Talk:Arthur Laffer

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)

Napkin of eponymity?

The article contained this statement:

Laffer is believed to have derived this mathematical equation on a napkin, now affectionately depicted by economists as the "napkin of eponymity."

I've removed it, as no citation was given (either for the alleged napkin derivation or for the "affectionate" depiction by economists). Please feel free to restore it to the article if appropriate citations can be found. —Steven G. Johnson 03:14, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

Who needs a citation? Lawrence Kudlow has talked about the napkin when interviewed. The story is well-known among supply-siders. 2004-12-29T22:45Z 12:50, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia needs citations (see Wikipedia:Cite sources) — the criterion for inclusion in Wikipedia is not truth, but verifiability. A reference to one of the interviews with Lawrence Kudlow that you mention would be adequate, although an interview with Laffer himself would be ideal. A typical recounting seems to be:

"Useful economists are rare, so we should be grateful to Art Laffer. In 1974, dining with two ambitious young politicians called Cheney and Rumsfeld, he drew a curve on a napkin to show that since 100pc tax raises no money, there must be an optimum rate to maximise revenue. He guessed it might be quite low, since high rates destroy incentives and encourage evasion." ("The Art of maximising tax revenue - less equals more", Daily Telegraph p. O32, 17 May 2005).

However, there seems to be some dispute about whether Rumsfeld was present: Sketching the Laffer Curve. This page by Laffer cites the original story as coming from Jude Wanniski, "Taxes, Revenues, and the `Laffer Curve,'" The Public Interest, Winter 1978 — Laffer attributes the "Laffer Curve" term to Wanninsky. (Interestingly, Laffer claims here that Rumsfeld was present, but he says that he doesn't remember the details of that evening. Laffer also questions the story, saying: "My only question about Wanniski's version of the story is that the restaurant used cloth napkins and my mother had raised me not to desecrate nice things.")

I haven't been able to find any usages of "the napkin of eponymity" however, so it's not clear to me yet whether this is really a common phrase.

This is a good example of why references are useful, by the way — not only did the original Wikipedia sentence leave out interesting details like the presence of Cheney et al., it also seems to have gotten it somewhat wrong: the napkin doesn't seem to be where Laffer came up with the idea (he says in the article above that he used it in classes etc. all the time previously, and he attributes the idea to others in any case), but rather where he first presented it to important policy makers. I'll update the article based on the above references shortly. —Steven G. Johnson 15:55, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

All right. I've also never heard the term napkin of eponymity. It looks like that part of the sentence was garbage, but maybe the term is known by supply-siders. The story tells about a napkin though. That's for sure. Lawrence Kudlow was interviewed by The American Spectator (whatever that is). Here's part of the March 2001 interview archived on the Web site of Kudlow's company at http://www.kudlow.com/pdfs/American%20Spectator.pdf:

Kudlow: I don't know if it's fair to call O'Neill a Ford guy, but most of them are more free-market oriented today than they were 25 years ago. They've changed because they've seen how it can work. I think it's true for Cheney, true for Rumsfeld, true for O'Neill. They are, pardon the phrase, more conservative now. Although you know the Laffer Curve was launched in the Ford White House.

TAS: I thought it was launched on a cocktail napkin.

Kudlow: Yeah, but it was a Ford Administration cocktail napkin. Arthur Laffer was in Rumsfeld's office with Cheney in 1975. Laffer was a paid consultant. At cocktails, he drew the curve for them to explain how dropping tax rates from the prohibitive range would expand revenues. They couldn't convince Alan Greenspan, who was chairman of the Council, or Bill Simon, who was treasury secretary. So Ford never went with it. He had a tax rebate instead, an anti-recessionary "stimulus" like Jimmy Carter's. It lasted two quarters, pumped up the economy and evaporated. The economy sagged right down again.

As you see, Kudlow gives another year (1975 instead of 1974). Kudlow's a Laffer curve enthusiast, so he should know what he's talking about, but maybe the whole thing is just gossip. What I think, nonetheless, is that, no matter how gossipy or untrue the story is, it should be mentioned on the article, at least by warning the reader or by mentioning the different versions of the story. This legend about Laffer's napkin is well-known among supply-siders. That's why it should be mentioned. 2004-12-29T22:45Z 19:24, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

What I think is the whole story's too fuzzy. I don't know what to believe, but, anyway, it's an entertaining story, and it gives the reader an impression of what supply-siders gossip about. At least it shows they're enthusiasts and they've got enough imagination to make up a whole story about a napkin in a cocktail party or wherever it was. 2004-12-29T22:45Z 19:31, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

Note that Kudlow's account is second-hand. Wanniski's and Laffer's accounts are both first-hand, and they both give 1974 as the date. (Also note that it is easy to mix up a year in a spoken interview, so I would think in any case that a written account would be more accurate.) Anyway, details of this anecdote belong more in Laffer curve than here, which is why I put a brief summary here and more details there. —Steven G. Johnson 21:39, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

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)

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)

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:

• Arthur B. Laffer, "That Stimulus Nonsense", Wall Street Journal (February 13, 2008).
• Arthur B. Laffer and Stephen Moore, "New Evidence on Taxes and Income", Wall Street Journal (September 15, 2008).

