Talk:Arthur Laffer/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

Publications

Using Microsoft Word's Word Count feature, I find that this article contains 4991 words (includes mark-ups and formatting, etc), with 4452 words -- about 89% -- taken up by the publication list. This is ludicrous, since this amount of text, what with all the quoting, either should be expunged/ruthlessly pared or moved to Wikiquote. A quick skim shows that little of the extensive quoted material has much information value, either as history, original thought, or illustrations of work/character, so I'm on the side of "ruthless paring". Any thoughts before I break out the chainsaw? --Calton | Talk 02:46, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Um, there's no space limitation here, and a good source of information about a person is their own words. What grievous harm does it do that motivates you to "break out the chainsaw"? —Steven G. Johnson 03:09, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Seems to me that WP:NOT's guidelines on quotations just about covers it. It would perhaps be better to write in prose form a summation of what his various standpoints are, and then copy all the quotations over to Wikiquote. Nach0king 00:16, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Pronounciation

Can someone who knows add the pronounciation key for the last name? Is it laugh-er or lah-fer? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.210.156.174 (talk) 06:47, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

It is pronounced laugh-er. The genelogical origination is German/Prussian although there are Laffer's in Switzerland that are also related to us. Signed - Arthur B. Laffer, Jr. (son) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.193.157.176 (talk) 04:01, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Publications redux

Can this section be trimmed/cleanup/removed/whatever. As pointed out 3 years ago, it takes up most of the article? Anyways, --Tom (talk) 22:36, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

A piece written for a newspaper is hardly equivalent to an article in an academic journal. In my opinion, we should retain only his academic publications, and remove those for newspapers. Anyone disagree with this?--Anthon.Eff (talk) 02:48, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Id like to see *some* of his newspaper articles linked here, if for no other reason than so readers can follow the links and get a sample of his works. Obviously, the list can be pared down from its far too large former self. Bonewah (talk) 13:14, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
OK. Could you select the ones to keep? Thanks.--Anthon.Eff (talk) 13:16, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
OK, I re-added a few that I thought were directly or closely related to his most important work, or were generally pretty interesting. I avoided any article that is behind a pay wall or were too far afield to be included (carbon tax, energy stuff mostly). What is your opinion on the following:
add them or no? Bonewah (talk) 19:59, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Fine with me. Anyone else have an opinion? --Anthon.Eff (talk) 02:01, 27 May 2010 (UTC)


Antarctican

Does such a thing exist? Can we get a citation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.56.112.48 (talk) 03:42, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Departure from U of C

I dated one of his PhD candidates in the mid-1970's. I knew Arthur Laffer. He was forced to leave the U of C because they discovered he never actually completed his PhD. I can't remember whether he never finished his thesis or he never defended his thesis. It was needless to say, typical Laffer, arrogantly not troubled by his misrepresentation to the UofC. This is a FACT. He never got his PhD in 1971, though, he may have worked out some deal whereby they back dated his PhD date when he finally completed his PhD. Why is this not mentioned? I am going to get source links for this fact and modify this entry accordingly. BTW, I saw him on TV and he looks creapyly like he did in the mid '70's. He loves turtles and had at the time a huge fern collection (which was very beautiful). (talk) 12:59, 2 March 2012 (UTC) This just seems like a petty personal attack. You are incorrect. He was awarded his PhD 1971 per Stanford. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.10.222.61 (talk) 18:58, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Put work in perspective

Yeah so you sketch out his theory.
But how has it panned out in actual practice over the past 40 years and what's Laffer's reputation & standing within his profession?
No clue to any of this available from reading article.

2602:302:D6A:B2C0:D0E6:5987:9FD3:684D (talk) 15:32, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Hyperbole

Some people continuously return here to insert statements about Laffer's glory. Please stop. Let's talk about what he did, and not about how he is the "greatest intransigent genius in recent memory." Asacarny 04:37, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

This article fails to mention that Laffer has never been right about anything. Latest is http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/30/opinion/paul-krugman-charlatans-cranks-and-kansas.html -- 68.111.35.169 (talk) 07:38, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

You should take what The New York Times (and Krugman) says, and believe the opposite. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 10:31, 12 April 2015 (UTC) -- It is rather extreme to say a person has never been right about anything.


