Misplaced Pages

Talk:Arthur Laffer: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 23:53, 25 January 2016 editBonewah (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers14,108 edits RfC on the Laffer Curve, economists poll← Previous edit Latest revision as of 16:12, 17 July 2024 edit undoQwerfjkl (bot) (talk | contribs)Bots, Mass message senders4,012,431 editsm Removed deprecated parameters in {{Talk header}} that are now handled automatically (Task 30)Tag: paws [2.2] 
(244 intermediate revisions by 53 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Talk page}}
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|blp=yes|1=
{{WikiProject Biography {{WikiProject banner shell|blp=yes|class=C|listas=Laffer, Arthur|1=
{{WikiProject Biography|s&a-work-group=yes}}
|living=yes
{{WikiProject Economics|importance=Low|auto=inherit}}
|class=Start
{{WikiProject United States|importance=Low|OH=Yes|OH-importance=mid|Youngstown=yes|Youngstown-importance=mid}}
|listas=Laffer, Arthur
{{WikiProject Conservatism |importance=Low}}
|s&a-work-group=yes
}} }}
{{annual readership}}
{{WikiProject Economics|class=Start|auto=inherit|importance=}}

{{WikiProject United States|class=Start|importance=Low|OH=Yes|OH-importance=mid|Youngstown=yes|Youngstown-importance=mid|listas=Laffer, Arthur}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
{{WikiProject Conservatism}}
| algo = old(365d)
| archive = Talk:Arthur Laffer/Archive %(counter)d
| counter = 2
| maxarchivesize = 150K
| archiveheader = {{Automatic archive navigator}}
| minthreadstoarchive = 1
| minthreadsleft = 3
}} }}


== RfC: Laffer curve in the lead – mention consensus? ==
==Hyperbole==
{{Archive top
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." ] 04:37, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
|result = <nowiki/>

* Consensus is against inclusion of this material in the lede.
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 -- ] (]) 07:38, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
* 16 !votes against inclusion vs 10 include (5 unqualified inclusion and 5 limited support)

* This RfC has been open since 20 July 2020 with plenty of discussion, no need to keep it open any longer.
You should take what The New York Times (and Krugman) says, and believe the opposite. -- ] (]) 10:31, 12 April 2015 (UTC) -- It is rather extreme to say a person has never been right about anything.
:] (]) 14:20, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

|status = summary }}
==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. ] 03:14, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

:Who needs a citation? ] 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)

::''Misplaced Pages'' needs citations (see ]) &mdash; the criterion for inclusion in Misplaced Pages 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: . by Laffer cites the original story as coming from Jude Wanniski, "Taxes, Revenues, and the `Laffer Curve,'" ''The Public Interest'', Winter 1978 &mdash; 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 &mdash; not only did the original Misplaced Pages 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. ] 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. ] 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 ] than here, which is why I put a brief summary here and more details there. ] 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? --] | ] 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"? ] 03:09, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

::Seems to me that ]'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. ] 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. ] (]) 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". ] (]) 16:16, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Seems like a sensible point. Tax the inheritor, then call it inheritance tax ] (]) 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. -- ] (]) 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? <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 06:47, 11 May 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

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) <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 04:01, 4 June 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

==Publications redux==
Can this section be trimmed/cleanup/removed/whatever. As pointed out 3 years ago, it takes up most of the article? Anyways, --] ] 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?--] (]) 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. ] (]) 13:14, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
::::OK. Could you select the ones to keep? Thanks.--] (]) 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, , ''Wall Street Journal'' (February 13, 2008).
* Arthur B. Laffer and Stephen Moore, , ''Wall Street Journal'' (September 15, 2008).
:::::add them or no? ] (]) 19:59, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
::::::Fine with me. Anyone else have an opinion? --] (]) 02:01, 27 May 2010 (UTC)


==Antarctican==


Does such a thing exist? Can we get a citation? <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 03:42, 14 August 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


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?
== 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). (]) 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. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 18:58, 3 September 2013 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
==Put work in perspective==
:Yeah so you sketch out his theory.


