Talk:Trickle-up economics

Untitled
'Whatever the mechanism, there may be some empirical evidence that wealth is trickling up in industrial societies.'

Someone needs to do some reading or original research to gather evidence for or against this assertion.

This is the bare bones of an article, and needs to be fleshed out with empirical data, etc.

Maybe I'll say more about the chav phenomenon sometime soon, but I've done enough writing for now.

I could also say something about farmers in developing nations getting hooked into using proprietary seed fertilizer and pesticide paid for on credit.


 * Original research to defend or refute a point of view is generally off-limits for Wikipedia. If there's a published study that has "trickle up" in the title, that would be appropriate. Gazpacho 09:24, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

It appears that Statistics Canada wants money for their Gini coefficient data, whereas US and UK are willing to give this data freely. I couldn't find the data for France. You are invited to add data for other countries, www.unstats.un.org and list of national statistics bureaux may be a good starting point.

Is there a way of combining Gini and GDP data to get some idea of whether poor people are getting poorer in absolute terms? Like if Gini is increasing and GDP is down, I think it would follow that this is the case. Perhaps someone au fait with mathematical economics could come up with a formula which combines Gini and GDP which could compare the situation at two different times, saying at what point in the income distribution someone would have to be for GDP growth to compensate for Gini increases. Such a formula would have to assume (accurately or otherwise) that income distribution follows the shape of some statistical distribution (e.g. Pareto), as details of the shape of the income distribution are lost when the Gini coefficient is calculated.

Totally disputed
This article appears to have zero references or sources for the use of this phrase. Gazpacho 02:14, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree, this theory is a fairy tale and does the writer not realise that savings go into investment and capital formation? If you want rich people to invest and save then increase the luxury tax. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sabaton10 (talk • contribs) 10:15, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Irrelevant external links?
I removed the two external links. One was to the CIA World Factbook homepage and the other was to the US Census Bureau homepage. While this article is about economics, and both the World Factbook homepage and US Census Bureau homepage contain economic data, I do not quite think that is enough reason to link to them from here. Nothing about the CIA or their Factbook or the Census Bureau or anything about any census whatsoever is mentioned in the article so I think it is safe to say that these links are irrelevent. --76.2.44.243 03:06, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

A mess
I think it's got to be taken out. I deleted the whole section that tried to relate trickle-up to Maslow's hierarchy of needs-- no sources provided, just a lot of uneconomic blabber. Still a lot of disputed claims, though.

Capitalism is trickle up and down in practice.
Capitalism is trickle up and down in practice. When a business owner starts a new business they hire and employ workers. The new business also purchases supplies and equipment. All of the startup costs of the new business are paid for, before the business owner makes any money. This is the trickle down part of capitalism. It is only after the business sells their product or provides their services and expenses are paid does the business owner make a profit. Income trickles up to the business owner in the form of profits, only after everyone else has been paid and only if the business is successful. This is a trickle up part of capitalism. When the business is profitable the workers,suppliers and business owner continue to make money. The successful business continues to trickle additional wealth down to these workers and suppliers and up to them selves as profits. This is the trickle up and down of capitalism — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.198.159.61 (talk) 19:43, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

This article is not credible should be removed.
First of all the "trickle-down theory" is not an actual economic theory. "Trickle down economics" is a pejorative way of referencing supply-side economic theories which have sound footing in economic theory. It is whether or not the theories actually work in practice, and/or how best to implement them that is a matter of debate. Conflating "supply side" and "trickle down" is like not making any distinction between "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act" and "Obamacare". I know that the President has come to embrace the Obamacare label, but initially that was not the case and it was only used in a negative context.

Secondly, a "trickle up effect" cannot credibly be claimed to exist. Simply posting about something on Wikipedia without any references doesn't make it a real phenomenon. I'm amazed that this has been up since 2005 without being deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.232.140 (talk) 23:09, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I beg to differ. Apart from the fact that the term "trickle up" is actually in common use, as a web search reveals, in this analysis, Mark Rosenfelder makes a compelling case that the effect is very much real, even though he does not use the term "trickle up" himself. In fact, it had just occurred to me today that the effect Rosenfelder argues happened in the time period when social liberal economic policies were followed is essentially the precise inverse of the "trickle-down effect", then I came up independently with the "trickle up" term (which, as a metaphor, is quite awkward, if taken literally in the physical sense – only steam goes up, which would be strictly speaking a more sensible metaphor), and Googled it, only to find that, as so often, my idea was so obvious that other people have had it before. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 12:38, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Requested move 11 March 2023

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) BilledMammal (talk) 16:22, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Trickle-up effect → Trickle-up economics – Swap names per wp:commonname. "economics" is used in virtually all RS, very few use "effect". Only 1 RS in use on the article uses "effect".&#32;HC (talk) 20:54, 10 March 2023 (UTC) This is a contested technical request (permalink).  ❯❯❯  Raydann  (Talk)   17:39, 11 March 2023 (UTC)  — Relisting. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 02:22, 19 March 2023 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * Support per nom. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 16:08, 27 March 2023 (UTC)