Laffer and politics

Laffer is meeting with the top Republican candidate hopefuls to promote an 11.8% flat tax; this short video is excellent in showing Art Laffer in politics. 'Economics' will be very big in the 2016 election(s) and Laffer's visibility will only rise. [1] -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 10:40, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Personal life section

Where's the 'Personal life' section? I wanted to know his current residence state, and all I can surmise from the article is that he was a distinguished professor in Georgia after being a professor near Malibu California. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 11:57, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Death Tax??

I'm editing out "Death Tax" and replacing with the proper term "Inheritance Tax". It will be interesting to see if anyone really wants to try to argue that the term "death tax" isn't a pejorative and a POV. Kenwg (talk) 22:02, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'll play. "Inheritance Tax" is not the "proper term", because the tax is not levied upon any inheritance. The "income tax" is levied on income; the "gift tax" is levied on gifts; the "capital gains tax" is levied on capital gains. Therefore, "inheritance tax" is _not_ the correct term, because the tax is not levied on the inheritance or on those who inherit. Under the Internal Revenue Code, there is no tax levied on any inheritance; instead, the tax is levied on the estate of the decedent: that is the reason that the tax is called the "estate tax". Oconnell usa (talk) 16:16, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Seems like a sensible point. Tax the inheritor, then call it inheritance tax Dragonlord kfb (talk) 04:00, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Notice that this thread goes back to 2008. I heard Dr Laffer speak at the annual Hillsdale College event yesterday (over 300 attended) and he was the luncheon keynote speaker. The first question after his well-received keynote was on the optimum approach to setting tax rates. A main point of his answer included this. There is a video of his keynote--I'll locate the URL and post here for future editing here. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 12:04, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Laffer curve criticisms

In my opinion, the description of the Laffer curve should be a brief overview only, there is no need to go into a lengthy discussion about its supporters and detractors. As such, i think the edit "Numerous leading economists have rejected the viewpoint that the Laffer Curve's postulation of increased tax revenue through a rate cut applies to current federal US income taxes in the medium term. When asked whether a “cut in federal income tax rates in the US right now would raise taxable income enough so that the annual total tax revenue would be higher within five years than without the tax cut,” 96% of economists surveyed in 2012 disagreed. In response to this survey question, Richard Thaler of the University of Chicago said, “That’s a Laffer." Is inappropriate here. Bonewah (talk) 13:34, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

In response to user:Gamaliel in this edit, i would agree if that criticism was a really important part of the Laffer curve. This one is not, its merely a poll about one specific instance of the applicability of the Laffer curve, not the concept generally. Again, we have a whole article on the Laffer curve where this can be discussed in detail, no need to add it everywhere. Bonewah (talk) 14:50, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
I guess i should elaborate here, in addition to the concerns expressed on supply-side economics talk, that the edit is US centric, that it applies only to one particular time and one particular tax, that claiming that they majority of the economists surveyed "rejected" or disagreed with the Laffer curve is inaccurate, i think the edit should be removed from this article because this is not an article about the Laffer curve, it is about Laffer himself, and, as such, any coverage of the Laffer curve should be a brief, high level overview, with any details covered in the laffer curve article, not here. The edit above is currently in the Laffer curve article and so is irrelevant here. Bonewah (talk) 13:23, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

The Laffer curve is what he's known for. So yes, a discussion of the Laffer curve is most certainly relevant to this article. To claim otherwise is ridiculous. Volunteer Marek  13:46, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