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Falsehood about coronavirus deaths

Claiming that doctors are listing individuals struck by cars to death as "coronavirus deaths" is a complete falsehood and should be described as such per WP:FRINGE.[3] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:38, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

I disagree. The source sited merely said that the people it quoted disagree. Elevating their opinion to a fringe view is unwarranted. In any event, Laffer isnt known for his opinions on the coronavirus or how deaths are counted, i dont see a reason why this section is even included. Bonewah (talk) 14:55, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

The guy is working within the Trump administration on re-opening the economy amid the coronavirus pandemic. How could you possibly argue that his views on the coronavirus pandemic are irrelevant? Additionally, do you disagree that it's a falsehood that doctors around the country are passing off car crash victims as coronavirus victims? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:40, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Because he is only notable for his economic views, not his epidemiological views. As to how coronavirus victims are being counted, I dont know and neither do you. The fact that someone sited in the article disagrees with Laffer is not enough to say in Wikipedia's voice that his claim is false. Bonewah (talk) 16:10, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

I started a discussion on the FRINGE noticeboard.[4] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:19, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

As of today, all the respondents agree that the whole section should be removed. Im making that change and we can revisit this if need be. Bonewah (talk) 13:03, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

RfC: Laffer as Trump advisor on coronavirus

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There's a consensus to include a paragraph on this in the article, with exact wording to be determined. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 02:14, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

---

Should we add a paragraph to the article that mentions: (i) that Laffer is advising the trump administration on dealing with the coronavirus, and (ii) the policies that Laffer has advocated for in dealing with the coronavirus pandemic? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 05:33, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

The proposed text could go something like this:

• In 2020, Laffer advised the Trump administration on how to re-open the economy amid the coronavirus pandemic. Laffer argued against policies intended to protect at-risk groups at a cost to the economy. Laffer argued for halting coronavirus rescue relief spending, calling instead for payroll tax cuts. He advocated for taxes on non-profit organizations in education and the arts, as well as for salary reductions for professors and government officials. He argued against expansion of unemployment aid, arguing it discouraged people from working. He suggested that the coronavirus death toll was inflated, falsely claiming that doctors attributed deaths to the coronavirus regardless of whether the coronavirus caused the death: "When you attribute a death to the coronavirus today, what that means is that the guy had the coronavirus and died. It doesn’t matter if he got hit by a car and died, and he would still be categorized as a coronavirus death."

References

Survey

• Yes. This content is WP:DUE beyond any reasonable standard. First, it's covered by multiple RS and the text reflects what the RS say. Second, it's hard to think of anything that can be more important than advising and influencing the White House (heck, if he was advising a state government or the government of a small foreign country, it would be mentioned). Third, it's hard to think of anything that can be more important than advising a government on how to deal with an enormous unprecedented life-and-death crisis, such as the coronavirus pandemic. Fourth, it's inconceivable that we would exclude content in the bios of economists in previous eras who advised presidential administrations on how to deal with the Great Depression, Stagflation and the Great Recession. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:50, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose the alternative version proposed by Bonewah. The version in OP fleshes out his full views as to how to respond economically to the pandemic. It's beyond me why we should purposely remove half of his proposed policies. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:13, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

• Yes. Snooganssnoogans' reasoning seems flawless. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:10, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
• No Per above and the two uninvolved editors that responded on the FRINGE noticeboard this fails WP:10 year test. None of the proposed section is anything close to neutrally worded and, in most cases, Laffer is not the subject of the sources, he is only mentioned briefly. Im wondering if user:Deacon Vorbis and user:Nanophosis who responded on the Fringe noticeboard discussion feel that this proposed edit satisfies their objections Bonewah (talk) 15:32, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Oh, and i cant help but notice that you are again using the exact language that was soundly rejected, that Laffer "falsely" claimed the death tolls were inflated. Bonewah (talk) 15:39, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Claiming that doctors are fraudulently describing car crash deaths as COVID deaths is a falsehood. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:46, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Note this user claims that "none" of the text is neutrally worded, yet does not mention a single example of something that is erroneous or fails to reflect precisely what the cited RS say. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:46, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

I have offered what i think is a more neutral description of his positions. Bonewah (talk) 15:55, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Appearantly, Snooganssnoogans is opposed to even an attempt at compromise. Here is What my alternative proposal said before it was deleted:

• In 2020, Laffer advised the Trump administration on how to re-open the economy amid the coronavirus pandemic. He proposed a payroll tax holiday, new taxes on non-profits and a 15% pay cut to taxpayer funded salaries such as government employees and professors. He is opposed to expansion of unemployment aid.

References

It's rich to say that I oppose any attempt at compromise when (i) you repeatedly said that no content on the topic should be in the article, (ii) removed all content that mentioned Laffer in the context of the coronavirus, and (iii) ultimately threw together a small incomplete version of the text as soon as I started a RfC and you realized that editors would inevitably support inclusion of content. It's tendentious editing in the extreme. You showed zero will to compromise until I brought this to a wider audience. Contrast that to my behavior where I started talk page discussions, sought external input and tried pointlessly to argue that advising a presidential administration was obviously due (something which you absurdly rejected until I put this to wider input). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:13, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

YOu offered a whopping 2 comments before running off to the fringe noticeboard where everyone agreed with me! You never even gave me an opportunity to comment on your current proposal before putting in an RFC. Bonewah (talk) 19:00, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

You scrubbed any mention that Laffer advised Trump.[5] That's what prompted the RfC. Even now, you've still not restored the parts of the edit that you maintain was actually DUE, despite insisting that you were fully willing to seek a compromise. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:09, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

That edit is substantially different than what you proposed in this RFC. I have not made any edits to this article as it is currently the subject of that very same RFC and so, obviously i cant restore anything. And yes, i maintain that im willing to seek a compromise. I have said what my problems with your proposal are and offered my own proposal. You, on the other hand, have both deleted my talk page edits and attacked me personally. Bonewah (talk) 19:24, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