The text would be sourced to this survey of leading economists:. (Original date of RfC: 20 July 2020). New date for the purposes of a RfC restart: ] (]) 05:32, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
:But how has it panned out in actual practice over the past 40 years and what's Laffer's reputation & standing within his profession?


:{{note2}} RFC tag removed per ]. There appears to have been zero discussion on this{{snd}}merely one attempt at an addition that got reverted. &ndash;]&nbsp;(]&nbsp;&bull;&nbsp;]) 13:47, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
:No clue to any of this available from reading article.
:{{pb}}For the record, I wholly support the reversion. A statement like that with no context is meaningless. Even with context, this is a {{em|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). &ndash;]&nbsp;(]&nbsp;&bull;&nbsp;]) 14:03, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
] (]) 15:32, 2 October 2014 (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 ] 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. ] (]) 14:16, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
:::In addition to the reasons cited by Decon Vorbis, ] 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. ] (]) 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. ]] 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. ] (]) 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'. ] (]) 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 ] 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." ] (]) 16:07, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
== Laffer and politics ==
:::::::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. ] (]) 16:13, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
::::::::Exactly. The "survey of leading economists" in the OP of this discussion fails ] 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 ]. Any general statement about the Laffer Curve's as a theory is not supported by the source offered. ] ] ] 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. --] (]) 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 ] 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 ]. 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. &ndash;]&nbsp;(]&nbsp;&bull;&nbsp;]) 17:04, 20 July 2020 (UTC)


Ah, very similar to the "consensus" based on an IGM survey over at ]. ] (]) 14:00, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
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. -- ] (]) 10:40, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
:Indeed yes. ] (]) 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.)] (]) 05:52, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
: ] (]) 06:08, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
::Why restart this? Do you think 4:6 against will turn into a consensus to include? ] (]) 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.] (]) 18:42, 24 December 2020 (UTC)


===!Votes===
== Laffer curve criticisms ==


* '''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. ] (]) 15:11, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
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 ] 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. ] (]) 13:34, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
* '''Oppose''' It's not at all clear why such a POINTy comment would be in the lead of a BLP. ] (]) 15:38, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
:In response to ] in 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 13:23, 19 October 2015 (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. ] (]) 13:43, 27 July 2020 (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.<span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span> 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. ] (]) 13:58, 19 October 2015 (UTC) * '''Support.''' Laffer's claim to fame is in very large party due to the ] 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 ] 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." See also the comment above by LK who has a PhD in economics and has published peer-reviewed research in econ journals. ] (]) 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. ]] 13:58, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
:The Laffer curve? Yes. This one survey of opinions about one particular tax? No. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 16:22, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
* '''Support:''' per {{u|Snooganssnoogans}} ] (]) 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 ] but it should be mentioned and defined somewhat in the body text if it truly is as significant as some seem to think. ] <sub>]</sub> ] 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 ] so badly it is disturbing to see experienced editors supporting it. ] ] ]
* '''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.] (]) 23:33, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
* '''Qualified Support''': I would support this alternative wording: after {{tq|In certain circumstances, this would allow governments to cut taxes, and simultaneously increase revenue and economic growth.}} insert {{tq|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. ] (]) 20:14, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
::The source in question doesnt support your proposed additions. ] (]) 17:25, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
::: But several other sources in the relevant section we already have do. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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? ] is a policy for a reason. ] (]) 23:05, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
* '''Support something like ]'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. —]&nbsp;(] '''·''' ]) 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. --] (]) 13:16, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
*'''Support''' Loki version. This is one of the main things that Laffer is known for. (] &#183; ]) ''']''' 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.] (]) 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.) ] (]) 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. ] <small>(])</small> 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. ] (]) 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 ] and ] 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). <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] 😼 </span> 11:03, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' per Springee. ] ] 14:07, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
* '''Oppose.''' per above discussion.] (]) 17:02, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
* '''Oppose''' per above discussion. ] <sup><small>]</small></sup> 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 ], and that's a pretty damn significant achievement on Laffer's part. ] (]) 23:25, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
* '''Oppose''' <ins>(but support Loki's first clause, see below)</ins> 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 ], with helpings of ] and ]. I get that Laffer was an American and the English Misplaced Pages is disproportionately written by Americans, but this is ridiculous. ] (]) 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?) ] (]) 05:18, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
:::{{re|LokiTheLiar}} thanks for your reply. I do find your suggestion superior. When I first read the proposal I was most reminded of ] (), 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 ] 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, and that applies regardless of how many Wikipedians are from $COUNTRY. Hope that clears things up. Cheers, ] (]) 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. <b>] ]</b> 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)] (])
::: , I still don't believe Misplaced Pages needs to make that declaration in the lede. Furthermore, the wording is a little awkward; "most economists" being used twice in sentence. <b>] ]</b> 16:30, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' This is not notable anough to place in the lede, but would work well in ]'s lede. ~ ]] 19:04, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' in the lead of this article, as per all the above reasons. Could go it the text body of Laffer curve or Economy of the United States. ] (]) 18:27, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
{{Archive bottom}}


