply-Side Economics, Theory and Results: An Assessment of the Amercian Experience in the 1980s", Paul Craig Roberts, Republished from January 1989, THE INSTITUTE FOR POLITICAL ECONOMY.

SUPPLY-SIDE ECONOMICS, THEORY AND RESULTS 104.174.231.6 (talk) 19:50, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Supply-side economics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140502013505/http://www.polyconomics.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1806%3Ataxing-capital-gains&catid=52%3A2003&Itemid=31 to http://www.polyconomics.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1806%3Ataxing-capital-gains&catid=52%3A2003&Itemid=31
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050718013109/http://www.asx.com.au/about/pdf/cgt.pdf to http://www.asx.com.au/about/pdf/cgt.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090226201115/http://www.house.gov/jec/fiscal/tx-grwth/reagtxct/reagtxct.htm to http://www.house.gov/jec/fiscal/tx-grwth/reagtxct/reagtxct.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071229124723/http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/bp168 to http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/bp168
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070714004710/http://www.ustreas.gov/press/releases/reports/treasurydynamicanalysisreporjjuly252006.pdf to http://www.ustreas.gov/press/releases/reports/treasurydynamicanalysisreporjjuly252006.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070630011354/http://www.yorktownuniversity.com/grad_libraries_supply_side.cfm to http://yorktownuniversity.com/grad_libraries_supply_side.cfm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:54, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Supply-side economics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added tag to http://www.laffercenter.com/supply-side-economics/laffer-curve/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080423012207/http://ksghome.harvard.edu/~jfrankel/TNR%20Online%20%20Mankiw%20Out%20of%20Depth.htm to http://ksghome.harvard.edu/~jfrankel/TNR%20Online%20%20Mankiw%20Out%20of%20Depth.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:44, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Supply Side Economics doesn't exist as an Economic Ideology or School of Thought.
Supply Side Economics doesn't exist as a foundation of Economic Ideology or a particular School of Thought. Within this Article there is no such citation or source validating Supply-Side Economic as such simply because it doesn't exist. Every single reference to Supply-Side Economics centeres around the Reagan Administration and the Reagan Era because Supply-Side Economics is a Political Ideology born from conservative tenets of Economics at a time when Laffer, Greenspan, and the Chicago School of Thought were the Darlings of Academia at a time when the Market World fully embraced them. Point is, Supply-Side Economics doesn't exist as an Economic Ideology or School of Thought because an Economic Theory must withstand the scrutiny of being able to determine the long & short term results of changes - both endogenous and exogenous - to the economic system. If Economics is to be considered a probabilistic science or quasi-deterministic science, then Supply-Side Economics is antithetical to that goal. shiznaw (talk) 01:10, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

The Clinton years
The article states that: "The Bill Clinton years represent a counter-example to supply side economics as tax increases coincided with record job creation."

I find that somewhat misleading. The average top marginal rate (on which so much of supply-side is based) was lower under Clinton than Reagan. It was still at a historically low level. The Laffer curve doesn't mean you can cut forever and maximize revenues and growth. This section may need some work.Rja13ww33 (talk) 23:16, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Discussion of Trump tax cuts section
The following text was challenged as OR, although CBO was cited as the source. Let's discuss what sources would be better or if more specific citations or CBO quotes would be helpful.

"President Trump implemented individual and corporate tax cuts which took effect in 2018. CBO estimated in January 2017 that tax revenues would be $3.60 trillion in 2018 assuming the Obama tax policies continued, but actual revenues in 2018 following the Trump tax cuts were $3.33 trillion, a reduction of $270 billion or 7.5%, due primarily to the tax cuts. In other words, revenues would have been considerably higher in the absence of the tax cuts. Total revenues rose less than 1% from 2017 to 2018, although corporate tax revenues fell by $90 billion. Total revenues typically grow more strongly when the economy is performing well."

Further, the debt additions projected by CBO for the 2018-2027 period have increased from the $9.4 trillion that Trump inherited from Obama (January 2017 CBO baseline) to $13.7 trillion (CBO current policy baseline), a $4.3 trillion or 46% increase. Much of this increase is due to the tax cuts, although additional spending is also forecast. CBO forecast in January 2017 that revenues would total $33.0 trillion for the 2018-2025 period, but reduced this forecast by $1.33 trillion to $31.7 trillion (April 2018 current law baseline) after the tax cuts were implemented. The individual tax cuts are assumed to expire under current law after 2025." Farcaster (talk) 01:16, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * This seems to be a straightforward example of WP:OR as none of the sources cited mention supply side economics from my quick reading. Per WP:PRIMARY "Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so." we cant cite CBO numbers and infer that they tell us anything about supply-side economics because if we do that would be our own interpretation of the primary material. If you want to add something about the Trump tax cuts, you need a reliable source that discusses it in terms of supply-side economics. Bonewah (talk) 14:03, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * CBO is stating that the Trump tax cuts significantly decreased revenue, which directly bears on supply side whether they stated so or not. Should we add a sentence at the beginning that says: "One of the central tenets used by the Trump administration to sell the public on their tax cuts was the supply side doctrine that income tax cuts pay for themselves [easy to find lots of sources on that from the current administration]. However, CBO reported that... As an aside, your argument seems like a very legalistic excuse to avoid some punishing facts about the supply side concept.Farcaster (talk) 21:08, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I think it is reasonable to treat CBO as a secondary source, as they are analyzing and interpreting data from primary sources like the BEA.Farcaster (talk) 06:30, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * YOu may not care that the CBO doesnt state what you claim, but the rules explicitly require it. This isnt some edge case where opinions might reasonably differ, you are doing what OR expressly forbids. And no, simply adding something that you think connects the trump tax cuts to Supply side economics doesnt fix everything, it just makes it WP:Synth instead.  Look, its very simple, if you want to say something about the Trump tax cuts and supply side, you need a reliable source which does so, you cant draw your own conclusions. It doesnt matter wether the CBO is a primary source or a secondary one, they dont make the connection between supply side and the tax cuts that you are trying to add to this article.  This isnt some minor quibble, No OR is one of the pillars of Wikipedia. Bonewah (talk) 14:03, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * We don't have to find one source that links them. A source that says supply side covers tax cuts paying for themselves, and CBO saying the revenues were a lot lower because of the tax cuts is just fine.  We're done here, let's move on.21:40, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * So is your position that the rules dont apply to you or that you are not breaking them? Because your response is literally what the opening line of wp:synth says not to do: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be improper editorial synthesis of published material to imply a new conclusion, which is original research"  None of the sources you cite explicitly state anything about supply side economics and so it isnt 'just fine' and we are not 'done here' Bonewah (talk) 23:17, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I think your interpretation of the rules is wrong and is being used as an excuse to remove sourced material you don't like. Otherwise, you would have pitched in to help rather than reverting. The sources are obviously talking about supply side tax cuts, which is what the Republican/Trump tax cuts are. Whether the words "supply-side" shows up is irrelevant and whether everything is in one source is irrelevant. Mnuchin made the usual claim for supply siders, that the tax cuts will pay for themselves. CBO said, as it always does, that tax cuts cause revenues to fall significantly relative to a baseline without them. You've got a citation from the NYT on one side with the Mnuchin claim and CBO on the other. Do I have to add a third source that says: "The Trump tax cuts are an example of supply side economics?"  Do we have to lay this out as an A=B, and B=C, therefore A=C syllogism to get past the wikilawyering?  If you've made more than 10,000 edits, volunteer to help instead of impede. Find the bridge if you've got that big a problem with it.Farcaster (talk) 02:45, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The Rutgers analysis you added is fine and there is no reason it cant stay in as it speaks to supply side and the Trump tax cuts specifically. The parts where *you* cite the CBO are still *your* analysis and therefor, still OR. The A=B, and B=C, therefore A=C syllogism is exactly the problem as it is exactly what wp:OR and wp:SYNTH forbid. And that isnt 'wikilawyering" that should be 'gotten past', its called following the core tenets of Wikipedia.  Im perfectly willing to work with you here but im not going to treat the rules as something to be gotten around or ignored.  Bonewah (talk) 13:52, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * So now that we've established the Trump tax cuts are supply side, why can't we include CBO analysis that says the Trump tax cuts reduced revenues and increased deficits? Would you prefer a CBO quote to that effect?Farcaster (talk) 19:27, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Because the CBO analysis doesnt say anything about supply side. Again "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." Bonewah (talk) 19:44, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Just glancing through this article again, i see this is not the only place this is being done. We need to take a careful look at this whole article and remove all the material that draws its own conclusions from primary sources like the CBO.  This is expressly forbidden. Bonewah (talk) 19:59, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I disagree with your interpretation. Once we've established that the Trump tax cuts are supply side, content about the effect of the tax cuts is clearly related. CBO doesn't need to use those words; deductive logic dictates that is what they are talking about. And nobody is more credible than them on the budget subject. I think you should revert your last edit.Farcaster (talk) 20:44, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Deductive logic; the conclusion flows from the premises with certainty (not probability). There is no leap or interpretation. Premise A: The Trump tax cuts are representative of supply side tax cuts. Premise B: CBO said the Trump Tax cuts caused the deficit to increase and revenues to fall. Conclusion: Therefore, CBO said the supply side tax cuts caused the deficit to increase and revenues to fall.Farcaster (talk) 20:53, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