The question isnt what Laffer is know for, the question is, to what extent do we discuss the Laffer curve here, and what should that discussion entail. As discussed in supply side economics talk, this particular edit is a weak criticism at best, that only sort of applies to the Laffer curve, that only applies to the US, that only applies to Federal income taxes, that only applies to 2102 and doesnt really accurately describe what the source says, and its not really a reliable source anyway. Ive said this already, both in supply side economics talk, which you participated in, and above, so if you are going to revert, at least address my criticisms, which, by the way numerous other editors have echoed. Bonewah (talk) 13:58, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
He isn't known for anything other than the Laffer Curve so anything about the curve seems pertinent. Suppy Side Economics has a lot more too it than the Laffer Curve. in this case, talking about the curve is the only thing Arthur Laffer is notable for doing. Lipsquid (talk) 14:47, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Again, the question isnt, should we talk about the Laffer curve, the question is, is this material suitable for a quick summary? In my opinion, no, for the many reasons listed above. We decided that this material didnt belong in the lede of the Laffer curve article, why should it be included in a brief summary of the Laffer curve? Bonewah (talk) 14:51, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes, this material is suitable. It seems that there are multiple editors who agree, and who disagree with you. Volunteer Marek  15:12, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Oh come on, you arent even addressing my concerns, just declaring yourself to be right. You and one other editor hardly represent some overwhelming consensus, perhaps we should solicit opinions of those who commented on supply side economics? Bonewah (talk) 15:14, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Worth noting here, User:Lipsquid accepted my view on nearly an identical edit in a nearly identical situation on Jude Wanniski. See here on Talk:Jude_Wanniski#Criticisms_of_the_Laffer_curve_yet_again.. Bonewah (talk) 18:00, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
I don't agree with changing the edit here, but thank you for including me. I think it is very noteworthy about Mr. Laffer himself. I would not support deleting it. Lipsquid (talk) 19:04, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Ok ill bite, in what way is this edit substantially different than the one you just agreed to remove in Jude Wanniski? Bonewah (talk) 21:12, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
The edit is the same, but the article is different. If someone wants to source something about the economic impact of the Laffer Curve on Arthur Laffer's page, that seems completely reasonable. A sourced edit about the economics of the Laffer Curve on Jude Wanniski's page seems to not be very noteworthy to me. I would probably feel different if it was called the Wanniski Curve. You seem like a sane guy and it has been pretty easy to work with you now that we know each other, why do you want to remove sourced information that isn't even really critical of the Laffer Curve everywhere? Can't we just provide the information and let people decide for themselves? Lipsquid (talk) 22:21, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
We do provide this information, in the article about the Laffer Curve, which we link to here. Again, the issue is that the reference to the Laffer Curve here is meant to be a very brief overview of it, not an in depth analysis. Anyone interested in the Laffer curve is expected to follow the link to learn more. Further, as i stated above, the edit in question is only limited relevance anyway, as it only applies to the US, only applies to federal income taxes, only applies to 2012 and doesnt fully reflect what the economists surveyed said. You also seem like a sane guy, who is interested in making a better encyclopedia, so i ask you, please dont make me restate the same objections over and over. If you are going to object, at least make an effort to respond to what you know i find troubling about these edits. Ive had to re-litigate the same thing 4 times now and it gets tedious to point out over and over again that this material is of extremely limited applicability. I thought we all collaborated nicely at supply-side economics and Laffer curve in that the information did end up in Wikipedia, but edited to reflect what the citation actually said and moved to a place appropriate for its importance. I find it baffling that we could all agree that this material doesnt belong in the lede of supply-side economics, doesnt belong in the lede of the Laffer curve, doesnt belong in an overview of the Laffer curve at Jude Wanniski, but have to argue that it does somehow belong in a brief overview of the Laffer curve here. Why are still covering the same ground? What is so different about this edit that didnt apply the last 3 times we went over this? Bonewah (talk) 22:53, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
I am not trying to be difficult, I really think this is noteworthy in this article. It is not in the lede, it is in the Laffer Curve section. Lowering taxes does not increase inflation adjusted government revenue, never has, never will. Other than the very obvious somewhere between 0% and 100% taxes there is a peak tax rate, everything Arthur talks about "is a Laffer". Lipsquid (talk) 16:27, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
So this is different from Jude Wanniski because... you dont like it? Bonewah (talk) 13:40, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
No, I do like it. To believe a study of the economics of the Laffer Curve is inappropriate on Jude Wanniski's page, but find it appropriate on Arthur Laffer's page seems perfectly reasonable. I would add more studies if I could find any. Lipsquid (talk) 04:14, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
"I do like it" is just as unreasonable as "i Dont like it", the problem being that you are not offering any substantive reason beyond your personal tastes. Im going to go further and point out that you haven't responded to any of my concerns here, which is required in a collaborative environment like Wikipedia. Im trying to assume good faith here, but you are acting like you are not listening.Bonewah (talk) 13:39, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
It is not my edit, you asked if I thought if it was a good fit for this article and I think it is a reasonable edit, you don't like that answer so you assume I don't have good faith? I suggest you contact the original editor on their user page and ask them about their edit. Lipsquid (talk) 00:14, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