== RfC: COVID-19 advisor in the Trump administration ==
:::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. ] (]) 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 ] article, why should it be included in a brief summary of the Laffer curve? ] (]) 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.<span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span> 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? ] (]) 15:14, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
::::::Worth noting here, ] accepted my view on nearly an identical edit in a nearly identical situation on ]. See on ]. ] (]) 18:00, 23 October 2015 (UTC)


{{Archive top
:::::: 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. ] (]) 19:04, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
|result = <nowiki/>
:::::::Ok ill bite, in what way is this edit substantially different than the one you just agreed to remove in Jude Wanniski? ] (]) 21:12, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
* Consensus appears in favor of including the first statement.
* There is no clear consensus regarding the second statement; concerns related to the exact context and phrasing may be the reason why proper consensus was unable to form.
: ] <sub>'''/'''</sub><sup>'''/''' '']''</sup> 08:48, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
|status = summary }}


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?: ] (]) 14:34, 14 January 2021 (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? ] (]) 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 Misplaced Pages, 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? ] (]) 22:53, 23 October 2015 (UTC)


* In 2020, Laffer advised the Trump administration on how to re-open the economy amid the coronavirus pandemic.<ref>{{Cite news|date=2020-05-02|title=Conservative groups advising White House push fast reopening, not testing|language=en|work=Reuters|url=https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-usa-plans-analysis-idUSKBN22D6BD|access-date=2020-05-21}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news|last=|first=|date=2020|title=34 days of pandemic: Inside Trump’s desperate attempts to reopen America|work=The Washington Post|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/34-days-of-pandemic-inside-trumps-desperate-attempts-to-reopen-america/2020/05/02/e99911f4-8b54-11ea-9dfd-990f9dcc71fc_story.html|url-status=live|access-date=}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|title=The Fatal Calculations of the Economists Steering Our Public Health|url=https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/04/arthur-laffer-lawrence-kudlow-stephen-moore-public-health.html|last=Chait|first=Jonathan|date=2020-04-25|website=Intelligencer|language=en-us|access-date=2020-05-21}}</ref> '''Laffer argued against policies intended to protect at-risk groups at a cost to the economy.<ref>{{Cite web|title=Mounting jobless claims point to a 15% unemployment rate for April|url=https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2020-04-09/coronavirus-weekly-jobs-report|date=2020-04-09|website=Los Angeles Times|language=en-US|access-date=2020-05-21}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|title=Reopening the economy vs. keeping it shut longer. What's more costly?|url=https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2020-04-23/whats-worse-reopening-the-economy-or-keep-it-shut-down-longer|date=2020-04-23|website=Los Angeles Times|language=en-US|access-date=2020-05-21}}</ref>''' Laffer argued for halting coronavirus rescue relief spending, calling instead for payroll tax cuts.<ref>{{Cite news|last=Reuters|date=2020-05-01|title=Conservative Groups Advising White House Push Fast Reopening, Not Testing|language=en-US|work=The New York Times|url=https://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2020/05/01/us/01reuters-health-coronavirus-usa-plans-analysis.html|access-date=2020-05-14|issn=0362-4331}}</ref><ref name=":4">{{Cite web|title=A former Reagan economist wants to slash the salaries of professors and public officials — while simultaneously proposing tax cuts to stimulate the coronavirus-stricken economy|url=https://www.businessinsider.com/reagan-economist-arthur-laffer-tax-cuts-stimulate-coronavirus-trump-economy-2020-4|last=Zeballos-Roig|first=Joseph|website=Business Insider|access-date=2020-05-21}}</ref> He advocated for taxes on non-profit organizations in education and the arts, as well as for salary reductions for professors and government officials.<ref name=":4" /> He argued against expansion of unemployment aid, arguing it discouraged people from working.<ref name=":4" /> '''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."<ref>{{Cite news|last=Suebsaeng|first=Erin Banco{{!}}Asawin|date=2020-05-13|title=Team Trump Pushes CDC to Dial Down Its Death Counts|language=en|work=The Daily Beast|url=https://www.thedailybeast.com/team-trump-pushes-cdc-to-dial-down-covid-death-counts|access-date=2020-05-13}}</ref>'''
:::::::::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". ] (]) 16:27, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
{{ reflist-talk }}
::::::::::So this is different from Jude Wanniski because... ]? ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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 Misplaced Pages. Im trying to ] here, but you are acting like you ].] (]) 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. ] (]) 00:14, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
{{outdent}}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. ] (]) 13:41, 29 October 2015 (UTC)


