This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EconomicsWikipedia:WikiProject EconomicsTemplate:WikiProject EconomicsEconomics articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Marketing & Advertising, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Marketing on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Marketing & AdvertisingWikipedia:WikiProject Marketing & AdvertisingTemplate:WikiProject Marketing & AdvertisingMarketing & Advertising articles
In addition to probably being a neologism, there are clear misstatements and highly questionable statements in the article, as well as the clear rejection of the (probably minority) view that Reaganomics may have produced the reverse of these "cascades", whereby expenditures of the rich reduced (relative) expenditures of the poor. — Arthur Rubin(talk)00:27, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article definitely has problems in POV and in organization. I was tempted to agree with your point about it being a neologism, but did this google scholar search and there's some stuff there which isn't by Robert Frank, so it is a term which gets some use. Not sure it deserves an article, but it doesn't seem completely unreasonable. CRETOG8(t/c) 03:07, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the {{prod}} tag from Expenditure cascades, which you proposed for deletion, because I think that this article should not be deleted from Wikipedia. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! Colonel Warden (talk) 19:02, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This article lacks neutral POV. It way over-emphasizes the importance of tax policy. Recent history has shown that inequality and progressive taxation can be mutually reinforcing, like here in California; progressive tax bases are highly unstable, so governments start protecting the incomes and assets of the wealthy. But they can only do this by cutting taxes for everyone else, making the tax code even more progressive and unstable and necessitating even more government favoritism of wealthy tax-generating sectors, in a never-ending spiral that leads to, well, Silicon Valley.
The article should at least mention other possible causes of inequality, like skill-biased technological change, the imbalance between skilled and unskilled migration between major industrialized countries, the decline of trade unions, the closure of urban cores to non-wealthy outsiders, etc. Or just the simple fact that many European countries have less progressive tax codes than the United States but more equal income distributions. Joeedh (talk) 08:29, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