No, i assume you dont have good faith because you are making me argue the exact same thing over and over without regard for what was previously said. Reasonable people discuss, unreasonable people ignore what has been discussed and expect they should get what they want anyway. Indeed, you are not just ignoring what im saying, you are ignoring what you said in three other places. But, you are right, i should assume more good faith than i have, so here is what im going to do. Im going to remove the objectionable material and assume that if you legitimately have an issue with that, you will discuss here how we can resolve it before re-adding the material back in. And by discuss i mean acknowledge and respond to both my concerns and to what you yourself have said elsewhere. Bonewah (talk) 13:41, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Look, this is most obviously relevant to the man, as this is what he's known for. You can ask for outside comments here by starting an RfC or go to NPOV notice board. Volunteer Marek  16:24, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Oh how delightful, another editor who has no interest in actual discussion and yet feels entitled to simply edit the article without regard to my concerns. Yea, im thinking some kind of RfC or notice board is most likely in order here. Bonewah (talk) 16:57, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
It's sort of impossible to discuss anything with you because you just repeat the same assertion over and over again without substantiation. Obviously since the Laffer curve is what he's known for it should be discussed in the article. Do you actually disagree with that?  Volunteer Marek  17:01, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
Im repeating the same thing because numerous editors have agreed with me that those concerns are legitimate. Im forced to repeat the same things because you choose to ignore anything you dont like. For example, you ask, "Obviously since the Laffer curve is what he's known for it should be discussed in the article. Do you actually disagree with that?" The answer is no I dont disagree with that, i disagree that this particular edit is of enough import to include in a quick summary of the Laffer curve. You should know that as i said exactly that to you like 9 comments above, which was the 5th time i said it. And yet here you are, asking again as if ive never said anything, ignoring the numerous other objections i lodged at the outset of this talk, and then was forced to reiterate over an over. Bonewah (talk) 18:51, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
What "numerous editors"? The comments on this page go back ten years, and as far as I can see you're the sole supporter of your view. MAybe you could, I dunno, hold an RFC to provide some proof of your numerous supporters instead repeating the same rejected arguments over and over again? --Calton | Talk 04:01, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
The numerous editors were mostly on the supply side economics talk sections about the same subject. Since i didnt link to it, i dont expect you would necessarily have seen it, but Volunteer Marek not only has seen it, he participated in it, and as such, i expect that he/she could at least stop pretending this has not been discussed before. Bonewah (talk) 14:09, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
But this isn't true either. And anyway the issue is on this article and here the consensus is against you. Volunteer Marek  14:31, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Which part isnt true? That you participated in the discussion supply side economics talk or that you are pretending that this hasent been discussed before? Bonewah (talk) 14:56, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Don't be daft. The part that isn't true is that "numerous editors" on supply side economics supported you.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:13, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

RfC on the Laffer Curve, economists poll

I have opened an RfC on the economists poll and the Laffer curve on the Jude Wanniski talk page. The discussion is similar to what we discussed above, if you participated in that discussion, I would appreciate your comments on that RfC as well. Thanks. Bonewah (talk) 15:31, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