• No. It would be good to include information about his advising of the president, but the current wording is unusable because of the word "falsely". His "hit by a car" statement was somewhat awkwardly phrased, but there's at least a kernel of truth there, which is: when someone with a number of medical conditions dies, there's no way to know for sure what killed them, which means that some of the people diagnosed as having died due to COVID-19 did not actually die from that. Snooganssnoogans - I think your interpretation that he was accusing doctors of fraud is way off-base. Korny O'Near (talk) 16:18, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
• No. per Korny Pelirojopajaro (talk) 06:28, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
• Yes, include the information. But perhaps it should be worded differently. Benjamin (talk) 08:22, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
• Invited by the bot. Take the "falsely" out, the rest looks OK. He used the car as a hypothetical example, he did not say that that particular incident occurred. occurred. There is not even a weak case for saying "falsely" much less one that that meets the high standard of wp:BLP. When two situations work in tandem to cause a death, it is a matter of interpretation which one is the "cause"; he is saying that the other condition should often be treated as the cause. It's unthinkable to say that that concept is "false" in the voice of Wikipedia. North8000 (talk) 12:26, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
• Yes: I don't think the people who are opposed to the word "falsely" understand the underlying context here. When he gives that example, he is lying. That example is deliberately misleading. Doctors are not saying that someone who was hit by a car died of coronavirus even if they happened to have coronavirus. He, along with many other believers of this same conspiracy theory, is taking statistics showing that, for example, many people who have coronavirus die of "pneumonia" or "cardiopulmonary arrest" and claiming that means they didn't die of coronavirus but merely "with" coronavirus. This is as much a false claim as looking at the corpse of someone who you shot and saying "I didn't kill him! Look, the death certificate says he died of blood loss! Nothing to do with my bullet!" Loki (talk) 07:56, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
• No per Bonewah and Korny. Springee (talk) 12:54, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
• Yes, extensive coverage comparable to many things already in the article. WP:DUE is relative to overall coverage on the topic and the weight accorded to the rest of the article; it seems hard to argue that a paragraph on this is out of line with eg. several of his comments in the Politics section. --Aquillion (talk) 13:13, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
• Yes This is widely reported, consistent with Laffer's life's work and legacy, and particularly noteworthy as it marks a return of the iconic Reagan Republican policy architect to the front pages of political and policy discourse. SPECIFICO talk 18:29, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
• Yes. This is absolutely not recentism. It received plenty of attention, and while Laffer is unlikely to be known primarily for this, it's certainly significant and merits a paragraph. I state no opinion on the wording except to say that it's better than not having the paragraph at all. An RfC like this should never subvert the collaborative process by "locking in" a particular wording. I support including the proposed wording and then employing the standard BRD process to further refine it. R2 (bleep) 21:50, 5 January 2021 (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.

Deleted poorly sourced & unsourced material

I have alerted some WP editors Snooganssnoogans > Volunteer Marek  Bonewah who have worked on this page in case they want to give feedback.

I removed three things from the WP article:
1. The RS Time Magazine [6] piece does not say the Laffer Curve "is deemed one of "a few of the advances that powered this extraordinary century." So I removed it from the article.
Time Magazine writes, "1974 Arthur Laffer formulates his supply-side economic theories, which hold that reducing federal taxes spurs economic growth and, eventually, increases federal revenues"

2. There is also no evidence that Laffer was an advisor to Jerry Brown and the RS link [7] next to that assertion does not support it. The RS simply says Laffer thought Brown was "California's best governor" but made no mention of Laffer being his advisor. So I removed that.

3. There is no evidence that Laffer was an "advisor" to Margaret Thatcher, other than Laffer making that claim on his personal bio pages. The source used in the WP article is a 1 sentence article. I think a 1 sentence article is ... strange. Also, the source used does not appear to be a RS. Because of the poor sourcing, I removed the assertion that Laffer was an advisor to Margaret Thatcher

(background on Margaret Thatcher's Economic advisors) Sir Walters was her economic advisor, Geoffrey Howe was her Secretary of Commonwealth Affairs, and Jock Bruce-Gardyne was her Economic Secretary to the Treasury. The memoirs of Geoffrey Howe and Jock Bruce-Gardyne both claim that they were not influenced by the newer supply-side beliefs exemplified by the Laffer curve. In Thatcher's papers [8], I could only find Reagan's Economic Adviser Dr. Marty Feldstein met with Thatcher, but nothing on Feldstein being her advisor and nothing on Laffer advising her, nor meeting with her, nor being her advisor. Some non-scholars [9] have written that "it is more likely that the milder, older strain of supply-side economics (of the Martin Feldstein variety) held greater influence with Thatcherites than the newer, more extreme, supply-side theories that tax cuts could increase revenue." Margaret Thatcher's economic policy did not include the "Laffer Curve's trickle-down economic." Author Monica Prasad "noted that the British cuts (under Thatcher) in top and average income tax rates were funded by rises in indirect taxes and the proceeds of various privatisations, suggesting that the government did not believe that the income tax cuts would increase revenue by themselves and even Hugh Stephenson has admitted that the Laffer curve idea ‘was not an operational assumption within the Treasury.’" BetsyRMadison (talk) 19:08, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Discuss removing questionable assertions that are poorly sourced & unsourced

Again alerting some WP editors Snooganssnoogans > Volunteer Marek  Bonewah who have worked on this page in case they want to give feedback.

The questionably sourced things (in my deleted section above) and things I feel should be deleted (below here) within this WP:article seem to have been added by the same person in this diff [10]. That person joined WP March 2019 and has made 8 contributions to WP, all of them are about Laffer [11]

There is no evidence that Laffer was an "adviser" to Gary Hart and no evidence that Laffer helped Hart write his tax policy. The same WP editor that added that did not give any RS to support it and the only source I can find to support that claim is Laffer telling people. So I feel that should be removed until there is an RS to support it.

(background friend not advisor) In 1985 LA Times [12] wrote Laffer was friends with Hart but did not say he was Hart's advisor. LA Times writes, “Can you imagine if all of a sudden you could get out of the ghetto by studying instead of by playing basketball?” Laffer asked. “If you play basketball 16 hours a day, you become a great basketball player. If we could get these kids to study 16 hours a day, they’d become great students.” Such schemes have won Laffer the friendship of “new ideas” Democrat Sen. Gary Hart of Colorado and the grudging admiration of some fellow economists. “Whatever you think of Laffer’s ideas, at least he thinks,” said Lester C. Thurow, a liberal professor of management and economics at Massachusetts Institute of Technology whose views often differ from Laffer’s."