<--outdent I reverted the last changes i made just to keep the discussion on track. Establishing that the Trump tax cuts are a supply side thing is fine, but when you use the CBO's numbers to demonstrate any conclusion not expressly stated by the source about supply side is where the problem lie. Again read wp:SYNTH ""A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article" This is the issue, neither the Rutgers article, nor the CBO have published the argument that the CBO's conclusions have anything to do with supply side theory. You cant do the research and you cant assume that the CBO's analysis proves or disproves anything about supply side. Thats what makes it Original research, its original to Wikipedia and not and an external reliable source. Doesnt matter if you use deductive logic or not, even really really good original research is still original research. Bonewah (talk) 21:07, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I admire your tenacity. So how about this: We've got a source saying the Trump tax cuts are supply side. Can we just explain what the CBO says about the Trump tax cuts, leaving the reader to connect (or not connect) the two premises? A: Trump tax cuts are supply side.  B: CBO says Trump tax cuts significantly increased the deficit and debt.  We don't say anything to the effect that this indicates supply side tax cuts increase deficits, leaving that to the reader.Farcaster (talk) 03:33, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Implied OR is still OR. There is basically no reason to be citing the CBO at all in this article. Any analysis that should be here needs to come from a reliable secondary source.  WP:PRIMARY says it all  "Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so." Bonewah (talk) 14:46, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * We can't use CBO in discussions of the effects of supply side tax policies, because CBO doesn't explicitly say this or that tax policy is supply side? I disagree. CBO is the definitive source on the impact of tax policies, whether they use the words supply side or not. I think you're being unreasonable.19:49, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * We cant use CBO numbers in a discussion of the effects of supply side tax policies because that discussion itself does not come from a reliable secondary source. If some economist were making the same claims about supply side and the trump tax cuts as we are but didnt provide the CBO numbers then you could make a case that doing the calculations here is ok. But as it stands now, the claims being made here exist only here and are therefor OR. Bonewah (talk) 20:16, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Here is a source (NYT article) that calls the Trump tax cuts supply side and covers their effects. Are you OK to include a summary of this? Farcaster (talk) 01:03, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I would like to tweak the section a bit to bring some balance, but so long as we summarize the sources we have, it wont be OR. I removed the only thing left in that section that i felt was still OR, the chart comparing U.S. federal revenues for two CBO forecasts.  Again, this is your work, not the work of a reliable source, so OR.  We can talk more about how to accurately reflect what is in our sources, there is lots there to choose from. I made a few changes for balance, feel free to propose changes. So long as we dont introduce our own analysis, we can work out the rest. Bonewah (talk) 03:07, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with the edits you made. Since I fixed this section, why don't you do the same for the Bush tax cuts and I'll contribute where I can?Farcaster (talk) 01:54, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Regarding the line chart I created from CBO tables, if I replace that with the CBO table itself showing the before and after deficits due to the Trump tax cuts, would that be OK to add? In other words, is your concern I created the line chart or that the CBO original content itself is not appropriate to include? The NYT article does mention the $200 billion difference vs. CBO forecast, which is the June 2017 baseline (forecast for 10 years, including 2018) vs. 2018 actual. There are CBO tables showing that difference.Farcaster (talk) 02:07, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Let me think about the line chart a bit. Ill get to work on the Bush tax cuts section below. Bonewah (talk) 14:30, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Bush tax cuts
This section could stand some going over, both to make sure there is no OR, but also to tighten it up and keep it focused. A quick read reveals that most of this section covers the budgetary effects of the tax cuts, I.E. do they 'pay for themselves' or cost money. This is related to, but not central to Supply-side economics as i understand it. To me, and we say this in the lede of the article as well, the core concept of supply side is that tax cuts and so forth grow the economy, which sometimes, but not always means that lower taxes bring in more revenue. So, while the budgetary cost of tax cuts should be mentioned, they should not be the focus of this section, or the article itself. Bonewah (talk) 14:38, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

charts and so on


We have BRD'd a chart showing the US deficit and tax revenue. In my opinion this is obvious Original Research in that it is not directly attributable to a reliable source on Supply Side Economics. NOR forbids "..any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented." This chart is plainly that as 1) the link provided CBO link does not speak to Supply Side Economics at all, and therefore cant be said to be directly related to the topic of the article and 2) is an editor created analysis of the data presented there and so does not directly support the material being presented. Bonewah (talk) 15:31, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I think a chart created using CBO data that explains how revenue and expenses changed resulting in Clinton surpluses is relevant to an economics article with a section covering what happened while he was in office. Clinton certainly did NOT follow supply-side orthodoxy, yet the budget balance went from deficit to surplus and Clinton had record job creation and growth. The CBO budget & economic outlook is probably the definitive source for those subjects. It's a great counter-example to the supposed benefits of supply-side approaches. If it's unclear how the chart was prepared, I could add a table of the source data to the detail page behind the chart, to make the referencing precise.Farcaster (talk) 19:01, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The chart may be relevant, but if the source doesnt say it, its plainly OR. Correct or relevant isnt what is important here, what is important is "does the source (the CBO) present this information about supply side economics?" It does not.  This chart is your work, not the work of a reliable source, thats what makes it OR. Bonewah (talk) 20:45, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Take a look at WP:PRIMARY, the CBO is a primary source in this context. The relevant policy "Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so." Bonewah (talk) 20:57, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm simply graphing the data that CBO provides. That's done all over Wikipedia. It's easy to compare the two years in the historical tables and create a waterfall chart. It's easy to verify the numbers by looking at the historical tables, but I could add a table to the article if that is your main concern.Farcaster (talk) 21:19, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Here is an article that says Clinton put in "demand-side" policies rather than "supply side." This also talks to the Clinton surpluses, economic results, and the tax increases on the wealthy. Would that be sufficient to link to the chart? Farcaster (talk) 21:19, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Article for reference: Not from that source, which I believe is a liberal biased source, and as such would of course be against SSE. The whole Clinton section smacks of OR to me, since the salon article doesn't even mention SSE, unless it does in a vague way (I haven't read it, just did a text search.).
 * There is no prohibition against "liberal sources" as then we would be forced to remove "conservative sources" which of course support the SSE contrary to mountains of evidence. But as mentioned below, the point here is whether a diagram about the Clinton years from CBO historical tables is OR. If the caption is a problem we can work on that, but a waterfall or any other diagram type shouldn't be controversial. It's sourced to the CBO historical tables within the detail page of the diagram; we can bring that into this article specifically if needed.Farcaster (talk) 00:27, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Additionally, the fact that you didn't get this from a source but are now trying to find one, CLEARLY shows that this is OR. I understand trying to explain things to the reader, but if my belief and your belief are different, how do we determine who is correct?...That's why we need Reliable Sources to base the article on, and have a NOR policy. --- Avatar317 (talk) 00:02, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * It's already sourced to the CBO. The initial complaint was that the CBO doesn't talk specifically about supply side economics in their historical tables, but that isn't the point here. The chart is simply a visual description of data in the CBO tables.Farcaster (talk) 00:20, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

I've rewritten the section substantially adding in some stronger source material. If you prefer the table to the graphic, I'm OK with removing one or the other, but not both.Farcaster (talk) 01:50, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I want to address a couple of points about the charts and tables. Ill address your other changes separately.   1) you said above "The initial complaint was that the CBO doesn't talk specifically about supply side economics in their historical tables, but that isn't the point here."  This is exactly the point.  wp:NOR explicitly forbids what you are doing with both the chart and the graph.  Neither the CBO nor the other link you offered (which i dont think is an RS, but ill deal with that later) does the analysis you are presenting here.  The charts and graphs are your work and therefore Original Research and must go.  We can present this data differently if a reliable source does, but not as its sourced now. 2) Im not concerned in this context if the CBO is biased in some way, it just doesnt matter here.  You cant perform calculations of their data that they did not themselves offer.  The fact that the CBO link you are citing does not speak to Supply Side Economics makes it an inappropriate citation for this article. Bonewah (talk) 15:20, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * We just disagree fundamentally here and others will have to weigh in. We're talking about the Clinton era, so economic data about that era is relevant whether the source links that concept to supply side economics or does not. Second, taking economic data from sources and graphing it or including it in charts is done all over Wikipedia; see the Economy of the United States for example. The table makes it easier to verify the information. The only OR part if you want to call it that is the basic addition/subtraction row in the table. If you want to leave that to people to do on their own, that's fine with me.Farcaster (talk) 16:17, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't see an issue with a chart (from a RS) illustrating data. However, some of these captions are drawing conclusions. At the head of this section is a good example: Waterfall chart shows cause of change from deficit in 1994 to surplus in 2001, measured as a % GDP. Income tax revenues rose as a % GDP following higher taxes for high income earners, while defense spending and interest fell relative to GDP. That's clearly problematic....another source could be the booming economy of the time. (And so on.) These sorts of things should be trimmed.Rja13ww33 (talk) 18:21, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

It took some hunting, but I found a couple of charts in old CBO and CEA reports that show trends in revenues and outlays during the Clinton era. Since these are verbatim from the government reports, that should address any OR issue.Farcaster (talk) 03:12, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Looks like there was a flurry of edits and reverts. Can you provide the relevant links to which you are referring? Bonewah (talk) 14:36, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't get why the last rev was made. I don't see it as SYNTH or OR. It illustrates data (from a RS) we are trying to communicate to the reader. It is also properly captioned. I think Farcaster's chart should go back in.Rja13ww33 (talk) 15:12, 5 March 2020 (UTC)




 * Here's my issues with the graph and table (that I removed, and wanted in the article) separately:


 * Graph (Individual Income tax revenue): How is this RELEVANT to the Clinton section, or the article in general? The addition Rja13ww33 just made (about economist Alan Reynolds) refers to tax RATES, not total federal government revenue from only the INDIVIDUAL (not including CORPORATE) income taxes...what part of SSE is this supporting/disproving? We need a SOURCE which talks about this.


 * Chart: how does the change of National Defense or Social Security outlays say anything about SSE? What does it say?  and who is connecting it to SSE? We need a source otherwise this is just random data.


 * For this graph and table, I don't see it as biased or implying a conculsion, but I don't see any connection here to the article's subject. I don't see what the reader is supposed to get from this.  And for whatever they should understand, we need sources for that claim. --- Avatar317 (talk) 23:29, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * A chart summarizing the Clinton era has nothing to do with the effectiveness of supply side economics? With the chart, the reader can clearly see that individual income taxes going up to record levels as % GDP were consistent with a record economy, supporting the idea of the Clinton era as a counter-example to supply side economics, as explained in the article. The text in the article covers the tax rate increases on the rich. The economy also boomed despite the fiscal austerity of that era, shown in the second panel.Farcaster (talk) 23:55, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * To me, it illustrates the data given in the article about the increase in tax revenues (in the Clinton era) after a tax increase. This is a key point of debate with this topic: at what rates can revenue be maximized with strong growth? There may be a better way to express it (extraneous data is in there)…...but I would think this would help the reader.Rja13ww33 (talk) 23:59, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Farcaster: Ok, I see what you are trying to say: but WE NEED THOSE SOURCES verifying your claims attached to that graph (individual income tax).  Anything implied or stated on the graph(s) needs clear sources for those claims/implications.


 * Additionally: so this "proves" that demand-side economics doesn't work?...at least at that time in history... You can use the same data (strong economy) to show that both theories (SSE & DSE) are wrong, or right, or work at different times...the reality is that the economy is complicated. THIS IS WHY WE NEED SOURCES!!!


 * For what Rja13ww33 is saying: I think this would be much more helpful/understandable to the reader if we graphed something like EFFECTIVE OVERALL income tax rate on the same graph or next to the individual income tax graph we have, so we'd be able to see how total government revenue (as a % of GDP) varies based on tax rate, over the same years...this would only speak to the Laffer curve, not broader SSE theory. And of course we need sources discussing this.