The RfC for the Jude Wanniski page does not automatically apply to the Arthur Laffer page. This should be obvious. What may be undue on Jude Wanniski page may not be undue here. Especially since the curve was, you know, named after him. You need a separate RfC for this article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:10, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
Um no. The RfC specifically mentions this page, and you and everyone else who participated had ample opportunity to express any objection there. In addition to that, I mentioned the RfC here and even went to far as to ping every single editor who participated in that RfC. If you think that somehow the very clear consensus that has been expressed over and over again somehow doesnt apply to this page despite an RfC that explicitly says so, its incumbent on you to pursue further dispute resolution, not me. Bonewah (talk) 23:18, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
Which they did: "Wrong article, nothing to discuss here. If you want an RfC for an article, open it on that article's talk page. The format and general requirements are laid out on this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment". Bottomline, that's not how an RfC works.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:27, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
The opinion of one editor doesnt overturn the RfC. And i cant help but notice that you didnt even bother to comment until now, despite ample opportunity to do so. In any event, the onus is on you to demonstrate that this material should be added. Bonewah (talk) 23:15, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
First, that's not just one editor since obviously I'm sitting here disagreeing with you as well. True, most people in the RfC didn't comment on your strange idea that an RfC on one article automatically applies to any other article you see fit but that's probably because the idea is sort of ridiculous, contrary to practice and policy, and undeserving of comment. You cannot interpret absence of agreement as agreement.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:29, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Absurd, the RfC was over this content, not one particular page. Nothing about an RfC says or implies that it can cover only one page, the lede of the RfC page even mentions pages plural "RfCs are a way to attract more attention to a discussion about making changes to pages or procedures, including articles, .." Whats more, never even bothered to express this view on that RfC despite being called on to do so, only objecting after the RfC is closed and no one is commenting any more. Bonewah (talk) 23:53, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
It doesn't work that way and no, the RfC was not just about "content". Same content may be appropriate in one article but inappropriate in another article. It may be off topic in one article and on topic in another article. You are making stuff up out of thin air. The RfC was about particular content in a particular article. You're also abusing grammar in your quoting of policy - the plural "s" in "pages" "procedures" and "articles" obviously does not imply that an RfC on one page magically applies to other pageS, rather it means that RfCs can be used on various pageS. Stop Wikilawyering. And as already pointed out - there WAS in fact explicit opposition to the idea that RfC on that other article would apply to this one automatically and there WAS NO support for the idea that it did (only lack of comment).Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:57, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
And as i pointed out, one objection does not automatically overturn the outcome of an RfC. And again, you couldnt be bothered to bring up this objection at the time, just like you cant be bothered why this content should be included here. Just like you cant be bothered to explain why the objections of all the editors who commented dont apply here. And wikilawering? Is that what you call expecting editors to actually abide by the consensus reached? Insisting that I start another RfC over the exact same content based on nothing more that your vague suggestion that somehow this is different is the wikilawering. Bonewah (talk) 00:14, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
And as I pointed out, the RfC was about content in a DIFFERENT article. And it wasn't one objection, it was several, with most everyone else not bothering to comment because it was a ridiculous idea to begin with. Look. It's not that hard. In. one. article. content. may. be. inappropriate. In. another. article. content. may. be. appropriate. Which is why there's nothing in policy on RfC about how supposedly RfC on one article magically applies to another. Nothing difficult to understand about that so I can only conclude that you are not acting in good faith, are being obtuse on purpose and are simply engaging in WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT games.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:19, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

economists poll yet again

It seems that once again we have to discuss the edit about the economist poll. I think it should be removed in its entirety for the following reasons:

  • What we have now is pretty clearly wp:OR. Nowhere does the source cited ask the question "Do you reject the empirical relevance of the Laffer Curve for the United States?" They only ask if "A cut in federal income tax rates in the US right now would raise taxable income enough so that the annual total tax revenue would be higher within five years than without the tax cut." Which is not the same thing. No where in the article cited do "96% of economists surveyed" say anything like what we say here. Moreover, the Laffer curve isnt even directly mentioned in the question, it only appears in the title of this section and in some of the responses, some of which clearly do not "reject the empirical relevance of the Laffer Curve". Consider Robert Hall's response "In addition, few studies suggest we are already at the max of the Laffer curve, though we may be close." or Edward Lazear "This is the Laffer curve issue. There is little (if any) evidence that rates exceed revenue-maximizing levels. See Mankiw, Feldstein." Neither of those two sound like they are rejecting the relevance of the Laffer curve, and assuming that the rest of the economists surveyed do is clear OR.
  • its citation's survey is highly specific to one tax (federal income tax), in one place (The US), at one time (2012). Thats a pretty US specific data point for a general discussion of the matter, although that might be appropriate for inclusion in the article about the Laffer curve, or Supply-side economics, its absurd to include it here.
  • Per above, Its too obscure to include here. We have only three lines about the laffer curve here, one of which is a poll which doesnt really say what we claim and is only about one tax in one place at one particular time. Its a bit like saying that "henry Ford founded Ford Motor company, popularized many methods of mass production, and in 2012 97% of some people surveyed didnt like Ford compact cars sold in the US." Just like here, including a specific criticism about the subject in a quick summary is ham fisted and out of place. Again, this is different from what we might include in the Laffer curve page itself or supply side economic which had a fair discussion about this topic, hence the different wordings you see.
  • expanding on my first point, even if we accept that this is not OR, we are misconstruing what the source actually says. Most of the economists surveyed didnt comment on the Laffer curve per se, only saying agree or disagree. Of the 40 economists listed, only 12 even commented at all, only 4 or 5 of the comments unequivocally reject the Laffer curve (maybe slightly more depending on how you read them). There is no reason to believe that those who disagree necessarily reject the Laffer curve. Of the ones that did comment 5 or 6 responded in such a way as to indicate that they actually accept the Laffer curve despite 5 of them responding disagree to the question.
remember, this is a quick summary of the Laffer curve not an in depth discussion. Readers can click the link to learn more. Consider what we have now:
A simplified view of the theory is that tax revenues would be zero if tax rates were either 0% or 100%, and somewhere in between 0% and 100% is a tax rate which maximizes total revenue. Laffer's postulate was that the tax rate that maximizes revenue was at a much lower level than previously believed: so low that current tax rates were above the level where revenue is maximized.
Numerous leading economists have rejected the viewpoint that the Laffer Curve's postulation of increased tax revenue through a rate cut applies to current federal US income taxes in the medium term. When asked whether a “cut in federal income tax rates in the US right now would raise taxable income enough so that the annual total tax revenue would be higher within five years than without the tax cut,” 96% of economists surveyed in 2012 disagreed. In response to this survey question, Richard Thaler of the University of Chicago said, “That’s a Laffer.”
"The first two sentences accurately sum up the Laffer curve's history and concept. The third points out that some poll of some economists kinda sorta disagrees with it, when applied to one specific tax at one time in one country. Bonewah (talk) 17:34, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
That is why the sourced content is good, it doesn't say "some economists kinda sorta disagree" it says virtually none agree. 96% to be exact. Lipsquid (talk) 05:06, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
That doesnt really address my concerns here. There are a number of reasons i stated for the removal of this section. Bonewah (talk) 19:47, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
Give it a rest, the article is stable. I would say the "That's a Laffer" quote is a better fit here because it is a direct criticism of Laffer himself rather than supply side policies. Lipsquid (talk) 20:37, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
Its only been this way because you have insisted that i argue each of Art Laffer, Laffer Curve, supply side economics and Jude Wanniski independently, and so im only now getting to this article. Id like it very much if you would actually address my concerns rather then try to avoid discussion. Bonewah (talk) 20:41, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
My opinion on your opinions doesn't matter a hill of beans, the only thing that matters is that we post material from reliable sources in the article. (Which is the case with the portion of the article you don't like.) I would guess that either of us repeating a revert on this article would result in a ban. Give it a rest. We have both beat our own horses to death already. Lipsquid (talk) 20:54, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
In fact, the function of editors is to decide what material is included and what is not. Citing a reliable source is necessary but not sufficient for inclusion. Again, if you would like to see this material stay in, please respond to my concerns above rather than dreaming up new ways to tell me to shut up. Bonewah (talk) 21:02, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
Do you have something to propose other than deletion? If not, we have nothing new to discuss. Lipsquid (talk) 21:23, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
I assume that Users Lipsquid and Volunteer Merek have not changed their positions. If that is the case, I think perhaps this issue needs an RfC to resolve. Bonewah (talk) 13:54, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Deletion of source criticism

User:Bonewah I think you would be better served by reaching out to User:Volunteer Marek about his edit rather than edit warring. Lipsquid (talk) 17:56, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

