Talk:Arthur Laffer

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

text: For the record, I wholly support the reversion.  A statement like that with no context is meaningless.  Even with context, this is a . 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)

text: * 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

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

text: Snooganssnoogans (talk) 06:08, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Why restart this?  Do you think 4:6 against will turn into a consensus to include?  Springee (talk) 06:17, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: The Laffer curve?  Yes.  This one survey of opinions about one particular tax?  No. Bonewah (talk) 15:45, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The source in question doesnt support your proposed additions. Bonewah (talk) 17:25, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  But several other sources in the relevant section we already have do. Loki (talk) 01:51, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text:  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)

text:  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)

text:  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)
replies: text:  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)

text:  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)
replies: text:  If you mean this version, I still don't believe Wikipedia needs to make that declaration in the lede.  Furthermore, the wording is a little awkward; "most economists" being used twice in sentence. OhNoitsJamie Talk 16:30, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC: Laffer curve in the lead – mention consensus? 

message: * 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)
replies: text: The Laffer curve?  Yes.  This one survey of opinions about one particular tax?  No. Bonewah (talk) 15:45, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The source in question doesnt support your proposed additions. Bonewah (talk) 17:25, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  But several other sources in the relevant section we already have do. Loki (talk) 01:51, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text:  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)

text:  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)

text:  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)
replies: text:  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)

text:  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)
replies: text:  If you mean this version, I still don't believe Wikipedia needs to make that declaration in the lede.  Furthermore, the wording is a little awkward; "most economists" being used twice in sentence. OhNoitsJamie Talk 16:30, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: !Votes

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  All PUP books are peer-reviewed. It's a top university press. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:29, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  Ah, I don't even have to, it was reverted almost immediately. Loki (talk) 19:22, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

text:  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. Neutralitytalk 20:05, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

text: 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,  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)
replies: text: 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.  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Removal of peer-reviewed study