Talk:Arthur Laffer/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

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)

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.[1] 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.[2] 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)

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 [3] 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 [4] 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 [5], 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 [6] 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 [7]. That person joined WP March 2019 and has made 8 contributions to WP, all of them are about Laffer [8]

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 [9] 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 [10] 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 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.[11] 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.