He knows where the talk page is. Bottom line, this is trivia sourced to an editorial. Bonewah (talk) 18:26, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
Bottom line, don't edit war regardless of your perceived righteousness.. Lipsquid (talk) 18:38, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
Do you have any argument as to why this content should be included in the article? Bonewah (talk) 18:42, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
Not my edit, use the ping command and ask Volunteer Merek. It is sourced and a valid criticism of his alleged expertise in economic theory, I have no problem with it. Lipsquid (talk) 19:13, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

What exactly is supposed to be "non-neutral" about the incident? And of course it's notable - if it really was trivia it wouldn't be reported on in serious sources like Forbes. Please don't remove it per some WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:13, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

The 'serious source' is an op ed, not exactly first page stuff. Frankly id call it more of a hit piece that anything else, defn not a reliable source, in my opinion. A quick google search reveals that although there is some 'coverage' of the bet, the 'reporting' is coming from the usual partisans sneering at those they dont like, nothing like a reliable source as far as i can see. At a minimum the "a very public bet" line is absurd, what exactly makes it "a very public bet" as opposed to just a bet? Also, i cant help but notice that the source doesnt really back up the claim that Laffer lost the bet. It is merely one person's opinion that Laffer must have lost because there was a recession sometime after the bet was made. If this tidbit deserves a place in a BLP, you should be able to source it to something better than a diatribe or blog posts. Bonewah (talk)

Hyperbole

Some people continuously return here to insert statements about Laffer's glory. Please stop. Let's talk about what he did, and not about how he is the "greatest intransigent genius in recent memory." Asacarny 04:37, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

This article fails to mention that Laffer has never been right about anything. Latest is http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/30/opinion/paul-krugman-charlatans-cranks-and-kansas.html -- 68.111.35.169 (talk) 07:38, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

You should take what The New York Times (and Krugman) says, and believe the opposite. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 10:31, 12 April 2015 (UTC) -- It is rather extreme to say a person has never been right about anything.

Despite being criticized and derided by his peers about his prediction for the 1971 Gross National Product, he was, in fact, within 0.2% of the actual amount when it was subsequently reported. No one has ever come anywhere near this close before or after, but I guess you'll be saying that he didn't predict it to the cent so that makes it wrong... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.120.125.113 (talk) 01:36, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

mankiw's description of Laffer's book.

There has been some back and forth on Greg mankiw's description of Laffer's book so ill use this space to detail why i changed it. The current description "described the book as "snake-oil economics," and said the authors "do not build their analysis on the foundation of professional consensus or serious studies from peer-reviewed journals." is not very informative and not really an accurate description of what Mankiw wrote. In the source Mankiw never calls the book snake-oil economics, that is only in the title which authors often dont write and its not terribly informative as to what his criticism is. The line about consensus or peer reviewed journals comes from the following "The third voice is that of the rah-rah partisan. Rah-rah partisans do not build their analysis on the foundation of professional consensus or serious studies from peer-reviewed journals. They deny that people who disagree with them may have some logical points and that there may be weaknesses in their own arguments. In their view, the world is simple, and the opposition is just wrong, wrong, wrong. Rah-rah partisans do not aim to persuade the undecided. They aim to rally the faithful. Unfortunately, this last voice is the one the economists Stephen Moore and Arthur Laffer chose in writing their new book, Trumponomics." Its not totally wrong to say that Mankiw is describing Laffer's book this way, but it is a bit deceptive to describe that as a direct description either. Mankiw is saying, in essence "this is the way partisans are and Laffer is being a partisan." I dont see any great need to fight that hard over this, if editors really feel this is a useful line, then fine, but i personally think its a bit of a stretch to say that Mankiw is directly describing Laffers work that way.

