Wikipedia on Trickle Down Economics

Bad bias, poor writing, and misleading summary is the Wikipedia entry on Trickle Down Economics.

An example of Wikipedia's embarrassingly bad bias, poor writing, and misleading summary is the Wikipedia entry on Trickle Down Economics. It looks like it was written by a left wing polemic rather than anyone interested in economics or facts (or teaching). The Talk Section has a few interesting PoV's.

ℹ️ Info

~ Aristotle Sabouni
Created: 2018-10-21

While there's some good backstory on the origins of the term, the basics of their argument is that since the term was made by a humorist, and isn't an economic theory, then the idea that tax cuts can sometimes help is also disproven. And the user walks away dumber than when they started.

The truth is that while Tricke Down is a pejorative term for Reagonomics or supply side economics, both of the latter are considered viable economic theories, and while contested have evidence to support their validity. So while there is no record of any economist or politician advocating trickle-down economics (in terms of "if you cut taxes for the rich, they will spend more and that wealth will trickle down"). There is supply-side economics and many other policies from whence that term came -- and it can be used to show that when tax rates are too high, then cutting them is stimulative.

So the term is false and often an overstated rhetorical device (usually by haters of free markets to attack real economists who think differently than they do). But that doesn't change the inherent truth that we know that when taxes are too high, cutting them is stimulative. We also know that this applies to the rich as well as the poor -- more so, since the poor don't pay some forms of taxes. The economic debate is what is "too high", and whether it is more helpful than alternatives. But you wouldn't get any of that from Wikipedia main page on the topic -- you might glean more from the talk section, if you read it, and already knew the topic before reading it (to understand what they're arguing about).

Wikipedia[edit source]

Main article: Wikipedia

Wikipedia is both hit and miss, with a lot more hits than misses. I reference it a lot, because most articles are pretty good or good enough. But a few are very biased, and virtually all bias leans far left. Usually it's more lies of omission and not offering both sides. So they are referencable, but the most interesting stuff is often omitted, or in the talk section.

Fake Facts[edit source]

Main article: Fake Facts

"Facts" that aren't but people believe anyways, either through ignorance, self delusion or deception. The worst are ones that people heard from their authorities, but never questioned - confirmation bias makes them especially resistant to growth. But how we react to new information defines what kind of person we are. Do we validate our assumptions, or just remain ignorant/progressive?

🔗 More

Wikipedia
Wikipedia is both hit and miss. Most articles are pretty good, but there's a leftist bias amongst too many articles.

🔗 Links

Tags: Wikipedia