Talk:Supply-side economics

Irresponsible Talk Page Removals

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

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

Aggregate Supply Curve

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

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

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

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

As per this website:

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

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

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