The more important point is the inclusion of the real meat of Mankiw's criticism. He spends the bulk of his editorial discussing taxes and economic growth, as summarized by the following line which i included "The Laffer curve is undeniable as a matter of economic theory. There is certainly some level of taxation at which cutting tax rates would be win-win. But few economists believe that tax rates in the United States have reached such heights in recent years; to the contrary, they are likely below the revenue-maximizing level." If we are to include Mankiw's criticism we should at least summarize it using the best quote possible. Bonewah (talk) 18:34, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Lede

An IP editor who is not editing under his/her real account has edit-warred an absurdly bad, puffery version version back into the lede[2]. This version of the lede is utter trash, as it's full of self-sourced puffery, and is extremely lengthy in size and for example lists Laffer's book (of zero interest to readers). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:21, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Looks fine to me, and it's the version of the lead that's stood for several months. As to "real accounts" your POV-warring is not an excuse to ignore AGF, believe it or not. Crazy, I know. 199.247.46.138 (talk) 04:16, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
The lede credits him for his "economic insight and influence in triggering a world-wide tax-cutting movement in the 1980s earned him the nickname "The Father of Supply-Side Economics."" and sources this his self-authored bio on HuffPo, which is a violation of WP:BLP and WP:LEDE (this content is not covered anywhere in the body). Please edit under your real account and own this embarrassment of a lede. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 04:57, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
Oof, a few issues here. First, lead. Second, do you have something that shows that his author profile on huffpo was written by himself? Third, if you think huffpo is the primogenitor source of Arthur Laffer being called the Father of Supply-Side Economics I'm not sure you have the competency to be editing his bio in the first place. You might want to take a remedial macro economics course. (If really necessary I have at least two other sources on hand that refer to him as such.) Fourth, again, there is no "real account", the only one embarrassing himself here is you, and it's getting hard to watch. 199.247.46.138 (talk) 05:06, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
The first steps to improving an article is to remove the crap and re-build it with good sources. Thank you for bringing my attention to this article. I'll make sure to overhaul it. And no, HuffPo author bios are, like most author bios, self-authored, and shouldn't be sourced for anything except mundane bio info. Furthermore, Laffer should not be credited with launching a "world-wide tax-cutting movement" without strong sources. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 05:23, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
Excessive detail in the lead is completely inappropriate. The lead should be a summary, not a list of books and co-authors. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:39, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
The book info does seem trimmable. The other information feels important enough for the lede. In particular I think it's very relevant to point out that he's commonly referred to as "the father of supply-side economics", which he is (referred to as). 199.247.43.74 (talk) 06:48, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
Also once again (you say you understand this and just keep acting in ways that suggest otherwise) BRD doesn't say "if you're reverted just make a token talk page post and then do your edit again." It explicitly says otherwise, in fact. DISCUSSION on the talk page is needed, not a statement. 199.247.43.74 (talk) 06:55, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
Then make a more limited edit on that basis, as long as that "father of . . ." content is refererenced properly. I am engaging in discussion, no matter what you assert. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:59, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
I'd be happy to make such a compromise. Regardless of what I 'assert' though, what BRD asserts is that you discuss before reinstating your edit, not after. Might be time for a good thorough refresher read. 199.247.43.74 (talk) 07:06, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

I have explained my reasoning in edit summaries, I have not exceeded WP:3RR, and I have engaged in talk page discussion. WP:BRD is neither policy nor a guideline, but it is good practice which I am attempting to follow. I have no idea what your problem is. Just make a good edit to the lead and move on. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:18, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

WP:BRD is neither policy nor a guideline Predictable pivot. Well in any case I'll make said reduced edit as soon as I'm out of the danger zone and we'll go from there. Good talk. 199.247.43.74 (talk) 07:27, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
I look forward to seeing your productive and well-referenced edit, as soon as you are prepared to make it. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:58, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Incident at Binghamton

Is the incident at SUNY Binghamton worth mentioning in the article? It has gotten a fair bit of coverage, see 1 2 3 4 etc. Inter&anthro (talk) 16:50, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Which Cleveland school did he attend?

Hawken or University School? (they are rivals) Somebody has been changing this page & the Hawken page notable alumni section to say he went to US not Hawken. It's quite possible that Laffer attended both, I don't know, but there is some documentation that he went to Hawken: Hawken blurb including notable alumni 1979 Hawken alumni magazine with Laffer article at p.7-8 Sullidav (talk) 04:55, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Arthur_Laffer/Archive_1&oldid=1084063031"