===Survey (2021 Jan)===
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 ].<span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span> 16:24, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
* '''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. ] (]) 14:37, 14 January 2021 (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. ] (]) 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? <span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span> 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. ] (]) 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? --] | ] 04:01, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
::::::The numerous editors were mostly on ] 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. ] (]) 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.<span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span> 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? ] (]) 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.] (]) 23:13, 23 January 2016 (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. ] (]) 14:53, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
== Personal life section ==
:: First, this has been discussed. 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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.] ] (]) 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 ] and he's not even mentioned in the article on ]. 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 ] 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 ] 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 ] 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. ] (]) 10:41, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
* '''Yes''': clearly present in the provided sources, those sources are clearly reliable, and obviously ] in the context of the above paragraph. Also, yes we can say in ] 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 ]. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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 ], 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. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] 😼 </span> 20:21, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
*: This comment implies to me that when Laffer says {{tq|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 {{tq|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 {{tq|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 {{tq|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. ] (]) 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. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] 😼 </span> 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 Misplaced Pages) 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. ] (]) 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 ].
*::::You could argue that it is ]. 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. --] (]) 14:51, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
*:::::You should review ]. 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. ] (]) 15:23, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
*::::::] is a very basic rule. I have been editing Misplaced Pages 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, {{tq|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. --] (]) 07:30, 29 January 2021 (UTC)


*'''Yes''' This is an accurate quote that was widely covered and is relevant to include. ]<sup>]</sup> 06:46, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
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. -- ] (]) 11:57, 17 October 2015 (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, Misplaced Pages should not help him spread misinformation by concealing the fact that he does. --] (]) 14:39, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
:*Are we here to impartially summarize this person or right great wrongs? ] (]) 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. --] (]) 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. ] (]) 15:23, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
:::*:"Clearly hyperbole"? Nothing clear about it. See ].
:::*:"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. <small>(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.)</small> That picture does not change when you add the "whole transcribed medical records" bit. --] (]) 07:57, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
:::*Is there any proof that "some uninformed people take him seriously" in this regard as you claim? ] (]) 15:56, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
:::*:]? Some people even took Trump's suggestions on preventing COVID with disinfectants seriously. --] (]) 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. ] (]) 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. --] (]) 10:47, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
*'''Yes and Yes''' - Both widely reported and widely repeated by Trump and his supporters.]] 17:51, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
:Well im glad we resolved that via facts and citations and not just assertion. ] (]) 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. --] (]) 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. ] (]) 14:02, 30 January 2021 (UTC)


{{Archive bottom}}
== RfC on the Laffer Curve, economists poll ==


== Removal of peer-reviewed study ==
I have opened an RfC on the economists poll and the Laffer curve on the ]. 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. ] (]) 15:31, 23 November 2015 (UTC)