 * As an aside to Farcaster: in my opinion, what is making your edits problematic/Original Research is that it seems that your goal is to show readers something you believe: "supporting the idea of the Clinton era as a counter-example to supply side economics," rather than reading sources and paraphrasing what the sources say, which is the way we are supposed to go about building an encyclopedia. --- Avatar317 (talk) 01:52, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I've already included a citation in the article stating that Clintonomics was a refutation of supply side theory. If I simply put that citation with the graphic, are we done here and the graphic is now included? We've already gotten past the OR nonsense from before.  The graphic is a lot weaker than the initial waterfall/cause of change chart, but I've compromised there. In terms of Supply side economics as practiced by Republicans (e.g., income tax cuts) that is primarily a crank theory, which doesn't really jump out in the article, as there is a lot of "he said, she said" instead of the IGM panel economists nearly unanimously saying tax cuts don't pay for themselves.  Further, much of the benefit is on the demand side (e.g., putting more money into the hands of the population) not the so-called investment effects and people suddenly deciding to work because income taxes are lower.  Laffer as legend has it drew his concept on a napkin; it is not an empirical finding, yet it's prominently displayed as if it's gospel. The real supply side theory elements I actually added the other day, explaining what measures can be used to expand the aggregate supply curve.  This whole thing needs to be rewritten with a basic theme:  Real supply side economics is different from the crank Republican theory.Farcaster (talk) 05:47, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * If you are talking about the chart "Trends in income tax revenue and outlays (spending) as % GDP during the Clinton Administration" above, then no that should not be included. Again, this is your work, not the work of a reliable source. You can not take raw numbers and attempt to draw or imply a conclusion.  Full stop. This is what WP:OR means and its unambiguous. The sources you are citing for the graph(s) dont talk about SSE and the citations elsewhere that do talk about SSE dont present that chart. This isnt an edge case, you are doing exactly what the "This page in a nutshell" section of the wp:OR page says not to do. "Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not clearly stated by the sources themselves." Bonewah (talk) 16:26, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The chart above included in this section on the talk page? The one drawn directly from the CEA and CBO verbatim? It's clearly from reliable sources and presents no OR issue.Farcaster (talk) 16:51, 6 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes the chart above included in this section on the talk page. The one whose sources dont talk about SSE at all.  The one that several users have objected to. I have to ask, have you even read WP:NOR?  If so, what do you think it means?  Because if taking data from a source that doesnt even talk about SSE, performing your own calculations on it not present in the source, then claiming it explains some element of SSE, if that isnt original research, then nothing is. Bonewah (talk) 18:19, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The one with the two panels right in the middle of this talk discussion is what I'm talking about, the one you just reverted. NOT THE WATERFALL, which I think is fine but I'm compromising with the two panel chart. There is no OR issue there; we're past that.  Now we're talking synthesis, so I added the sources that link supply side to the Clinton economic and budgetary performance.  Enough of the Wikilawyering people!  It's CEA and CBO charts in a section talking about Clinton's economic performance.  Not sure why this is controversial.Farcaster (talk) 19:22, 6 March 2020 (UTC) Clinton - Trends in Revenues and Outlays v1.png
 * The chart that is in there now looks a lot like WP:SYNTH to me, but im going to leave it alone for the moment as i think there are some more important discussions around the 'Clinton Years" section. Bonewah (talk) 18:56, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Poorly sourced "taxes went down, but revenue went up" content
Claims that the US was on the wrong side of the Laffer curve need to be sourced to peer-reviewed research, not random Heritage Foundation editorials which state the correlation in Wikipedia's voice. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:43, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I would agree (i.e. that a additional source is needed for the claim revenue rose in the period in question)....but the section does not make a specific claim on the (so-called) Laffer curve. Furthermore, blanking the whole section was not a good approach as the 1920's/60's were a justification by Supply-Siders in the 80's for the tax cuts which followed. That's important info for the reader. I will see what I can round up as far as a source goes.....but the fact taxes were cut in the period(s) in question is without question.Rja13ww33 (talk) 21:53, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I found a source and it appears the revenue number quoted in the Heritage Foundation source (if you click on it) is correct. See: https://www2.census.gov/library/publications/1975/compendia/hist_stats_colonial-1970/hist_stats_colonial-1970p2-chY.pdf?#
 * (see p.44 of the pdf itself or p.1110 of the original publication. "Series Y402-411").Rja13ww33 (talk) 23:06, 21 May 2020 (UTC)


 * The problem is the implied conclusion that revenue went up because tax rates went down. We can't state that in Wiki voice. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:09, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * We could qualify that by saying something like: according to the Heritage Foundation.... I.e. make it clear that it is their pov that [this because of that]. OR we could say that supply-siders have used this period to justify [whatever]. But we would have to make clear that revenues did rise in this time period. (Regardless of the reason.) In other sections we are clear what happened after tax increases/decreases.Rja13ww33 (talk) 23:16, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

"United States monetary and fiscal experience" should be in the "effects on revenue" section
Before I started editing the article, the section "United States monetary and fiscal experience" was constructed as an argument by supply-siders for why their fringe theory is correct. However, this section should be a sub-section within the "Effects on revenue" section, as that's what all the content is about (whether tax reforms increased revenue or not). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:50, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

United States monetary and fiscal experience
At the head of the "United States monetary and fiscal experience", this statement has been added:

A 1999 study by University of Chicago economist Austan Goolsbee, which examined major changes in high income tax rates in the United States from the 1920s onwards found no evidence that the United States was on the wrong side of the Laffer curve and that tax revenue increased as a result of the tax cuts.

This appears to be OR. I don't see that specific statement/conclusion drawn. (Although I admit I could have missed it as it is a lengthy article.) It would be better if a direct quote was made or if it was removed. (I have left it in for now.)Rja13ww33 (talk) 01:03, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
 * You can skip to the conclusions section, it's got most of it.  Volunteer Marek   01:28, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I need a specific page number. I didn't see it. At least not stated that way. This is drawing a conclusion and is OR.Rja13ww33 (talk) 01:32, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
 * 43-44. Of course it's a paraphrase (to avoid copyright violation) but it's accurate. Same is true for the Thorndike part you're objecting to.  Volunteer Marek   01:34, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think a short quote from a journal is a copyright issue. In any case, the closest they get to that is: "The notion that governments could raise money by cutting rates is, indeed, a glorious idea. It would permit a Pareto improvement of the most enjoyable kind. Unfortunately for all of us, the data from the historical record suggests that it is unlikely to be true at anything like today's marginal tax rates. it seems that, for now at least, we will just have to keep paying for our tax cuts the old-fashioned way." That's a long way from the statement that was added: "examined major changes in high income tax rates in the United States from the 1920s onwards found no evidence that the United States was on the wrong side of the Laffer curve and that tax revenue increased as a result of the tax cuts"Rja13ww33 (talk) 01:50, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Fix looks good snoog.Rja13ww33 (talk) 02:10, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

" ....yet tax revenues declined due to Reagan's tax cuts...."
This has been added. It's true that taxes dropped off initially.....but revenues eventually rose back some years later.

And this seems to be making it all about the tax cuts....when the fact of the matter is: a very deep recession hit at the same time. Saying it was "due to RR's tax cuts"....kind of distorts the issue. (One of the references mentions that recession.)

I think it needs to stated differently.Rja13ww33 (talk) 02:20, 14 June 2020 (UTC)


 * The sources comprise analyses that attribute a decline in revenue to the tax cuts. The Reagan administration's own analysis concluded that the tax cuts caused a decline in revenues. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:22, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
 * No doubt about it....but a reader would think the revenue in 1989 was lower than it was in 1981 looking at that. The quote says that: "...yet tax revenues declined due to Reagan's tax cuts and the deficit ballooned during Reagan's term in office." When I read that (without knowing what I know) I'd think overall revenues were lower.Rja13ww33 (talk) 02:27, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
 * How would you word it? It seems pretty clear to me. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:29, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Probably something like: "the net effect of the 1981 tax cut was a reduction in receipts versus the projected revenue without the tax cut". Something along those lines. (or maybe a direct quote from the article.) It's improper to say revenue fell without clarifying when/how.Rja13ww33 (talk) 02:40, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
 * or maybe something like: "The result of [whatever tax cut] was a reduction in revenues relative to a baseline without the cuts [according to whomever/or RS note]"Rja13ww33 (talk) 03:30, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
 * That's the right way to say it: A tax cut reduces revenue relative to a baseline without the cuts.  That's a standard CBO conclusion. In the case of the Reagan cuts, there is a Treasury study that covers that.  I don't know if there is a January 1981 or 1982 CBO baseline like the modern ones.05:03, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
 * CBO director Rivlin testified the Reagan tax cuts would reduce revenues in March 1981. See table 3 in this document.  I'll create an image file of it. CBO RivlinFarcaster (talk) 05:19, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Rivlin also references this study, which shows in Table 4 on page 16 a significant drop in revenue due to the tax cuts for 1981-1986; this is a good comparison vs. baseline. I may use this for the image instead. CBO Study - Analysis of President Reagan's Budget Revisions for Fiscal Year 1982.Farcaster (talk) 05:24, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

The Thorndike
A editor tried to add this:

However, tax historian Joseph Thorndike argues that it is wrong to assume that overall tax revenue increased due to the tax cuts rather than from the broader economic growth that was taking place at the time.

From the cited article:

Joe Thorndike, a tax historian and director of the Tax History Project at Tax Analysts, said that “tax cuts did seem to increase the amount of taxes collected from wealthy taxpayers, as well as their share of overall revenue. But that’s partly because those same wealthy taxpayers were reaping a large share of the benefits from all that economic growth.” He said it’s wrong to assume, even with the growth, that the tax cuts paid for themselves: “Did the 1920s tax cuts bolster economic growth? Probably. Did that growth help defray the cost of the tax cuts? Probably. Did that growth cover the full cost of those tax cuts? No.”

As Thorndike put it: “Historically, tax cuts have tended to generate some economic growth that in turn helps cover part of the cost of the cut itself. But to my knowledge, no major tax cut has ever generated enough growth to pay for itself completely.”

It's the part about "...the broader economic growth that was taking place at the time" that is at issue. It is implying that the growth was happening independent of the tax cuts. That's not provable and it's not what Thorndike says. (He actually says the tax cuts "bolter[ed]" growth.