(background Hart's tax policy 180 degrees different from Laffer's) A 1984 New York Times [13] article reports that Gary Hart criticized Reagan's Laffer Curve's trickle-down economy. NYT reports, "In his effort to focus on the economy, Mr. Hart said the nation must avoid both a trickle-down economy and a bailout economy, and move instead to an opportunity economy. Without naming President Reagan, Mr. Hart said the revival of trickle- down economics represented a political gimmick and an economic tragedy to pump up the economy with unimaginable Federal deficits.
Given the fact that Hart rejected Reagan's Laffer curve, it seems unlikely that Laffer helped Hart write his tax policy. Since no RS confirms what is asserted within the WP article about Laffer & Hart, I feel that should be removed. BetsyRMadison (talk) 19:29, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree with your analysis. Remove, barring better sourcing. Thanks! Bonewah (talk) 19:58, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

RfC: Laffer curve in the lead – mention consensus?

Should the lead add a short sentence noting that there is consensus among economists that the United States is not on the wrong side of the Laffer Curve?

The text would be sourced to this survey of leading economists:[14]. (Original date of RfC: 20 July 2020). New date for the purposes of a RfC restart: Snooganssnoogans (talk) 05:32, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

 Note: RFC tag removed per WP:RFCBEFORE. There appears to have been zero discussion on this – merely one attempt at an addition that got reverted. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 13:47, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

For the record, I wholly support the reversion. A statement like that with no context is meaningless. Even with context, this is a biography about Laffer. Placement in the lead (or anywhere really), about a single survey about the current state of a single country is completely off-topic. And what's the "wrong side"? The survey doesn't even say anything about a "right" or "wrong" side; it merely asks about the predicted effects of a tax cut. Putting in the context of an idea which the article admits wasn't even original to Laffer is...just...Jesus man, do you even listen to yourself? (Not to mention that there isn't even universal acceptance that the Laffer curve is a meaningful model, but that's another story). –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:03, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

• You seem very unfamiliar with the topic in question, so here's a summary: Laffer's prime claim to fame is in popularizing the Laffer curve and arguing that the US is on the wrong side of it (that's why half the lead is about the Laffer curve). Being on the wrong side of the Laffer curve is the notion that tax cuts would pay for themselves, a notion that a consensus of economists reject. You want to obscure this consensus – good for you. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:16, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

In addition to the reasons cited by Decon Vorbis, WP:GLOBAL is relevant here. The Laffer curve is a general theory that (if correct) would apply to any taxation at any time anywhere on the planet. Randomly gluing some text into the lede about opinions about *one* tax in *one* country at *one* time is absurdly US biased. And you can stop calling this a "consensus". The sited source is simply a survey of some *US* economists, again, US biased. Bonewah (talk) 15:01, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

It's not a "general theory" it is generally viewed as nonsense. It was never more than a rationalization of policies that appealed to Reagan and that later underpinned the career of Laffer. SPECIFICO talk 15:09, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Well, this article notes that Greg Mankiw, a conservative economics professor at Harvard University said the authors "do not build their analysis on the foundation of professional consensus or serious studies from peer-reviewed journals. . . . 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. (emphasis mine). Even if it were a non-sense theory, its would be a general non-sense theory, not one specific to The US. Bonewah (talk) 15:23, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Its also worth noting that Karl Case and Ray Fair's 'Principles of Economics' 8th edition, a widely cited reliable source, absolutely does not describe the Laffer curve as nonsense. They say, in part, that "There is obviously some tax rate between zero and 100 percent at which tax revenue is at a maximum. ... Somewhere in between zero and 100 is the maximum-revenue rate". No where in their discussion of the laffer curve do they say or even imply that the theory is 'nonsense'. Bonewah (talk) 15:37, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

There's a difference between the Laffer curve (which no one disagrees with) and Laffer's application of the curve to the US (Laffer has argued consistently for decades that the US is on the wrong side of the curve), which there is a consensus against. As John Quiggin notes, the Laffer curve was "correct but unoriginal" whereas Laffer's analysis that the United States was on the wrong side of the Laffer curve "was original but incorrect."[15] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:07, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

And that is why we discuss Laffer's application of the curve in the US in the body of this article. The only real question is whether this survey, not a consensus, but a survey of some economists about one tax in one place at one time is relevant to the lede of a biography about Laffer himself. Bonewah (talk) 16:13, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Exactly. The "survey of leading economists" in the OP of this discussion fails WP:V because it does not say what the opening statement purports it to say. The questions presented to the economists in 2012 were, in their entirety: "Question A: A cut in federal income tax rates in the US right now would lead to higher GDP within five years than without the tax cut." and "Question B: 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." Nowhere does there appear any consensus among the surveyed economists about the Laffer Curve's general applicability or what side of it the US may or may not be on. We could extrapolate from those responses, especially the responses to Question B, what the economists might think about the Laffer curve but that would be clearly WP:SYNTH. Any general statement about the Laffer Curve's as a theory is not supported by the source offered. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:20, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

To expand on the above rather insightful comment, the survey doesn't even attempt to ask what side of the curve the US was on at the time. Assume for the sake of argument that a cut in tax rates would raise taxable income enough so that tax revenue would be only slightly lower than without the tax cut. Now compare that with the assumption that the slope of the curve at that point went the other way. The questions asked don't differentiate between getting 95% back and getting 0% or a negative percent back. It is a binary choice: over 100% back or under 100% back. Interesting, but useless when applied to claims about the slope of the curve at a particular time. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:51, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

On a side note, there is no "right" or "wrong" side. First we have to ignore the possibility that there are multiple local extrema on the curve, all while making the simplifying assumption where we treat an entire economy's output as a simple function of tax rates rather than as a complex dynamical system. Ignoring all that, then any point away from the maximum is suboptimal. Either side of the maximum is the "wrong" side. There's only a "wrong" side if you're making a statement with respect to either raising or lowering tax rates, in which case, either side may be the "wrong" side depending on your point of view. So making the statement that we're on the "wrong" side is meaningless and meant only to prejudice the reader. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 17:04, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Ah, very similar to the "consensus" based on an IGM survey over at Gold standard[16]. Pelirojopajaro (talk) 14:00, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Indeed yes. Bonewah (talk) 14:40, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Why has the original date of the RFC been changed? (I see "Ignore Expired" has also been introduced as well.)Rja13ww33 (talk) 05:52, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

[17] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 06:08, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Why restart this? Do you think 4:6 against will turn into a consensus to include? Springee (talk) 06:17, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Kind of odd to extend it since there are no new votes since July (and a slim consensus is there). But we can wait a while and put in a request for closure if no new votes emerge.Rja13ww33 (talk) 18:42, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

!Votes

• Oppose. (And I'm glad to be the first person to actually put in a "Support" or "Oppose"!) Whether it represents consensus or not, a random statement about the current tax policy of one country makes no sense anywhere in this article. Korny O'Near (talk) 15:11, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose It's not at all clear why such a POINTy comment would be in the lead of a BLP. Springee (talk) 15:38, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

• Support mention of consensus in the lead, just not in the first paragraph. It should definitely be mentioned in the paragraph that discusses it's use by US conservatives to justify tax reductions. Not mentioning it there would be egregious. LK (talk) 13:43, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support. Laffer's claim to fame is in very large party due to the Laffer curve and its purported application to US politics. There is consensus among economists that the US is not on the wrong side of the Laffer curve (confirmed with this survey and supported by every single tax cut assessment of the last 50 years), despite Laffer's rhetoric. As economist John Quiggin points out, the Laffer curve was "correct but unoriginal" whereas Laffer's analysis that the United States was on the wrong side of the Laffer curve "was original but incorrect."[18] See also the comment above by LK who has a PhD in economics and has published peer-reviewed research in econ journals. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:51, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support This has been the basis of previously unknown Laffer's lifelong notability. And it's the basis of the Reaganized GOP economic policy platform for the past several decades, taken on faith as the solemn rationalization of tax cuts for the most heavily taxed, i.e. Republican donors. SPECIFICO talk 13:58, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

The Laffer curve? Yes. This one survey of opinions about one particular tax? No. Bonewah (talk) 15:45, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose.Per above. And do note that several other editors seem to oppose it as well but have not specified it here. Bonewah (talk) 16:22, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support: per Snooganssnoogans soibangla (talk) 17:29, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - I seriously doubt the majority of our readers will even know what it means, much less care. It doesn't pass WP:10YT but it should be mentioned and defined somewhat in the body text if it truly is as significant as some seem to think. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 17:44, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose if we're having to !vote I may as well make my opposition clear. The proposed edit is supported by a reference that does not state what the proposer wants it to state. That fails our fundamental principles so badly it is disturbing to see experienced editors supporting it. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib)
• Oppose As per Eggishore's comments (on 16:20, 20 July 2020). I'm not sure if Laffer himself has ever said (explicitly) where the peak of "his" curve actually is. We can extrapolate through his support of various tax cuts where.....but he supported Bill Clinton at one point (who raised the top marginal rate) as well. If we can find a source more explicit on this point, I would change my vote.Rja13ww33 (talk) 23:33, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
• Qualified Support: I would support this alternative wording: after In certain circumstances, this would allow governments to cut taxes, and simultaneously increase revenue and economic growth. insert Laffer argued that these circumstances were much more common than most economists do, and that the United States was in those circumstances although most economists believe it was not. This is basically what we already have in the section for the Laffer Curve, and it's really this and not the curve itself that Laffer is known for. Loki (talk) 20:14, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

The source in question doesnt support your proposed additions. Bonewah (talk) 17:25, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

But several other sources in the relevant section we already have do. Loki (talk) 01:51, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Im not opposed to your proposed edit as it speaks to why Laffer is important. The problem is that you and Mx. Granger support !voted for something that is the exact opposite. The proposed edits at issue in this RFC seek to put in the lead not central details about Laffer's role in US economics, but a reference to an informal survey of some economists from 8 years ago about whether or not a change in one particular tax in the United States at that time would lead to increased revenue. As far as im concerned, you can make your edit now as it seems non-controversial to me. However, i would ask that you strike or reconsider your support for the RFC's proposed change as it runs counter to what you seem to support. Bonewah (talk) 03:49, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

I view it as a compromise proposal: it's not a support for Snoogan's exact wording but something that I think preserves Snoogan's intent while hopefully answering some of the objections to that particular wording. Loki (talk) 04:58, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose Seems somewhat absurd to use an 8 year old survey (in which only about 40 economists were polled) that asked for future predictions and, based off that, we extrapolate a "consensus" about the current state of the US economy. And stick this supposed "consensus" into a lead of a BLP? WP:OR is a policy for a reason. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 23:05, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
• Support something like Loki's suggestion, as that clarifies the relevance of the example in this biographical article. Oppose including this example in the lead without drawing the connection to Laffer's views. —Granger (talk · contribs) 15:26, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
• Support Loki's version. A huge part of the article is devoted to Laffer's impact on US politics and economics and on the debate over that, so it is important to have at least a sentence on the mainstream consensus on that impact somewhere in the lead. --Aquillion (talk) 13:16, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
• Support Loki version. This is one of the main things that Laffer is known for. (t · c) buidhe 03:10, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose To mention the US case in the introduction is geographical bias, to mention the current situation is temporal bias. The rejection of Laffer's view by other economists (when applied to the present moment) should be mentioned elsewhere in the article.Boynamedsue (talk) 15:00, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

I disagree because Laffer is not only an American economist who talks primarily about American economic policy, but at the time he became well known he was an adviser to the US government. Not all mentions of America are bias. (Also, my quote specifically refers to the situation at the time he proposed the Laffer Curve, or rather, proposed tax cuts based on the curve.) Loki (talk) 17:23, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose. Better sourcing needed, even for Loki's version. I'll bet it's out there. But neither proposal is reliably sourced. R2 (bleep) 21:44, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