The editor Bonewah removed content sourced to a Princeton University Press book by economist John Quiggin where Quiggin clarifies the distinction between the Laffer curve itself and how Laffer applied the curve to contemporary US tax policy: "Economist ] distinguishes between the Laffer curve and Laffer's analysis of tax rates. The Laffer curve was "correct but unoriginal", but Laffer's analysis that the United States was on the wrong side of the Laffer curve "was original but incorrect."" I see no reason why this high-quality content should not be included. ] (]) 18:12, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
:The RfC for the ] page does not automatically apply to the ] 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.] (]) 23:10, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
:I've never seen a RS that says everything put out by Princeton University Press is peer reviewed. Granted they publish peer reviewed work....but that doesn't mean all their publications are. That being said, I agree with you that it probably should stay in. I think it helps to put things in perspective.] (]) 18:23, 7 July 2021 (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. ] (]) 23:18, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
:: All PUP books are peer-reviewed. It's a top university press. ] (]) 18:29, 7 July 2021 (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/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment"''. Bottomline, that's not how an RfC works.] (]) 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 ] is on you to demonstrate that this material should be added. ] (]) 23:15, 25 January 2016 (UTC) :::Ok fair enough but here is how they describe their "peer review" process: "<i>Once Press teams have agreed that a work is a potential fit for the Press, a proposal or draft manuscript undergoes peer review, during which readers with expertise assess the work's potential impact."</i> Assess the work's potential impact? That doesn't sound like a accuracy check to me.] (]) 18:38, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
::I removed it for two reasons. Primarily, the sentence tells the reader nothing new about Arthur Laffer. That this one economist is unimpressed by the Laffer curve is hardly informative, especially because the quote we provide is just Quiggin saying that Laffer is unoriginal. No new information is provided, nothing is learned, its no better than a quote saying that Laffer is brilliant. Without something more, its just fluff. Two, the book its quoted from is 'Zombie Economics', not some peer reviewed source as Snooganssnoogans would like us to believe. The fact that its published by Princeton University Press does not mean it is peer reviewed, or even has any connection to Princeton's economics school. In any event, the Laffer Curve has its own page where a more thorough discussion of the Laffer Curve is more appropriate. ] (]) 18:31, 7 July 2021 (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.] (]) 23:29, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
::: 1. It's clearly pertinent info for readers that A. there's a distinction between the Laffer curve and its application to contemporary US tax policy and B. that main insights of the Laffer curve are not original. 2. The book is peer-reviewed. You do yourself no favors by falsely claiming it's not. ] (]) 18:34, 7 July 2021 (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 ] 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. ] (]) 23:53, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
::::] Puts what into perspective? That John Quiggin doesnt think the Laffer Curve is original? How is this one economists opinion relevant? Especially as we quote Laffer himself as saying he didnt originate the idea? What are we gaining by including this sentence? ] (]) 18:36, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
::::: It clarifies the potency of the Laffer curve as an idea: the originality does not lie in the idea that a tax can be counterproductive, but that the US was on wrong side of the curve. A similar point is made by ] in his book on narrative economics (again, published by PUP). ] (]) 18:39, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
::::::Its also worth noting that we have like 6 other sentences in that paragraph which say the same thing, but in more concrete terms. Whats the value in adding one more sentence that basically says 'me too, says John Quiggin'. We already cite the IGM survey, Greg Mankiw and Douglas Holtz-Eakin, What does Quiggin add? ] (]) 18:41, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
:::::It basically makes the very relevant point that #1 there is a Laffer Curve, but (#2) the US top marginal rates aren't on the right hand side of it. Very succinct. (At least to me.)] (]) 18:42, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
:::::::Its succinct because its just stating this guys opinion. And its at the end of a whole paragraph which not-so-succinctly states the same thing three different ways. Just a reminder, this is a biography of Art Laffer, not a page about the Laffer Curve itself, we need only summarize it here per ] "The parent article should have general summary information, and child articles should expand in more detail on subtopics summarized in the parent article. The child article in turn can also serve as a parent article for its own sections and subsections on the topic, and so on...". ] (]) 18:56, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