It needs to be paraphrased different.....or we need a direct quote.Rja13ww33 (talk) 01:38, 14 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Basic reading comprehension shows that Thorndike is referring to the broader economic growth going on. That's what the "But that’s partly because those same wealthy taxpayers were reaping a large share of the benefits from all that economic growth." and that's also why he explicitly says that the tax cut did not pay for themselves. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:47, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
 * That's a conclusion you are drawing. You can't walk away from that section saying that. He clearly says that tax cuts do not pay for themselves.....but he also says the tax cuts bolstered that growth. I think to quote him directly would be better.Rja13ww33 (talk) 01:55, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
 * There is no dispute among economists that tax cuts bolster economic growth (they were not the sole cause of that economic growth if that's what you're thinking). The section where that particular content is in features arguments that the tax cuts increased tax revenue (which is wrong per Thorndike), so it's unclear to me why you want to emphasize that the tax cuts increased economic growth (except to muddy the waters for less informed readers). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:59, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
 * No I am no assuming they were "the sole cause of that economic growth" at all. How it is paraphrased is at issue. The "broader economic growth" part is making a judgement call as to the "sole cause" (or not sole cause). If we have to paraphrase....wouldn't something like "Thorndike [says] the tax cuts helped "bolster" growth but did not "cover the full cost of those tax cuts". be better??Rja13ww33 (talk) 02:07, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
 * There is no value in talking about economic growth because there is no dispute that tax cuts increase economic growth. The section that this content is in is about tax revenue, so it's unclear to me why we should confuse readers by inserting the blatantly obvious (that tax cuts increase economic growth) rather than focus on the issue that the section is actually about. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:25, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Again: the problem is the "broader economic growth" part. It's running with the "broader" part being due to something outside of the tax cuts. We cannot know (nor will we ever know) how much (if any at all) the growth of the 1920's was due to any tax cuts. But that statement as is doesn't reflect his comments.Rja13ww33 (talk) 02:31, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The line that is in there now "Tax historian Joseph Thorndike argues that the tax cuts helped "bolster" growth but did not "cover the full cost of those tax cuts" seems fine to me. Bonewah (talk) 13:16, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

The Clinton Years
A recent text add in states this: Author Robert Freeman argued in 2006 that the Bill Clinton years (1993-2000) represented a counter-example to supply side economics: "Bill Clinton reversed Reagan's Supply Side policies, raising taxes on the wealthy and lowering them on the working and middle class...What happened? The economy produced the longest sustained expansion in U.S. history. It created more than 22 million new jobs, the highest level of job creation ever recorded. Unemployment fell to its lowest level in over 30 years."

Removed in the shuffle was a edit I added (sometime back) to point out the fact (in the interest of NPOV) that marginal rates were still at historically low levels. I think something along these lines should be added back in. The whole section avoids this and that statement creates a misleading impression to the reader....and this is one of the tenets of supply side.

Any objections to me doing so?Rja13ww33 (talk) 14:30, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Go ahead, please cite a source, preferably one with a chart of the rates over time.Farcaster (talk) 16:13, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I have a quote in mind. I'll hunt it down. Speaking of that, there appears to be some more OR issues with this article. There appears to be a chart from politicsthatwork.com on this and the caption says: Historical data from 1925 to 1995 shows a slight positive correlation between higher top marginal tax rates and GDP growth rate (red line). Not only is that a questionable interpretation......but it is unquestionably a conclusion drawn from a source that is non-RS. It probably should be removed.Rja13ww33 (talk) 17:56, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I restored the Alan Reynolds quote. I was incorrect in my edit saying it had been posted here (it hadn't). But Farcaster had no issue with it when added so I thought it was ok. Now another editor has removed it based on the fact Reynolds has no PhD and is (ergo) not an expert. I disagree, you don't have to have a PhD to be an "expert"....and furthermore, he is a notable enough economist to have a bio here. And the whole purpose here is to express a counter argument many supply-siders make on the Clinton years. We should present that.Rja13ww33 (talk) 17:30, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Re-arrangement
The article has been re-arranged and it doesn't make much sense to me. We now have some sections in the article twice. Reaganomics& the Clinton years for example are now included in the "Historical Origins" section AND the "Effect on Revenues" section. Seems to me like the old set up was better. (I.e. having it under the "United States monetary and fiscal experience" section. How does the Kansas experiment qualify as a origin anyway?) Any material broken up could be combined there.Rja13ww33 (talk) 17:49, 16 June 2020 (UTC)


 * I started a discussion about this here but no one commented. We should not have multiple sections containing content about whether tax cuts increased tax revenue. All the content that specifically assesses the impact of tax changes on tax revenue should be in the "effects on tax revenue" section so that readers can easily understand what the effects of tax changes are on revenue. I agree that "early origins" is the wrong title for those sub-sections. I changed it to "History". The Bush tax cuts should also be in the history section but there was no content about the tax cuts that was unrelated to the effects on tax revenue. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:33, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I like the current format in that it has sections on "History", and "Effect on tax revenues". I haven't read through it but I would hope that content is (if possible) not duplicated.  Also, I think we should have a section "Effect on GDP" (another fundamental tenet of SSE) - BEFORE the "Effect on tax revenues" section...likely we already have statements for this section which can be removed from other sections and put into a new section with that name. --- Avatar317 (talk) 00:09, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Some of the content in the history section is about the impact on tax cuts on economic growth. Might be good to create a separate section where the precise impact of tax changes on economic growth is clarified (sourced to studies, assessments by experts and high-quality rs). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:16, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with the above. I changed the title, maybe that's a small start until we create another section.  The Kansas experiment seems more like an experiment to increase GDP than caring at all about tax revenue, maybe that would be good for the new section...I haven't read through this article thoroughly enough yet though. --- Avatar317 (talk) 00:44, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
 * No problem with the idea....but one of the problems one can run into this idea is: how do you prove what could have happened without the cuts? (We've run into this with revenue projections. Although we've included forecasts for both.) You can certainly compare (for example) the top marginal rates to average growth (for example).....but you are are cross comparing different eras with different economic dynamics. Jonathan Chait (for example) in a book referenced in this article (critical of supply-side) said that no virtually no contemporary economist would want the [American] post-WW II marginal rates back in the code. In the referenced era, the debate was different. (I.e. different ideas on growth, the Phillips Curve, international competition, etc.) Not that it cannot be effectively done....but it does raise some issues.Rja13ww33 (talk) 00:49, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I understand your point, but WE shouldn't be doing the Original Research here to show whether or how effective those tax cuts were in increasing GDP: we should be finding Reliable Sources (reputable academic studies) that have done this research, and if we can't find that, than we shouldn't be attempting to generate that data/conclusion ourselves to present to the reader at all. --- Avatar317 (talk) 20:42, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree completely. One of the issues i see with this article overall is that it starts out using what i would say are pretty good historical sources, then devolves into a hodge-podge of newspaper articles, blogs, partisan think tank pieces and so on. The result is a bit desultory and ORish. So, yes, lets remove the portions where we are trying to draw conclusions and replace then with real scholarship. Bonewah (talk) 15:11, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

tax cuts, Laffer curve and revenue
Another problem with this article that needs to be addressed is the amount of discussion of the Laffer Curve and revenue generation. While it is true that the Laffer Curve provides some of the theoretical basis for supply side, and some supply siders claimed that tax reductions would raise overall revenue generation, it isnt a central tenet of supply side. So, in my opinion, we shouldnt dwell too much on whether some particular tax cut raised or lowered revenue unless there is good reason to. Bonewah (talk) 15:23, 18 June 2020 (UTC)


 * What? No. A key tenet of supply-side economics is that tax cuts will not adversely affect tax revenue to the extent that other economists say, with the discourse among supply-siders during the Reagan, Bush and Trump tax cuts literally saying that the tax cuts would pay for themselves. We cannot keep content about how tax cuts can increase net tax revenue by bolstering economic growth while scrubbing peer-reviewed studies and an academic consensus (2012 survey of leading economists) that there is no support for the proposition that tax cuts would increase net tax revenue. That is clearly a NPOV violation. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:40, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Its a tenet, not the central one. Our introduction makes this clear, stating that the core concept is that "economic growth can be most effectively created by lowering taxes".  Again, yes, some Supply side advocates claimed that lowering taxes would result in a net gain in revenue, and where they do, we should note both that and the actual effect.  What we should not do is argue those claims everywhere irrespective of the context.  The 2012 survey is a good example.  Setting aside the fact that it is neither a peer reviewed study nor a consensus, the only thing it is doing is doing is speculating about a theoretical tax change in 2012, not an actual example of Supply side policy. And its worth noting that the line and reference is still in this article, i simply moved it from the lede to the Laffer curve section. This is not an article about the Laffer curve, although the Laffer curve is relevant to the subject.  As such, we need to limit discussion of the Laffer curve and its effects to only those places where doing so helps us understand Supply Side. Bonewah (talk) 16:24, 18 June 2020 (UTC)


 * You literally deleted two peer-reviewed studies (a PUP book and JEL article) about whether net tax revenue could be increased via tax cuts in the US (a claim that supply-siders make). It's perfectly on point. It looks like straight-up whitewashing to me: the removal of any critique (even peer-reviewed critiques). Your arguments that Laffer-style rhetoric is a minor part of supply-side economics is not born out by RS nor by proponents of supply-side economics. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:53, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Agreed. The "raise revenue" aspect has typically been a response (by some) to the charge of deficits going up (as a result of tax cuts). (it's seem to be more political than economic.) One of the central questions of supply-side is the economic stimulus of that vs. no cuts (or maybe increases) and government spending (including deficit spending).Rja13ww33 (talk) 16:59, 18 June 2020 (UTC)


 * It's absolutely comical to read this discussion. The impact of tax cuts on tax revenue (via economic growth) has been a key tenet of supply-sider discourse for decades, has been prominently featured in this article since forever, and has been prominently featured in every discussion about major tax changes during the presidencies of Reagan, Clinton, Bush and Trump, yet as soon as peer-reviewed studies and a survey of leading economists is added to the article, suddenly this key aspect of supply-side economics is now a minor part and all criticisms of it has to be scrubbed from the article. It's astonishingly brazen and a transparent attempt to censor these criticisms. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:14, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I deleted reference to those studies because they were apropos of nothing in particular. Again, this is not an article on the Laffer Curve and so stand alone claims about the Laffer Curve or revenue maximizing rate are inappropriate. Where the Laffer Curve has been featured in Supply Side discussion, such as during the presidencies of Reagan, Clinton, Bush and Trump, then it would be appropriate to go in to the details of revenue generation, but as a stand alone statement about just the Laffer Curve and just the revenue generation question, its inappropriate here.  Bonewah (talk) 17:32, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The studies you removed explicitly refer to supply-side economics. Peer-reviewed studies in top outlets (PUP, JEL) that explicitly refer to supply-side economics and which explicitly assess the claims of supply-side economics are inappropriate on the Wikipedia page for "supply-side economics"? Really? This is very very clearly a case of you just not liking the conclusions of those studies. The content should be restored ASAP. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:38, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * First of all, I wish you would knock off this strident tone of yours. It gets quite tiresome at times. And secondly, this "key tenet" of supply-side has been more political than economic. (Even in the case of Laffer who has spent more time in the political arena than economic.) One of the papers you referenced [from the JEL] said nothing (as near as I can tell; it is a very long paper) about the historical claims of supply-side economists on revenues. (Other than: "Following the supply-side debates of the early 1980s, much attention has been focused on the revenue-maximizing tax rate.") Supply-side was kick started due to the stagflation of the 70's and the collapse of a lot of economic thought of the time.....not because the proponents were looking for a way to maximize government revenue. And by the way, I don't have a opinion on Bonewah's edits.....I just wanted to respond to his (excellent) point on this. (These sorts of things get lost in the shuffle on here.)Rja13ww33 (talk) 18:14, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The study explicitly refers to supply-side economics and explicitly assesses its claims regarding revenue-maximizing tax rates, and finds that "the U.S. marginal top rate is far from the top of the Laffer curve." I could care less about your own personal unsubstantiated opinions about what supply-side economics is and isn't. Here is a peer-reviewed study published a top journal that explicitly addresses and assesses a key tenet of supply-side economics. It is indefensible to exclude it from the article. If you want to rebut that study, then good luck, there's nothing preventing you from submitting your own study to a top journal where you argue that the authors have misunderstood what supply-side economics is. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:29, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * It certainly refers to supply-side.....but I don't see where it explicitly says supply-side economists claimed [this or that] on revenues. Rather than (verbally) stomping your feet....how about pointing it out.Rja13ww33 (talk) 18:36, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to waste my time copying sections from the paper and pasting them into this talk page and explaining what they mean just because you're pretending to lack rudimentary reading comprehension. The study explicitly refers to supply-side economics in the context of revenue-maximizing tax rates and concludes that the US is not on the wrong side of the Laffer curve (in that context): it's not rocket science. You want to pretend that none of that has anything to do with supply-side economics? Why does this have to be so difficult? Do you think this is fun? Do you enjoy wasting time? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:49, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * It's never a waste of time talking to you snoog. :) The article says nothing about "key/central tenet" of supply-side being about revenue maximization. This is another case of you concluding something from a source it does explicitly say. (Redundant with other sections on this page.)Rja13ww33 (talk) 19:00, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

What makes this doubly-frustrating is that my addition of on-point peer-reviewed research by recognized experts in top outlets is being deleted from the page whereas the same editors who call for the scrubbing of such content are fighting to keep non-peer-reviewed POV claims by non-experts in the article. That's the context in which this scrubbing is taking place in. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:48, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Again, if the revenue maximizing rate were at issue, then the study would be fine. The fact that "the U.S. marginal top rate is far from the top of the Laffer curve." *now* isnt terribly relevant to supply side in general.  Laffer Curve?  Sure. But the mere fact that the study mentions Supply Side in passing ("Following the supply-side debates of the early 1980s, much attention has been focused on the revenue-maximizing tax rate.") doesnt make it relevant here.  Look at the state of the article before i made the edits, we cover a brief overview of the Laffer Curve (good) and how Supply Siders used the Laffer curve as a theoretical underpinning (good) and then jump to talking abou the revenue maximizing rate in the US and how we are likely below that rate.  Thats bad because we went from high level theory and history to one specific, tangental claim about revenue maximizing in one example (the US, now).  It would be inappropriate even if the study had found something favorable to the Laffer Curve.  We wouldnt want to jump from theory and history to some claim about lowering taxes increasing revenue either. Bonewah (talk) 19:26, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Its worth adding here that the first four sources we cite about "what is supply side is?" dont even mention revenue generation at all. Consistent with what we say in the article, they say the key concept is lower taxes = GDP growth. Bonewah (talk) 19:49, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I've no idea "what is supply side is?" refers to. You've edited this page since 2015 and not exactly been hesitant to remove content you disagree during that time. However, during that time, the lead to the article has prominently described the Laffer curve, and described it as one of the main theoretical constructs of supply-side economics – and yet you've never sought to remove it from the lead or modify it. Yet, as soon as peer-reviewed research was added to the article that rebutted the claims made by Laffer about tax rates, you now insist that the Laffer curve is not an important aspect of supply-side economics at all, and proceed to remove the research. I find the timing bizarre. More importantly, there is absolutely nothing to the argument that the Laffer curve is not a key aspect of supply-side economics. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:17, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

I've started a discussion at the NPOV noticeboard. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:12, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Bonewah that this article is overweighted/Undue with tax revenue/Laffer curve discussions, since this is NOT the Laffer curve article. I suggest that we reduce/summarize the text but not remove references to change this. (I haven't yet looked at Bonewah's edit so I don't have an opinion on that yet.)

It is my opinion that some of this economic theory is being used/co-opted politically by people who use it simply to push policies that they want, rather than following the science of the economics. Because of this, often the major thing the public hears about when they hear "supply-side" are the tax-cuts and tax revenue, but that doesn't mean that it is the entirety of the theory. Just like the average person may not understand from the news that Communism started as an Economic theory, and that today's China is capitalist(mostly), but Communist in political/governing form. The news coverage (and quantity of coverage in certain areas) are not good sources for understanding the breadth and depth of academic research in some area. --- Avatar317 (talk) 20:16, 18 June 2020 (UTC)


 * If the goal is to build an article that reflects "the breadth and depth of academic research", then the starting point cannot be to remove the few peer-reviewed studies that have been added to the article. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:22, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * To answer your previous question the "what is supply side is?" i was refering to is the lede and supporting portions. I.E. what this article is trying to answer.  At the beginning of the article we cite "Principles of Economics in Context.", "Macroeconomics, 3E" , The Way the World Works: How Economies Fail—and Succeed and Laffer Curve to provide citations to our basic overview.  None if them (based on my limited reading) even mention the revenue effects of tax cuts one way or the other.  Again, some adherents of Supply side have made revenue claims, but it is not a central tenent of Supply side. Bonewah (talk) 20:44, 18 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Here is what the peer-reviewed book that you scrubbed from the page said: "The strongest version of trickle-down economics is the “supply-side" school of economics, which came to prominence in the late 1970s, with the claim, summed up in the so-called Laffer curve, that a reduction in tax rates would produce an increase in revenue. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:16, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Here are other academic publications describing the tax revenue claims as an important tenet of SSE: But you knew this. Have you ever on any occasion expressed disagreement with the second paragraph of the lead which has for five years or more (the time you've edited this page) characterized the Laffer curve as a crucial element of SSE? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:16, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I have as a matter of fact. As i have said, we are free to talk about the Laffer Curve, we are free to talk about revenue maximization and the effects of taxes on same. My complaint here is that we glued a discussion about tax revenue (now, in the US) into a section that talks about the history and theory of Supply Side. As far as im concerned the edits you made here are fine. Unless anyone else has concerns, perhaps you could close out your NPOV noticeboard request and we can move on. Bonewah (talk) 21:43, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I will not close the NPOV noticeboard thread until the studies I added to the article will be restored. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:48, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Again: I didn't oppose/approve it's removal. And secondly: this is a peer reviewed book? (His statement isn't even sourced.) This is more like a book intended for the general public. Your next source does call it a "central" tenet later on, but the introductory paragraph doesn't mention (government) revenues at all. The next source calls it "the most controversial and widely discussed proposition of this particular school of macroeconomic thought". (Not exactly "key" or "central".)Rja13ww33 (talk) 21:51, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * "Your next source does call it a "central" tenet later on, but the introductory paragraph doesn't mention (government) revenues at all." The source uses the explicit language that you've been calling for but as soon as it is met, the goalposts shift to some other arbitrary BS? Am I surprised? No. But this kind of tendentious editing is incredibly time-sapping and annoying. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:07, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * No goal posts are shifting. Any editing is subjective. And have I touched any of your edits on this point? Nope.Rja13ww33 (talk) 22:09, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , without going into the specifics of it, I am astounded to read from searches that think tanks like Cato still think supply-side is an empirically valid theory, despite the Brownback experiment. Guy (help!) 22:17, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * That's a subject I've been meaning to discuss as well.....will let the dust settle on this one first. Something to look forward to. :)Rja13ww33 (talk) 22:23, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) this is not a scholarly, peer reviewed work. 2) this source exemplifies what im talking about. Yes it mentions tax reductions as a mechanism for increasing revenue, however, it does so only once, and only in the context of greater economic growth, which is states at the outset is the principle objective of Supply side. Again, no one is saying that the Laffer Curve is unrelated, or that discussion of same is unwarranted. What i am saying is this is not an article about the Laffer Curve.  The constant need to point out that some study somewhere says that some tax in some country is on this or that side of the Laffer curve is unhelpful because its a distraction from what the article is really about, the theory and history of Supply Side. Bonewah (talk) 22:31, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * (i) Princeton UP books are peer-reviewed. Aside from that, the author is a recognized expert. (ii) The source literally says the Laffer curve is a "central tenet" of supply-side economics. Your [newfound] personal opinion that it isn't important in SSE is irrelevant. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:48, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * PUP says on their web site that "We publish peer-reviewed books....". It doesn't say ALL they publish is peer reviewed. Is there a peer review available for it? In most journals I am familiar with (for example) the response/comments are published.Rja13ww33 (talk) 00:01, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I have sent a e-mail into PUP asking.Rja13ww33 (talk) 00:09, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * All PUP books are peer-reviewed. And it's one of the top academic presses to boot. And no, I'm not aware of any peer-reviewed journals or presses in the social sciences (or science broadly) that publish referee reports. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:12, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Reading this text.....it doesn't appear particularly "academic". But in any case, I have a e-mail into them and we will find out soon enough. I will be especially interested what this "review" actually consisted of.Rja13ww33 (talk) 00:17, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * @Guy, without knowing what you are refering to specifically, i will say that most current supply siders have backed away from claims that tax reductions will increase revenue. Even Laffer himself is careful to point out that decreasing taxes wont always increase revenue. Bonewah (talk) 22:35, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * How about we go with sources disagree and leave it at that? None of this turns on the reliability of the sources.  As i have tried to make clear, the core problem here is that you jammed this study about revenue generation into a section that was talking about theory and history broadly. As far as im concerned, we should remove the other lines about The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics and the 2012 survey for the same reason.   Not all studies of taxation rates are going to be relevant because, again, this is not about the Laffer curve, its about Supply side. Bonewah (talk) 00:19, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Sources do not disagree that the Laffer curve is a key concept in supply-side economics (regardless of your own newfound personal beliefs that the Laffer curve is no longer relevant to SSE). And studies that assess the claims of SSE are not randomly "jammed" in somewhere. The peer-reviewed research assessing the Laffer curve is introduced exactly after the theoretical claims of the Laffer curve are introduced in the main body. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:32, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The citations you provided do not 'asses' the Laffer curve, they are only speaking to one particular tax, in one particular place at one particular time. Cherry picking studies that you like and jamming them in where ever is exactly the problem. Bonewah (talk) 00:54, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh screw off with the cherry-picking. Unlike you, have I removed a single peer-reviewed study from this article? I'm actually principled enough to have located and added peer-reviewed research that supports SSE to the article. You did not remove that study even though it assesses one aspect of taxation for one particular tax in one particular place. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:05, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I strongly implore you to add more peer-reviewed research to the article now that your new argument for censoring these studies is that they were cherrypicked. In other words, back up your claim. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:07, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Well i strongly implore you to dial back the hostility. Take it from someone who knows, taking this all personally is unhealthy and makes for a bad encyclopedia.  As to the substance of your reply, i have not assessed that particular section as i have been busy discussing this one. And adding different cherry picked citations wont address my concerns here.  If i were to take the research you mentioned and add it to the section we are discussing it would still be out of place. Im not saying the research you have added has no place in this article, only that it is inappropriate in this context. Bonewah (talk) 01:41, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Peer-reviewed research is being kept out of the article for the sole reason that you personally disagree with the findings of the research. And as if that's not bad enough, you're baselessly and falsely accusing me of cherrypicking content. What makes the accusation of cherrypicking even more ludicrous and disingenuous is that you're perfectly aware of the fact that there is a consensus among economists that the the US is not on the wrong side of the Laffer curve. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:16, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Mankiw's Principles of Economics (the most influential econ textbook) literally titles one of its sub-sections "The Laffer Curve and Supply-Side Economics". After going through Laffer's claims (the theory and its application to the US), Mankiw literally says "the views of Laffer and Reagan became known as supply-side economics." Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:44, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Censorship of peer-reviewed research that is critical of SSE
Here are the peer-reviewed studies authored by recognized experts which were removed from the article in this edit by "Bonewah":


 * John Quiggin's Zombie Economics (Princeton University Press) which says that it's "incorrect" that the US is on the wrong side of the Laffer curve
 * Saez et al. in the Journal of Economic Literature which finds that "the U.S. marginal top [tax] rate is far from the top of the Laffer curve."

Both of these studies explicitly refer to supply-side economics and are addressing whether tax cuts can increase net revenue (a claim made many SSE advocates), but have been deleted. The removal of this content, which by any standards meets WP:RS and WP:DUE, is a clear-cut NPOV violation. Wikipedia needs more peer-reviewed high-quality content, not less. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:24, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I feel like we are talking past one another. Can you please respond to this concern which i have expressed several times? " As i have tried to make clear, the core problem here is that you jammed this study about revenue generation into a section that was talking about theory and history broadly." Bonewah (talk) 13:46, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Why should a rebuttal of the claims made by Laffer with the Laffer curve not be inserted immediately after the Laffer curve has been introduced? This is how your arguments have shifted over time: (i) the Laffer curve is not an important part of SSE (completely false), (ii) the studies are cherry-picked (completely false), and (iii) the placement of the studies is wrong. If the placement of the studies is wrong, why did you not just move them down to the "effects on tax revenue" section, and save us all this time? Also, the studies should obviously be introduced immediately after the Laffer curve is introduced, given that they are specifically about the Laffer curve. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:54, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Fine by me. . Can we be done with this edit and move on now? Bonewah (talk) 15:15, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

A few suggestions in rewriting the lead and article in general
If you get these concepts, re-organizing the article should be easier.

The science
1. The science of supply side economics is about policies that impact aggregate supply, as opposed to the aggregate demand. I think the lead should focus on this, rather than jumping right to tax cuts and deregulation. The benefit of supply side policies is that you can expand output while lowering prices, as opposed to demand-side economics which even if successful in stimulating growth would increase prices in theory. A key focus of supply side economics is on productivity, output per person or per unit of capital. Investments in human capital (education, healthcare), transfer of technologies and business practices, R&D, tax reduction to provide incentives to work and take risks, lowering tariffs, etc. Some of these are both demand-side and supply side (e.g., tax cuts increase disposable income, while also impacting incentives). See the "Fiscal policy theory" section I added to the article a few months ago with the textbook citation on this.Farcaster (talk) 05:38, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

2. The first sentence of the lead says "supply side economics...theory arguing that economic growth can be most effectively created by lowering taxes and decreasing regulation." The science is clear that both these claims are demonstrably false, so focusing on that without explaining the theory first is very misleading.
 * Lowering income taxes is a much less efficient way to stimulate demand than spending; see any study you like on fiscal multipliers, which are higher for spending, especially spending where the money is transferred to those most likely to spend it. For example, you get much more output per dollar of unemployment benefits than per dollar of income tax cuts (as some of the latter are saved, among other reasons). You can also improve output per deficit dollar with tax reform. For example, you could cut payroll taxes (relatively more output per dollar of deficit) while raising income taxes (relatively less output per dollar of deficit) and have a revenue-neutral boost to output in theory.  This is a key insight in questioning the motives behind why political "supply-siders" constantly argue for income tax cuts, which disproportionally benefit the rich, as opposed to payroll tax cuts, which are a much stronger stimulus.Farcaster (talk) 05:38, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Good luck finding credible studies indicating "decreasing regulation" (as a blanket statement) is actually helpful to growth. The science tells us regulation to address market failures and externalities is what you want, to move a distorted market back to perfect competition, the output-maximizing equilibrium point. So breaking up trusts/monopolies/oligopolies and applying a price to carbon or other pollution is how you fix markets and drive them back towards efficiency. "Cutting red tape" is a nice political statement, but its impact is relatively minor in an economy like the U.S., already one of the most competitive in the world.Farcaster (talk) 05:38, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

The politics
Krugman crushed it in his book "Conscience of a Liberal" (page 119 of paperback edition): "This [crude formation of ideas to achieve political success] was especially true in economics, where The Public Interest, along with the editorial page of the WSJ, became the principal advocate of supply-side economics. Supply-side doctrine, which claimed without evidence that tax cuts would pay for themselves, never got any traction in the world of professional economic research, even among conservatives. N. Gregory Mankiw, the [conservative] Harvard Economist who was the chairman of Bush's Council of Economic Advisers between 2003-2005, famously described the supply siders as "cranks and charlatans" in the first edition of his textbook..." Then of course there's Bush on "voodoo economics" and study after study by CBO and even the Reagan administration arguing tax cuts increase deficits relative to a baseline without them, which I recently added to the article.Farcaster (talk) 05:38, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

In conclusion
The article should explain that real supply side economics is a credible theory focused on driving output through productivity, while drawing sharp contrast with the political theories that borrow its name, which are mostly political constructs unsupported by evidence. Without this, the article is hopelessly biased in favor of nonsensical views about the subject.Farcaster (talk) 05:38, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

I'd like to hear some feedback from the group before rewriting key sections along these lines.


 * I would like see your concrete proposed text (in the form of bold edits) but I realize that there are gatekeepers on this article who delete everything that their POV disagrees with. In principle, I support proposals to (i) clarify the theory, (ii) distinguish the legitimate and crank sides of supply-side economics, (iii) note that the crank side strongly shapes Republican discourse on tax policy, and (iv) firmly debunk the crank side of SSE (e.g. a consensus of economists reject that tax cuts will pay for themselves). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:42, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Good points Farcaster (and I'm glad you've joined the discussion because I think you are someone that can be reasoned with). It is hard to divorce politics from this subject (as you indicated). (After all, the first time Laffer supposedly drew his curve, he was talking to two politicians.) I think one thing missing from "The Science" aspect of your comments is a discussion of the inflation aspect of this. One of the arguments by supply-siders (not just the politicians, the economists as well; that we only briefly touch on in the article) is that stimulus with tax cuts (rather than spending) are less inflationary. (You can read this argument in (for example) Lawrence Lindsey's 'The Growth Experiment: How the New Tax Policy is Transforming the U.S. Economy'.) In other words, they wouldn't be a fan of spending stimulus even if it was more efficient (for that reason). (Sort of a hang over from the 70's if you will.) Aside from that, I think your idea divorcing politics from economics is a good one.Rja13ww33 (talk) 17:33, 19 June 2020 (UTC)


 * I agree with Farcaster (almost) completely; well stated!! You hit on what I've meant that the science has been co-opted by people who want tax cuts (a policy) and use this as an excuse/rationale/justification.


 * I definitely support 1) - maybe you should reword the lead with some of those points.


 * 2) Deregulation DOES improve growth, depending on how you define it. (Remember when Supply-side originated, the 1970's) When things are over-regulated, de-regulation improves growth, like: Airline deregulation. With the pollution and monopoly problems you named, deregulation would make things worse.  There are still some areas in the US economy which could benefit from deregulation, for example land-use policies, and there is plenty of research to support and quantify the increase in GDP that would occur from deregulation in that sector.


 * Thanks for the idea and well-thought out suggestion(s). --- Avatar317 (talk) 01:17, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Two things here. One, we should avoid attempting to draw our own conclusions about the science of supply side. For example you stated that the "...theory arguing that economic growth can be most effectively created by lowering taxes and decreasing regulation. The science is clear that both these claims are demonstrably false"  Demonstrably?  I doubt that.  If that were the case i think the textbooks that describe the theory would say so.  They dont, at lest, the ones i have looked at. Similary "Lowering income taxes is a much less efficient way to stimulate demand than spending" Again, if this were crystal clear, we would see this in the literature. It will be easy to find such and such a study or paper that says something like that, or the opposite, but unless there is broad agreement about what is settled, we should not claim that it is. This article is loaded with OR, we need to get away from proving or disproving the theory ourselves and stick with what the sources say.
 * Two, the politics. I certainly agree that we should separate the theory from the rhetoric, while still noting the latter in this article.  How that manifests in practice is a tougher question.  Obviously, we should note where politicians say X and the results are viewed as Y or Z. What we should avoid is trying to make broad proclamations about the truth or falsity of policy (sans strong agreement from the bulk of reliable sources). Bonewah (talk) 02:02, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Here's a CBO study on economic multipliers. Refer to table 1. You can see that spending typically has a higher multiplier than tax cuts. This is consistent with many other papers on the subject. This makes sense, as 100% of spending is applied to the economy, while some of the tax cuts are saved.CBO Study - Multipliers.Farcaster (talk) 19:28, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The term "most" in the lead is what makes it demonstrably false. Yes, tax cuts boost growth, just not as much as spending (see multiplier above.).Farcaster (talk) 19:28, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Regarding deregulation, this article covers a study by the OMB under Trump that indicated Obama's regulations were actually helping the economy, so Trump's deregulation would hurt it. Vox-deregulation agenda will hurt the economy. Yes, once upon a time in the 1970's and 1980's deregulation may have helped, but now the U.S. is one of the most competitive economies.Farcaster (talk) 19:28, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Here is The Economist arguing for regulation of U.S. airlines, to make them more competitive. Regulation that breaks up oligopoly/monopoly and addresses externalities is the ticket.The Economist-Regulate the AirlinesFarcaster (talk) 19:28, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * This is exactly what im talking about. You can find studies that confirm your prior held beliefs, its not difficult.  The issue is that Wikipedia is not the place to prove or disprove Supply Side.  If you cant find near perfect agreement among economists that the theory is refuted, or, demonstrably false if you prefer, then we cant say it is.  We can cite criticism, of course.  We should endeavor to describe the debate as best we can, but bringing our own data to the table to declare some theory true or false is plainly WP:OR.  This is not Phlogiston theory, there are still plenty of Economists who adhere to this theory or some aspects of it and thats not going to change by citing CBO studies here.  Bonewah (talk) 13:24, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree completely with . What I'd like to see is something like "Politician X lowered taxes and CLAIMED that this policy change was supported by supply side economics, and THE POLITICIAN claimed it would do X positive thing" when we talk about the political aspect.  But unless we have ECONOMISTS saying that the results of this new policy are or are not a valid experiment of supply-side economics, we should not be using the results to make (or infer to the reader) any judgements of SSE theories/principles.  Our job as editors is to report on the science, not to do it. --- Avatar317 (talk) 23:05, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

User:Bonewah, if you are not going to respond to what User:Avatar said for over two months, then can you at least rub in my face whatever rule I broke in following through on his suggestion? I can'really work with "Nope". VineFynn (talk) 12:26, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Thats fair. The first citation in this article, to the textbook 'Principles of Economics in Context' describes Supply side as "the macroecomomic theory that lower marginal tax rates lead to higher economic growth..." So the face rubbing rule would be Verifiability. For my part, i will do better at explaining my objection. Bonewah (talk) 12:56, 5 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Oh yeah, duh. Thanks.


 * Clearly the solution is to remove the citation 😋 VineFynn (talk) 13:04, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

“Something like this”
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Supply-side_economics&diff=1012304710&oldid=1012293922

involves multiple edits across multiple sections, the sweeping reversion of which is as accurately characterizes, lazy and indiscriminate, and I would add inappropriate in a way that makes it difficult to AGF.

I suggest self-revert and then make incremental reversions based on specifically articulated objections. soibangla (talk) 18:27, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * If what is desired is the statement that the tax reductions of the last 40 years have not raised revenue....why not have something similar to what is in the Laffer Curve article (intro) currently? (Which you recently edited by the way.) But I would encourage brevity on this point for a number of reasons: #1 these tax cuts are one of many over the last century, #2 it's very Americentric (i.e. where are (for example) the tax cuts in Western Europe mentioned in the same era?), #3 there is more to supply-side (as other editors have pointed out in the past on the talk page) than tax cuts.Rja13ww33 (talk) 18:36, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Rather than have a sweeping discussion, the likes of which typically meander everywhere but lead nowhere (which is sometimes by design), I again suggest that the sweeping reversion be restored, then editors can raise specific objections we can address in manageable chunks. Since you are the most recent reverter, perhaps you would like to take that good faith initiative. soibangla (talk) 18:47, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I can do that....but I'd like (first) a explanation on the statement: In practice, three major tax cuts in 1981, 2001 and 2017 did not generate higher revenues. THE 3 major tax cuts? The three of what? The last 40 years? The largest? (The last 2 don't even come close on that as far as rates go.) In the United States? I'm not getting that at all.Rja13ww33 (talk) 18:53, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Why not restore everything but that sentence and we can immediately begin discussing there? soibangla (talk) 18:59, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * It was hard to restore without losing all those references so I put it back with a more neutral sounding statement.Rja13ww33 (talk) 19:08, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * There is nothing inappropriate about reverting bold additions, that is exactly what wp:BRD calls for. I reverted your additions because we have see many additions (and discussions) like this in the past and see no effort on your part to address the concerns already raised multiple times. If you want to discuss your proposed changes in manageable chunks, then may i suggest that you put them here in manageable chunks and participate in discussions of same before adding them. If anyone needs to undertake a "good faith initiative" its you, who lead off by describing me as "lazy, indiscriminate, and inappropriate" while refusing as to so much as acknowledge the existing discussion, let alone engage in it, while, unironically, saying *you* find it difficult to AGF. Bonewah (talk) 20:23, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * It's absolutely not acceptable to revert everything someone adds without specified reasons and then asking the editor to justify every part of the edit, which you've now done twice for two separate large edits. If you're incapable of identifying why content does not meet Wikipedia guidelines, then don't remove it. It's absurd to remove Martin Feldstein's commentary in the American Economic Review without explaining why. This is part of a broader pattern where you scrub content that you personally disagree with (even if it's peer-reviewed research by recognized experts) and are unable to justify removal by pointing to Wikipedia policy. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:31, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Also, don't lie about others being uncivil. No one said you were "lazy, indiscriminate, and inappropriate". Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:40, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Well to be accurate, you called Bonewah's revert "lazy and indiscriminate".Rja13ww33 (talk) 20:51, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * My edits were made in discrete manageable chunks, rather than in one sweeping edit across multiple sections, which is routine and getting "prior approval" on Talk is unnecessary. You could have reverted any of them individually so we could Talk, but instead on two occasions you made a single reversion of multiple edits across multiple sections. I am not refusing as to so much as acknowledge the existing discussion, I have never edited this article prior to yesterday and any expectation that I know about many additions (and discussions) like this in the past is unrealistic. I just got here. soibangla (talk) 23:19, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Id be more sympathetic to your position except that A) the relevant talk section is directly above this one and B) you lead off the discussion with insults and accusations of bad faith. Seriously, consensus building via discusion isnt optional and expecting editors to actually engage in discussion isnt "prior approval", nor is it "unnecessary". To say nothing of the civilty issue, which is one of Wikipedia's five pillars. All this stuff applies to you even if you have never edited this page before. Bonewah (talk) 13:41, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Making sweeping deletions of multiple edits across multiple sections, twice now, is not conducive to establishing a presumption of good faith to build consensus. You had the option to make an incremental reversion which would not have elicited concerns about your behavior from two editors. soibangla (talk) 18:38, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Again, reverting your bold edits is exactly what WP:BRD and WP:CONACHIEVE calls for. Cartoonish that you both think this rule somehow doesnt apply to you and that your incivility is actually my fault because.... why exactly? You open up with calling me lazy and inappropriate but somehow Im the one who needs to establish good faith? Bonewah (talk) 19:14, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Kansas experiment
Something that has bothered me about this article for quite sometime: the length and weight of the (so-called) "Kansas experiment". It's longer than massive tax overhauls at the Federal level. Here we are talking a grad total of a 1.5% rate cut in a (already) relatively low tax environment.

Does anyone else think this is a issue as far as WEIGHT goes?Rja13ww33 (talk) 19:28, 16 March 2021 (UTC)


 * As far as my math goes, it cut top income taxes by around 25%, pass-through income by 100%, and the bottom rate by 14%. It of course nearly bankrupted the state and cut into essential government services. The Kansas experiment has been covered in depth by reliable sources, including academic ones, and prominent supply-siders both helped devise the plan and give it a full endorsement. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:37, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * We are talking rates here. By our own article, the top income tax rate was cut from 6.45 to 4.9. That's nothing in terms of economic impact. Obviously other factors could be involved here. The fact that supply-side advocates endorsed it doesn't say much because they endorse every tax cut that comes down the pike. Why focus on this one with such a insignificant rate change and at a state level?Rja13ww33 (talk) 19:46, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Just cutting that one tax by that amount is a massive reduction. Cutting the top income tax rate from 6.45% to 4.9% is a 24% reduction. Your personal view that the reductions were insignificant and had no economic impact defy both common sense (except perhaps in the SSE universe) and every single RS that covered this topic. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:07, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * It's not my pov. This resulted in about a 0.9 billion (total) tax cut yes? That's not even 1% of Kansas's 140 billion GSP around the time the tax cut was made. Even the Keynesian school guys don't argue less than 1% having a dramatic effect on the economy one way or the other.Rja13ww33 (talk) 20:20, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree that it is too much weight in this article especially considering that we already have another article about it, (thanks for pointing that out). I think we should condense the section to about 2-3 paragraphs (currently 7) covering the most important parts/info/summary and move the rest (that isn't already in the other article) to that article.


