Talk:Arthur Laffer

Exchange with Schiff

Watch Laffer mock Peter Schiff for predicting the current recession: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LfascZSTU4o —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.138.210.150 (talk) 23:26, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Laffer is the biggest smart-ass out there, so i think it's fair to unmask him with his hilarious comments earlier on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.100.61.77 (talk) 14:26, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

What's wrong with mentioning this interview, why do you guys feel the need to edit it? Laffer has been hilariously wrong for a very long time. I think this has to be mentioned somewhere and I will continue to edit the article. It's not like we're talking about being wrong in a "regular" way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.75.205.70 (talk) 12:46, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree, this should be listed. Cause it was on the record. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.30.95.236 (talk) 06:27, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree too. Why is there no interview Dragonlord kfb (talk) 03:57, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Will someone finally put on the article the interview? By removing the interviev the article looses objectivity 217.197.165.235 (talk) 20:44, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Hyperbole

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

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)

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)