:::::::: One paragraph covering the views by other economists on the key part to Laffer's notability is not undue. ] (]) 19:05, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
::::::::: I agree it's DUE, and as there doesn't appear to be anyone other than Bonewah on the other side of this, I'm going to assert there is consensus to reinclude it and do so. ] (]) 19:20, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
::::::::: Ah, I don't even have to, it was reverted almost immediately. ] (]) 19:22, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
::::::::: I agree that this content seems OK to include. This seems highly relevant to the subject's life and work, the weight is appropriate, the sourcing is excellent, and it is not duplicative to other content. ]<sup>]</sup> 20:05, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
:I have a question that relates to weight and this content. The views of this specific economist, why are we including them? Are they representative of many other economists, are they the views of a clear leader in the field or simply an academic who has a Wiki article about him? Do other economists of similar stature agree or disagree? I think at this point we can say Quiggin is likely expert enough and the paper published in a source that meets RS so his opinion could be included. However, if we include that opinion it does open the door for similar/opposing opinions from other economists per NPOV. I wouldn't start with an assumption that this material is UNDUE, rather concerned editors, {{u|Bonewah}} in particular, should see what others say about this same theory or did we just happen to find a quote about Laffer from an expert who didn't agree with him and got the content in a peer reviewed paper. This singular claim is hardly the sort of thing that would get an otherwise good paper/article/book rejected (that is a general statement, not specifically saying this claim is right or wrong). ] (]) 02:02, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
::This isnt about weight, or DUE, the problem here is the sentence simply isnt informative. You guys that are rushing in to shout 'me too' arent even reading what my concerns are. {{u|Springee}} ive tried to in the past at ] where this sort of discussion actually belongs, but its kind of pointless when editors simply ignore any comment they dont agree with then declare consensus merely by their presence. ] (]) 13:26, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
:::The Quiggin statement neatly encapsulates that Laffer did not invent the concept, and that many had agreed with it before he popularized it, but that he erred in his assessment of where marginal tax rates actually are relative to the inflection point. ] (]) 14:09, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
::::I think that is a claim you would need to support. So far I don't see that my question has been adequately answered. Since you feel that this is a good summary can you point to the sources that support this view? Do we know if this is a single opinion or a representative one? ] (]) 23:46, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
:::::{{u|Soibangla}} The whole first paragraph of the 'Laffer Curve' section details that Laffer did not invent the concept, including citing the actual relevant facts about its origin. Whats the value in gluing another, less detailed sentence saying the same thing, but sourced to some marginal economist two paragraphs later? Likewise with Laffer's assessment of the United States marginal tax rates, the entire rest of the paragraph details that using actual fact, why do we need to include a line which basically says "and this one guy also thinks so too". Bear in mind that this is a biography of Laffer, there is a whole page dedicated to the Laffer curve. We only need a brief explanation of the Laffer curve here, along with a Main article link. ] (]) 15:20, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 16:12, 17 July 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Arthur Laffer article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 12 months 
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconBiography: Science and Academia
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the science and academia work group.
WikiProject iconEconomics Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EconomicsWikipedia:WikiProject EconomicsTemplate:WikiProject EconomicsEconomics
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Note icon
This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the |auto= parameter.
WikiProject iconUnited States: Ohio / Youngstown Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Ohio (assessed as Mid-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Ohio - Youngstown (assessed as Mid-importance).
WikiProject iconConservatism Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.