 * I agree that this is an extremely small tax cut (from the point of view of a taxpayer-whether corp or person the majority of income tax is federal) which falls into the noise in my opinion and is therefore not a good experiment, but here in Wikipedia it is not my role to be able to argue that.  If we have sources which include ECONOMISTS (not politicians) discussing its effects, then we say what they say about it. Let's try to keep the POLITICIANS' promises/arguments/rationalizations separate from the ECONOMISTS' analysis of the situation. --- Avatar317 (talk) 22:22, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The issue with WEIGHT is probably best resolved by noting the fact that virtually no general treatment of supply-side I can think of features this particular "experiment" so prominently. Yes there are certainly numerous RSs that have it as a subject.....but a overall history giving this a longer treatment than (say) Reaganomics (sect. 2.1 vs. sect. 2.3)? Hard to justify.Rja13ww33 (talk) 22:47, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Agree completely...though this experiment is very recent, but yes, MUCH smaller scale than federal.--- Avatar317 (talk) 23:45, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Feldstein
Feldstein was a prominent Republican economist for decades, chaired the Reagan CEA as SSE became the foundation of Republican economic doctrine, and is a self-described “traditional supply sider,” so his comments are certainly salient to this article and should be restored.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Supply-side_economics&diff=1012329775&oldid=1012324370

soibangla (talk) 18:34, 18 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I support having that statement in the article. It gives an understanding of the distinction between "mainstream" SSE theory and "extremist" SSE'rs and how it was starting to be sold by politicians, similar to Trump and other politicians' extravagant claims.--- Avatar317 (talk) 20:04, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Include. The removal of Feldstein's piece was made without any justification. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:36, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

"studies have shown that tax cuts increase economic growth"
is a flat assertion of universal fact being made in wikivoice that just happens to be in the Kansas section. It's irrelevant that studies showing tax cuts don't increase growth don't specifically mention Kansas. The word "some" should be restored,.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Supply-side_economics&diff=1013469927&oldid=1013326723

soibangla (talk) 00:30, 22 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Statements in the Kansas section are sourced with sources which talk about the Kansas experiment (which was crafted/supported by SSE economists, some of the same people crafting Trump's tax cut, hence the relevance). The source says: - In Wikipedia we say what the sources say.


 * Additionally, this article is about SSE, so unless a source talks about SSE, it is not applicable: you don't get to use sources to argue for or against SSE principles, that is Original Research WP:OR. --- Avatar317 (talk) 04:55, 22 March 2021 (UTC)


 * But the source says “Studies have shown that tax cuts tend to pay anywhere between 10 percent and 30 percent of their costs, not that they spur economic growth. Regardless of SSE and Kansas, the sentence makes a sweeping and unqualified assertion: studies show tax cuts increase growth, though there are studies that dispute that. I might not object if the sentence is qualified, though the authors of the LSE study I provided state, “Our findings on the effects of growth and unemployment provide evidence against supply side theories that suggest lower taxes on the rich will induce labour supply responses from high-income individuals (more hours of work, more effort etc.) that boost economic activity.” (italics mine) soibangla (talk) 19:16, 22 March 2021 (UTC)


 * You need to read the entire sentence. Here's the whole quote:  --- Avatar317 (talk) 20:41, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * That much is true, but also note that it's actually a quote from one guy, rather than an sweeping assertion of established fact from a reliable source. Also, he's talking about feedback effects, which are disputable: “On the whole, the growth effects [from the cuts] tend to show a relatively small (if any) first-year effect on the economy," the report said...The study indicated that the tax changes contributed only marginally to the overall economic economic gains — maybe 0.3% of a “feedback effect.” The economists say that for the tax cuts to pay for themselves, as Trump has promised, GDP would have to rise by 6.7%. And what about the LSE and other studies that challenge the claim? We can't make a sweeping claim like that anywhere in this article, or in any related article, when there are many who dispute it, and empirical evidence that refutes it, most notably in the Kansas section where the assertion is made. soibangla (talk) 23:55, 22 March 2021 (UTC)


 * So we have your Original Research saying that one-year after the Trump tax cuts they had less economic effect than claimed by Trump (though NOT zero) and not even compared to what economists projected, and a single working paper by non-notable economists at a clearly liberally-biased "International Inequalities Institute" claiming no GDP effect of TAX CUTS ON THE RICH - unlike Kansas, which did across the board tax cuts (higher, middle, and low income earners) - while we have a well-known economist, Greg Mankiw in 2017, already quoted in this article stating: --- Avatar317 (talk) 22:26, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) it is not my original research, it's a sentence supported by reliable sources; 2) it doesn't say "one-year after the Trump tax cuts they had less economic effect than claimed by Trump," it says that 2019 growth slowed compared to 2018, when one might expect growth to ramp-up after the tax cut had been fully integrated into the economy for a year; 3) I have not cited the LSE study in the article, I cited it here for discussion purposes to demonstrate that your sentence is not a universally-agreed fact; 4) again, LSE study specifically says “Our findings on the effects of growth and unemployment provide evidence against supply side theories..."; 5) what basis do you have to characterize it as "liberal," and even if so, why would that automatically be disqualifying, rather than simply attributed as such if deemed necessary (as with CBPP)? and 6) your sentence is still derived from a quote by just one guy but it is presented as though it is a sweeping uncontested fact. But it is not. soibangla (talk) 00:06, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Also, So even the liberals admit that tax cuts do return some, even in their first year; 5% is not 0%.] Whether it's 0% or 5% or even 50% isn't the issue. The issue is that anything less than 100% generates deficits. They don't pay for themselves even at 99%. soibangla (talk) 00:19, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
, although I would not personally be quick to use CBPP as a source, I dispute your assertion that it is not a reliable source. If you'd like to make that argument at RSN such that it is declared not reliable at RSP, feel free to do so. Or perhaps you could attribute the content to CBPP such that readers can assess for themselves whether they can trust it. rather than simply purging it because CBPP is characterized as "progressive" in its lead.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Supply-side_economics&diff=1013688636&oldid=1013686425

soibangla (talk) 00:44, 23 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Note that at WP:RSP there are no think-tanks listed; that's because they fall under Self-Published Sources WP:SPS. Biased sources like think-tanks are NOT academic sources. Their goal is to advocate for their policy positions, and they do this by generating and publishing "research" which supports their positions. They don't objectively report on a situation; they publish only information/research which supports their position(s); using such sources DIRECTLY risks UNDUEly WP:UNDUE representing their positions in OPINION situations, rather than taking their position in proper balance with others as presented by Independent Sources WP:IS. And they are practically never valid for statements of fact about causes they advocate for or against; it doesn't matter what political lean they have, this is true for conservative as well as liberal think-tanks. --- Avatar317 (talk) 22:23, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Supply side: "Macroeconomic theory" or "policy rationale"?
We've had a editor raise a concern that supply-side is a policy rationale more than any "Macroeconomic theory". Granted, supply-side is not taken very seriously in some economic circles.....but we cite RS calling it "Macroeconomic theory" [or "thought"] (see sources #1 & 2 in the article; and we could probably add more)....and so I think it should stay as is.Rja13ww33 (talk) 20:56, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
 * We kind of had a similar discussion sometime back .Rja13ww33 (talk) 21:04, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
 * To be clear, the question is whether to reinstate this edit, which was reverted. The term is clearly used to rationalize certain policy initiatives. It may be a "theory" in the casual sense of everyday speech, but it is not a scientific theory and it is not treated as such a theory in mainstream academic economics. SPECIFICO talk 21:38, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
 * If we have multiple RS calling it a theory or school of thought....we have to call it that. Here is another: "The backward-bending labor supply curve of the consumption-leisure model is one basis for a school of macroeconomic thought known as “supply-sdie economics”." from: ‘Modern Macroeconomics’ (2015; MIT Press), by: Sanjay K. Chugh, p.173Rja13ww33 (talk) 21:53, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
 * As in that previous discussion, I support that we should say what the sources say, which is "macroeconomic theory". Just because it sees use as a policy rationale does not mean it is not a theory.  As an easy extreme example, just because terrorists use Islam to justify their actions, that doesn't make Islam a policy rationale rather than a religion. If you have sources saying that it is NOT a theory (and never was) but only a policy rationale, then let's see those sources. (or sources saying that it WAS a theory that is now discredited and lives on as policy rationale)--- Avatar317 (talk) 05:27, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Agree, we should describe it as multiple reliable sources do, which is "Macroeconomic theory". Bonewah (talk) 15:20, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The Chugh is not a good source -- barely written in intelligible English. If you're looking for mainstream textbooks, there are dozens more prominent and widely used than that. SPECIFICO talk 18:06, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
 * "Economic Theory" is a very high bar. I'm not sure that Keynesian policies are called an economic theory, for example. "Theory" in the colloqual sense of ordinary language should not be used to describe a scientific hypothesis that has not been rigorously formulated or tested. I have a theory that dogs and cats are happier when the weather is cloudy. Maybe. Who knows?  As I'm sure you're aware, there will not be many sources for denails of untruths, e.g. sources that detail why elephants don't fly etc.  SPECIFICO talk 18:06, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
 * It comes from a academic press of a highly regarded university. That's the gold standard for RS here. Your personal opinion on how it is written doesn't make it. If you have RS for any of this....fire away, otherwise, the point will have to stand.Rja13ww33 (talk) 18:13, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Pseudoscience
following your message on my talk page, I will respond here: you queried my removal of the category of Pseudoscience. I removed this because as far as I can see in the article, there are no reliable sources calling it pseudoscience. Bellowhead678 (talk) 04:29, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Recent reversions - proof he spoke with more than one economist
In the Ehrenfreund article, he also quotes another economist: - so here's your proof that he spoke with more than one economist. --- Avatar317 (talk) 21:16, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * But not for that specific section:
 * While the first paragraph in question can be read so that "economists" includes the two quoted (consulted) economists, the second paragraph cannot be used to justify the following article text, because of that little statement "economists generally think" (emphasis mine):
 * Either we attribute the statements in the paragraph solely to him—"According to Max Ehrenfreund, economists generally agree that [...]", or we split up the attributions more finely, attributing parts of the paragraph to him, parts of the paragraph to the two economists that are quoted by him, and parts of the paragraph to the authors of the study.
 * This may seem like I'm splitting hairs here, but this relates to two core principles of Wikipedia (Attribution and Verifiability). The way the paragraph is currently structured makes the reader do the unnecessary work of reading the article and picking apart which of the "economists he consulted" said what, which means something is not right.
 * TL;DR: This paragraph is on the edge of failing verification, because it is not attributed properly. The article text does not accurately represent the source material. TucanHolmes  (talk) 13:17, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I support your suggestion "According to Max Ehrenfreund, economists generally agree that"....[comment: I think that you're trying to over-attribute...what I mean is that without the specific quotes from each consulted economist regarding long-term effects, for example, we don't really know who said what] so I support being slightly more vague which means we are accurate. --- Avatar317 (talk) 04:37, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Okay, I've adjusted the article along this line. Should be better now :). TucanHolmes  (talk) 11:34, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I support your suggestion "According to Max Ehrenfreund, economists generally agree that"....[comment: I think that you're trying to over-attribute...what I mean is that without the specific quotes from each consulted economist regarding long-term effects, for example, we don't really know who said what] so I support being slightly more vague which means we are accurate. --- Avatar317 (talk) 04:37, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Okay, I've adjusted the article along this line. Should be better now :). TucanHolmes  (talk) 11:34, 6 September 2022 (UTC)