The sourcing is in the section on the Laffer Curve, which cites several economists stating that Laffer was wrong about tax cuts leading to increased revenue at current tax rates. Loki (talk) 17:23, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support LokiTheLiar's version or something close to it. Lawrencekhoo, SPECIFICO, et al. are correct that the fact that what this person is notable for does not have much in the way of real-world consensus. So, per WP:FRINGE and WP:DUE we need to make that clear from the lead on down. But we need to avoid editorializing, or overstating the degree to which experts disagree with Laffer (which is by no means unanimously).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:03, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per Springee.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 14:07, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. per above discussion.Sea Ane (talk) 17:02, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per above discussion. Heart ^(talk) 05:07, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support. While debatably terrible, the Laffer curve is one of the top 10 reasons (shit, I'll say top 3) why the American economy is the way it is today. It's just as having a long-lasting impact as other parts of Reaganomics, and that's a pretty damn significant achievement on Laffer's part. 👨x🐱 (talk) 23:25, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose I'm sorry but I fail to see how the status of a single country (even if it is the world's second largest economy in ppp terms) at a single point in time could possibly be due weight for the lead in this or any bio. Honestly it comes off as some sort of WP:COATRACK, with helpings of WP:RECENTISM and WP:SYSTEMICBIAS. I get that Laffer was an American and the English Wikipedia is disproportionately written by Americans, but this is ridiculous. 2A03:F80:32:194:71:227:81:1 (talk) 02:56, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

The reason the status of the United States is important is because Laffer was an advisor to the US government when he developed the curve, and was clear that he did it to support Reagan's proposed tax plan. As such, whether the curve actually did support Reagan's tax plan is very important information. (Also, what do you think of my version?) Loki (talk) 05:18, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

@LokiTheLiar: thanks for your reply. I do find your suggestion superior. When I first read the proposal I was most reminded of this (permalink), which is just silly. I like your first clause which is not specific to any one place and time. More on the fence about your second leaning weak oppose. It's reasonable to put a spotlight on the status of the United States at the time he published the work, but that feels more like a body thing than a lead thing. What we absolutely should not be anywhere (barring some dedicated WP:LISTCRUFT which an AfD bizarrely finds acceptable). Are statements explaining that the consensus of economists in YYYY was that in year ZZZZ $COUNTRY was at position foo in economical diagram bar. Hope that clears things up. Cheers, 2A03:F80:32:194:71:227:81:1 (talk) 13:23, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose Including that in the lede is tantamount to editorializing. Discussions of where the US (or any other country) falls on the curve belongs in the body of the article. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 03:23, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

The reason the status of the United States is important is because Laffer was an advisor to the US government when he developed the curve, and was clear that he did it to support Reagan's proposed tax plan. As such, whether the curve actually did support Reagan's tax plan is very important information. (Also, what do you think of my version?) 05:18, 4 April 2021 (UTC)Loki (talk)

RfC: COVID-19 advisor in the Trump administration

The following discussion 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.

---

Should the bolded text (Laffer's belief that public health measures shouldn't be implemented if they are costly to the economy and his false claims that the COVID-19 death toll is inflated) be included in the body of the article?: Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:34, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

• In 2020, Laffer advised the Trump administration on how to re-open the economy amid the coronavirus pandemic. Laffer argued against policies intended to protect at-risk groups at a cost to the economy. Laffer argued for halting coronavirus rescue relief spending, calling instead for payroll tax cuts. He advocated for taxes on non-profit organizations in education and the arts, as well as for salary reductions for professors and government officials. He argued against expansion of unemployment aid, arguing it discouraged people from working. He suggested that the coronavirus death toll was inflated, falsely claiming that doctors attributed deaths to the coronavirus regardless of whether the coronavirus caused the death: "When you attribute a death to the coronavirus today, what that means is that the guy had the coronavirus and died. It doesn’t matter if he got hit by a car and died, and he would still be categorized as a coronavirus death."

References

Survey (2021 Jan)

• Yes. This is crucial context to understand the specific advice he's giving the Trump administration in his capacity as an official advisor. For example, his particular policy recommendations make more sense when it's clear that Laffer doesn't believe that the COVID-19 death numbers are accurate. To remove his fringe views on COVID-19 is to sanitize and whitewash the page, ultimately misleading readers as to the nature of his advice to the Trump administration. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:37, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

• No First this is a premature RFC. I don't see any discussion of this specific text prior to starting the RfC. Second, there is a world of difference between "Include exactly like this" and "some of this content could be included (with IMPARTIAL and DUE in mind)". There many be some merit to the material but I think things like the excessively long sentence regarding what is classified as a COVID death is too POINTY. The source was from last May which was early in the period of widespread response. At that time many people were trying to get their heads around the basic data. Additionally, the source for this quote is a biased publication. While I have do doubt the specific quote is true, the content may not be fully provided by the The Daily Beast. The inclusion reads more like it is included to make Laffer look bad vs to help the reader understand Laffer's basic position. A less alarmist, IMPARTIAL version of the same text could be used instead of this. Springee (talk) 14:53, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

First, this has been discussed[19]. Second, contrary to right-wing revisionist history, this is false: "At that time many people were trying to get their heads around the basic data." Fact-checkers at the time universally described those claims as false.[20][21][22][23] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:06, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Where is the previous discussion saying your preferred text is the correct one to include. The closed RfC didn't say that. You BOLDly added a version, another editor (not me) rejected it. Time to discuss to find consensus vs just starting yet another RfC. Springee (talk) 15:20, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

I think the first bolded sentence about economy vs at risk populations could be included if more context is added. Laffer's argument is that the slowing of the economy comes with it's own negative effects on health. "Arthur Laffer, a conservative economist known for his tax cut proposals, said allowing poverty to spread would cause its own significant health problems. " Effectively this is a tradeoff, not just a callous dismissal of at risk populations. Note that a number of sources (not about Laffer specifically) have made similar arguments when discussing lockdowns.[[24]] Springee (talk) 16:58, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

• No--isn't this like the 3rd RfC on Art Laffer? I find it odd that each RfC has been started in an effort to insert negative information on the subject. He wasn't on the White House COVID task force and he's not even mentioned in the article on the administration's response to the pandemic. Anyway, for the first bold part, the second LA Times article is completely redundant because the only mention of Laffer is in a hyperlink that redirects to the first LA Times article. The first LA Times article contains precisely four sentences on Laffer, and the only mention of Laffer's arguing against protecting "at-risk groups" stems from a sole sentence. The article never specifies which policies he supports or doesn't support. We are giving undue emphasis on a single sentence that lacks any context or nuance. Instead, shouldn't we just summarize his main arguments, which seems to be pay-roll tax cuts and minimal lockdown restrictions? As for the second bold part, it is once again wholly undue. There's a reason why WP:RSP states that we need to use caution when using the Daily Beast for "controversial statements of fact related to living persons." The reason why is that the Daily Beast regularly uses hyperbolic language and tends to write articles on topics most mainstream sources do not. Don't believe me? Try Googling the proposed quote: When you attribute a death to the coronavirus today, what that means is that the guy had the coronavirus and died. It doesn’t matter if he got hit by a car and died, and he would still be categorized as a coronavirus death. Nothing pops up (except in a few SPS). I don't doubt the authenticity of the quote, but we are giving improper weight on it. Also, we can not state in WP:WIKIVOICE that Laffer made a "false claim." We would have to attribute that to Bob Anderson, whose the one who states that Laffer's claim is incorrect. However, this would only be necessary if the material was due for inclusion in the first place--which it is not. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 10:41, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
• Yes: clearly present in the provided sources, those sources are clearly reliable, and obviously WP:DUE in the context of the above paragraph. Also, yes we can say in WP:WIKIVOICE that Laffer's claim was false. There is no point in attributing a contradiction to the person in charge of the CDC's statistics branch: the CDC's branch of statistics is obviously reliable for claims about the collection of coronavirus statistics. Trying to balance Laffer, a person with no particular expertise in how coronavirus statistics are gathered, against the head of the organization that gathers those statistics would be WP:FALSEBALANCE. Loki (talk) 16:17, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

  The Daily Beast simply isn't a source of enough note to include that rhetorical quote. Note that we aren't arguing about including the more important part which was a call for transparency as to what would be considered a COVID related death. Furthermore, the selection of this specific part of the quote from the DB seems to be included only to discredit the BLP subject rather than to offer a better understanding of their POV. Springee (talk) 16:58, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

• Yes: I see no reason to exclude them on the grounds of content, plausibility, or citation. Only here for the RFC, and the objections raised here look to me, as an outsider, strongly POV, irrelevant, and tendentious. JonRichfield (talk) 18:00, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
• No This is just more POV pushing by Snooganssnoogans. There is no inidcation that his speculation on what counts as a COVID death mattered to anyone or anything. This is cherry picking material for the purposes of making Laffer look bad. Bonewah (talk) 19:25, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
• 1 yes; 2 no, at least in that exact form. The first statement is true and important, the second may be reaching. It's not clear that his assessment was false (though if true was probably statistically insignificant), and while I and a zillion other people remember him saying it, I don't see any proof that it was significant in the long run. But the first part is of key importance to the article. Anyway, Snooganssnoogans is correct that "include exactly like this" and "some of this content could be included (with IMPARTIAL and DUE in mind)" are not equivalent. The first statement under discussion about Laffer could actually be reworded in various ways as long as it's present and got the same gist across. The "reaching" in the second (the implication that it made a big difference) can be excised per WP:NOR, while the bare fact that Laffer said this (quoted or paraphrased) could be retained somewhere without editorializing about it; it definitely was reported and controversial, we're just not bound to report every controversy, nor are we permitted to extrapolate about controversies.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:21, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

  This comment implies to me that when Laffer says When you attribute a death to the coronavirus today, what that means is that the guy had the coronavirus and died. It doesn’t matter if he got hit by a car and died, and he would still be categorized as a coronavirus death, you're reading that in a significantly different way than I do. It sounds to me like your interpretation is something like There exists at least one person who has had coronavirus, been hit by a car, and was categorized as a death from coronavirus. I agree it's very hard to disprove that interpretation conclusively, but I don't think we have to. I think that when Laffer says When you attribute a death to the coronavirus today, what that means is that the guy had the coronavirus and died, he's speaking in general terms. He's saying It's the general practice of statistics authorities to attribute all deaths of people with coronavirus to coronavirus regardless of the actual cause of death, which is definitely both falsifiable, and false. We have the head of the CDC statistics authority saying conclusively that it's false. Loki (talk) 21:32, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

  It's not about what my interpretation might be or what you think, but rather what the RS are telling us. That's all I'm really getting at. As in the RfC above this one (where I'm agreeing with your version), we need to let DUE do its job, basically: avoid editorializing or trying to imply everyone thinks this or everyone thinks that, and go with the fact that most of the sources and experts are leaning a particular way on it, though that interpretation isn't universal. It's more important that what the person is actually notable for is covered, rather than something that was a public-relations blip that fired up various people (positively or mostly negatively) but which in a year or 5 years or 100 years won't be why people are reading this article. Pretty much everyone with any connection to US politics during the Trump administration said controversial things; we don't need to catalogue all of them.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:09, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

  Is this a comment that was meant as rhetorical hyperbole when made or do we know that Laffer literally thought this was true? One of my concerns with quote mining (both by sources and on Wikipedia) is so often context is lost. It is clear that Laffer was concerned that the fatality numbers may be inflated. Do we think he literally believed that a person with a mild case of COVID who happens to die due to clear injuries suffered in a car crash would be counted as a COVID death? A more impartial way of handling this would be to say what his point was rather than cherry picking the hyperbolic rhetorical statement as if that was the critical point. It would be impartial to say Laffer claimed/said/was concerned that deaths that were not directly attributable to COVID were being classified as such which would inflate the fatality statistics. This was disputed by X. While it happens all the time, taking rhetorical comments out of the speaker's context is poor reporting and not something we should support here. Springee (talk) 13:30, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

  We are not cherrypicking what the source wrote. This is exactly what the source wrote about Laffer: he used bad reasoning, and it was refuted. If there has been cherrypicking, it was done by the reliable source, and if you are trying to argue against that, you are second-guessing that reliable source. Which is called WP:OR.

  You could argue that it is WP:UNDUE. But this affair is pretty representative for the way economy-minded people like Laffer approach problems which lie outside their expertise, such as climate change or COVID-19: by grasping for straws. Laffer is the one who is cherry-picking. Worse: the cherries he picks do not even exist as data, they are hypothetical. RS noticed, and we report that. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:51, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

  You should review WP:OR. This is a talk page where OR is allowed. We aren't even including the full quote that the rather partisan Daily Beast attributed to Laffer ("... You need the whole transcribed medical records on a disk so people can sit there, maybe without names, and look for causes and correlations."). If this quote is only attributed to DB then it isn't due. If, as you suggest, many other sources are talking about this quote then show them. Additionally, your comment that, "this affair is pretty representative for the way economy-minded people like Laffer approach problems which lie outside their expertise", suggests that you want to include this, not because it's significant to Laffer but because you feel it's significant to the public debates about COVID. That's fine. Add it, with full context etc, to those articles. Springee (talk) 15:23, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

  WP:OR is a very basic rule. I have been editing Wikipedia for 15 years now, and when I say "this is OR" in this contexxt, you can assume that I don't mean "you should not write your own conclusions on Talk pages" but "we should not modify the article based on your own conclusions that a reliable source made a mistake".

  When I said, this affair is pretty representative, now that was OR on my side, which is, as you say, allowed on Talk pages. I never had any intention of adding it to articles, and I never suggested anything like it. Instead, I just used it to explain why Laffer's extremely stupid and misleading car claim, which was refuted by a reliable source, is an interesting fact about him. You don't accept that, fine. But don't invent strawmen about what I supposedly want to include where and which rules I supposedly have to review. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:30, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

• Yes This is an accurate quote that was widely covered and is relevant to include. Reywas92^Talk 06:46, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
• Yes If someone known for his expertise in subject A utters dangerous bullshit about subject B, and some uninformed people take him seriously because they do not understand the way academic knowledge works, and experts on subject B state that his claims are false, and if we have reliable secondary sources about all that, Wikipedia should not help him spread misinformation by concealing the fact that he does. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:39, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

• Are we here to impartially summarize this person or right great wrongs? Springee (talk) 14:44, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

• Some of us are here to report on what reliable sources say about Laffer. If they criticize him for saying stupid things, so be it. "Impartial" does not mean cutting the negative stuff out. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:55, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

• It is one thing to summarize, it is another to try to imply something that his rhetorical hyperbole may not have meant. Look at the actual statement from Laffer then look at how Snoogans's is summarizing it to mean something else. Laffer's comment "It doesn’t matter if he got hit by a car and died, and he would still be categorized as a coronavirus death." is clearly hyperbole. Look at the part of the quote that Snoogan's chose to leave out, "You need the whole transcribed medical records on a disk so people can sit there, maybe without names, and look for causes and correlations." That moves us back to something closer to what he originally said. Note that the DB doesn't provide the full source for that quote and it's not exactly an impartial source. Laffer may be wrong in the end but the presentation here seems to be aimed at making him look like an idiot/conspiracy theorist rather than someone pointing out a legitimate, if ultimately incorrect concern. Springee (talk) 15:23, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

  "Clearly hyperbole"? Nothing clear about it. See Poe's Law.

  "You need the whole transcribed medical records" is his conclusion from his car accident "hyperbole". Yes, it is desirable to have lots of information in order to arrive at a reliable number. But that has to be weighted against the time needed for that. If you do not look at all the details, you will make mistakes in both directions, mistakes which make the virus seem more dangerous or less dangerous. So, what mistakes are we talking about here? Laffer chose to mention one hypothetical error, one which no professional would make and which, wonder of wonders, would make the COVID numbers increase. The picture Laffer draws is one where doctors either fake data, or make moronic mistakes, to make the virus seem more dangerous, and where free-market economists need to tell them how to do their job. (Well, they don't. Free-market economists' actual role is hindering doctors and other scientists, e.g. climatologists, doing their job, driving out actual, fact-based reasoning and replacing it by ideology-driven lies.) That picture does not change when you add the "whole transcribed medical records" bit. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:57, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

• Is there any proof that "some uninformed people take him seriously" in this regard as you claim? Bonewah (talk) 15:56, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

  WP:SKYISBLUE? Some people even took Trump's suggestions on preventing COVID with disinfectants seriously. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:57, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Really? No need for proof then? This is important because some people took him seriously and we know that because you said so? Id say im surprised, but your parenthetical statement suggests you were going to reach this conclusion no matter what it took, and here we are. Bonewah (talk) 13:45, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

If you insist on this, you can remove the "some uninformed people take him seriously" part in your head, and the rest of what I said is still a good justification for keeping the text. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:47, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

• Yes and Yes - Both widely reported and widely repeated by Trump and his supporters. SPECIFICO talk 17:51, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Well im glad we resolved that via facts and citations and not just assertion. Bonewah (talk) 18:18, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

• Yes, these are accurate summaries of the sources, which seem to be reasonably extensive. The latter quote is specifically cited in the source in the context of a broader push from the Trump administration to argue that COVID deaths were being overcounted, with Laffer's argument specifically being given as an example of how that argument is presented by his closest advisors. It is unusual for a presidential advisor's specific advice to get that much attention, so a few brief sentences covering it in the section devoted to that part of his biography is appropriate. --Aquillion (talk) 06:24, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Remember that the latter quote, which was cut down from the quote in the DB. The DB is a rather biased source so the fact that they decided to fixate on such a "soundbite" doesn't really mean it's something that would pass the 10YT. Springee (talk) 14:02, 30 January 2021 (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.