RfC: Laffer curve in the lead – mention consensus?

SUMMARY
  • Consensus is against inclusion of this material in the lede.
  • 16 !votes against inclusion vs 10 include (5 unqualified inclusion and 5 limited support)
  • This RfC has been open since 20 July 2020 with plenty of discussion, no need to keep it open any longer.
Bonewah (talk) 14:20, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

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 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:. (Original date of RfC: 20 July 2020). New date for the purposes of a RfC restart: Snooganssnoogans (talk) 05:32, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

information 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." 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. 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)

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." 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. 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)
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💥  14:07, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose. per above discussion.Sea Ane (talk) 17:02, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above discussion. Heart 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 (but support Loki's first clause, see below) 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 Misplaced Pages 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, and that applies regardless of how many Wikipedians are from $COUNTRY. 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 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)
If you mean this version, I still don't believe Misplaced Pages needs to make that declaration in the lede. Furthermore, the wording is a little awkward; "most economists" being used twice in sentence. OhNoitsJamie 16:30, 5 April 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.

RfC: COVID-19 advisor in the Trump administration

SUMMARY
  • Consensus appears in favor of including the first statement.
  • There is no clear consensus regarding the second statement; concerns related to the exact context and phrasing may be the reason why proper consensus was unable to form.
Lemon / 08:48, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

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

  1. "Conservative groups advising White House push fast reopening, not testing". Reuters. 2020-05-02. Retrieved 2020-05-21.
  2. "34 days of pandemic: Inside Trump's desperate attempts to reopen America". The Washington Post. 2020.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  3. Chait, Jonathan (2020-04-25). "The Fatal Calculations of the Economists Steering Our Public Health". Intelligencer. Retrieved 2020-05-21.
  4. "Mounting jobless claims point to a 15% unemployment rate for April". Los Angeles Times. 2020-04-09. Retrieved 2020-05-21.
  5. "Reopening the economy vs. keeping it shut longer. What's more costly?". Los Angeles Times. 2020-04-23. Retrieved 2020-05-21.
  6. Reuters (2020-05-01). "Conservative Groups Advising White House Push Fast Reopening, Not Testing". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2020-05-14. {{cite news}}: |last= has generic name (help)
  7. ^ Zeballos-Roig, Joseph. "A former Reagan economist wants to slash the salaries of professors and public officials — while simultaneously proposing tax cuts to stimulate the coronavirus-stricken economy". Business Insider. Retrieved 2020-05-21.
  8. Suebsaeng, Erin Banco|Asawin (2020-05-13). "Team Trump Pushes CDC to Dial Down Its Death Counts". The Daily Beast. Retrieved 2020-05-13.

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. 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. 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.] 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 Misplaced Pages) 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 Misplaced Pages 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 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, Misplaced Pages should not help him spread misinformation by concealing the fact that he does. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:39, 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)
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.

Removal of peer-reviewed study

The editor Bonewah removed content sourced to a Princeton University Press book by economist John Quiggin where Quiggin clarifies the distinction between the Laffer curve itself and how Laffer applied the curve to contemporary US tax policy: "Economist John Quiggin distinguishes between the Laffer curve and Laffer's analysis of tax rates. The Laffer curve was "correct but unoriginal", but Laffer's analysis that the United States was on the wrong side of the Laffer curve "was original but incorrect."" I see no reason why this high-quality content should not be included. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:12, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

I've never seen a RS that says everything put out by Princeton University Press is peer reviewed. Granted they publish peer reviewed work....but that doesn't mean all their publications are. That being said, I agree with you that it probably should stay in. I think it helps to put things in perspective.Rja13ww33 (talk) 18:23, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
All PUP books are peer-reviewed. It's a top university press. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:29, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
Ok fair enough but here is how they describe their "peer review" process: "Once Press teams have agreed that a work is a potential fit for the Press, a proposal or draft manuscript undergoes peer review, during which readers with expertise assess the work's potential impact." Assess the work's potential impact? That doesn't sound like a accuracy check to me.Rja13ww33 (talk) 18:38, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
I removed it for two reasons. Primarily, the sentence tells the reader nothing new about Arthur Laffer. That this one economist is unimpressed by the Laffer curve is hardly informative, especially because the quote we provide is just Quiggin saying that Laffer is unoriginal. No new information is provided, nothing is learned, its no better than a quote saying that Laffer is brilliant. Without something more, its just fluff. Two, the book its quoted from is 'Zombie Economics', not some peer reviewed source as Snooganssnoogans would like us to believe. The fact that its published by Princeton University Press does not mean it is peer reviewed, or even has any connection to Princeton's economics school. In any event, the Laffer Curve has its own page where a more thorough discussion of the Laffer Curve is more appropriate. Bonewah (talk) 18:31, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
1. It's clearly pertinent info for readers that A. there's a distinction between the Laffer curve and its application to contemporary US tax policy and B. that main insights of the Laffer curve are not original. 2. The book is peer-reviewed. You do yourself no favors by falsely claiming it's not. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:34, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
User:Rja13ww33 Puts what into perspective? That John Quiggin doesnt think the Laffer Curve is original? How is this one economists opinion relevant? Especially as we quote Laffer himself as saying he didnt originate the idea? What are we gaining by including this sentence? Bonewah (talk) 18:36, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
It clarifies the potency of the Laffer curve as an idea: the originality does not lie in the idea that a tax can be counterproductive, but that the US was on wrong side of the curve. A similar point is made by Robert J. Shiller in his book on narrative economics (again, published by PUP). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:39, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
Its also worth noting that we have like 6 other sentences in that paragraph which say the same thing, but in more concrete terms. Whats the value in adding one more sentence that basically says 'me too, says John Quiggin'. We already cite the IGM survey, Greg Mankiw and Douglas Holtz-Eakin, What does Quiggin add? Bonewah (talk) 18:41, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
It basically makes the very relevant point that #1 there is a Laffer Curve, but (#2) the US top marginal rates aren't on the right hand side of it. Very succinct. (At least to me.)Rja13ww33 (talk) 18:42, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
Its succinct because its just stating this guys opinion. And its at the end of a whole paragraph which not-so-succinctly states the same thing three different ways. Just a reminder, this is a biography of Art Laffer, not a page about the Laffer Curve itself, we need only summarize it here per wp:DETAIL "The parent article should have general summary information, and child articles should expand in more detail on subtopics summarized in the parent article. The child article in turn can also serve as a parent article for its own sections and subsections on the topic, and so on...". Bonewah (talk) 18:56, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
One paragraph covering the views by other economists on the key part to Laffer's notability is not undue. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:05, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
I agree it's DUE, and as there doesn't appear to be anyone other than Bonewah on the other side of this, I'm going to assert there is consensus to reinclude it and do so. Loki (talk) 19:20, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
Ah, I don't even have to, it was reverted almost immediately. Loki (talk) 19:22, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
I agree that this content seems OK to include. This seems highly relevant to the subject's life and work, the weight is appropriate, the sourcing is excellent, and it is not duplicative to other content. Neutrality 20:05, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
I have a question that relates to weight and this content. The views of this specific economist, why are we including them? Are they representative of many other economists, are they the views of a clear leader in the field or simply an academic who has a Wiki article about him? Do other economists of similar stature agree or disagree? I think at this point we can say Quiggin is likely expert enough and the paper published in a source that meets RS so his opinion could be included. However, if we include that opinion it does open the door for similar/opposing opinions from other economists per NPOV. I wouldn't start with an assumption that this material is UNDUE, rather concerned editors, Bonewah in particular, should see what others say about this same theory or did we just happen to find a quote about Laffer from an expert who didn't agree with him and got the content in a peer reviewed paper. This singular claim is hardly the sort of thing that would get an otherwise good paper/article/book rejected (that is a general statement, not specifically saying this claim is right or wrong). Springee (talk) 02:02, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
This isnt about weight, or DUE, the problem here is the sentence simply isnt informative. You guys that are rushing in to shout 'me too' arent even reading what my concerns are. Springee ive tried to in the past at Laffer Curve where this sort of discussion actually belongs, but its kind of pointless when editors simply ignore any comment they dont agree with then declare consensus merely by their presence. Bonewah (talk) 13:26, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
The Quiggin statement neatly encapsulates that Laffer did not invent the concept, and that many had agreed with it before he popularized it, but that he erred in his assessment of where marginal tax rates actually are relative to the inflection point. soibangla (talk) 14:09, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
I think that is a claim you would need to support. So far I don't see that my question has been adequately answered. Since you feel that this is a good summary can you point to the sources that support this view? Do we know if this is a single opinion or a representative one? Springee (talk) 23:46, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
Soibangla The whole first paragraph of the 'Laffer Curve' section details that Laffer did not invent the concept, including citing the actual relevant facts about its origin. Whats the value in gluing another, less detailed sentence saying the same thing, but sourced to some marginal economist two paragraphs later? Likewise with Laffer's assessment of the United States marginal tax rates, the entire rest of the paragraph details that using actual fact, why do we need to include a line which basically says "and this one guy also thinks so too". Bear in mind that this is a biography of Laffer, there is a whole page dedicated to the Laffer curve. We only need a brief explanation of the Laffer curve here, along with a Main article link. Bonewah (talk) 15:20, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
Categories: