Talk:Jude Wanniski

message: Question: How is someone who did not hold a degree in Economics,considered an economist?
The late Mr.Wanniski held degrees in Political Science and Journalism. If he were a scientific commentator instead of a political commentator, would he have been considered a physicist even though he held no degree in Physics? I would'nt think so. He was no more qualified to hold an opinion on political economics than the average man on the street, but yet his "supply-side" theories on economics was not only hailed as a "new" theory but made a centerpiece of national economic policy by 3 administrations. His theories have never been submitted to peer review, nor have they been accepted as a legitimate branch of study. To give this man and his theories accolades is the height of academic dishonesty and intellectual folly.
---
This questions implies a rather acadamic centric mindset. It presumes that a degree from a recognised university is the only way to attain knowledge or credentials or credibilty within a field. 
Karl Marx is known as a philosopher and an economist although he had a degree in Law. 
Adam Smith studied moral philosophy but is renowned for his thinking on economics. 
Issac Newton studied Mathematics but many would refer to him as a physist. 
Albert Einstein held a diploma in Education. And yet he is also remembered as a physist. 
James Lovelock is regarded as a scientist. I don't belive he holds a degree in science. 
2005-09-03  Terjepetersen
:This is a good point, but these thinkers are taken seriously.  To be considered an economist, one should have peer-reviewed articles, and be taken seriously in your field.  Krauthammer has a meical degree, but he also has a Pulitzer.  To my knowledge, Wanniski has no peer reviewed publications, so he should by no means be considered an economist.  I have edited the economist title--OneWorld22 08:49, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  No degree? 

message: Two Santa Claus Theory is a neologism associated only with Wanniski.  Unless someone else uses this term, I recommend a merge. -- Perfecto 06:34, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two Santa Claus Theory 

message: The third link makes clear that Wanniski planned to vote for Kerry as of Oct. 27, 2004.  Did he change his mind, or does a vote not count as an endorsement?  St. Jimmy 05:48, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Kerry

message: As one of Jude's regular golf partners, and as someone who worked on the Bush re-elction campaign, I can assure you Jude definitly endorsed Kerry, this led to many long rounds of golf, trading barbs! (btw Jude was deadly with his handcrafted pecan wood putter!!)
::I wish I was lucky enough to meet him.  I read his work in WSJ regularly during the 70s and although I did not always agree with his conclusions admired his writing and reasoning.Paulmeisel 03:24, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No one cares. This is not a chat room. Jibal (talk) 07:16, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Golf Partner 

message: While I personally applaud the attempts by editors Neoconsrfinished, and Huw Powell, to rewrite the Two Santa Clauses Theory section so that it describes some of the actual, damaging use to which the theory has been put (which was probably their reaction to Thom Hartmann today, noting on his show that this section has been rewritten to make it bland and hide how it's been used by Republicans), their new text is much more of a rant than an entry appropriate for an encyclopedia.  I was going to rewrite this section further still, trying to incorporate their text into the earlier text, in order to remove the ranting parts of their text, but this might be a bigger job than I have time for at the moment, so I suggest someone else do it.  I don't feel comfortable simply reverting the text, since that might just make the kind of rewrite I wanted to do, just get put off or not done at all.
JohnSawyer 03:53, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I've reverted the section as POV vandalism which removed sourced information. This seems to be a pattern in Neoconsrfinished's edits, which I do not at all "applaud".--Atlan (talk) 14:51, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Two Santa Claus Theory]] section needs another rewrite 

message: Per discussions on Talk:Laffer_curve, Talk:Supply-side_economics and Talk:Arthur_Laffer, i believe that the edit "Numerous leading economists have rejected the empirical relevance of the Laffer Curve for the United States. 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" is inappropriate for this article.  Its only marginally relevant to the Laffer curve itself and, as such, really not relevant to a quick overview of the Laffer curve.  Bonewah (talk) 13:04, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: 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 Jude Wanniski and, as such, any coverage of the Laffer curve should be a brief, high level overview, with any details covered in the laffer curve article, not here.  The edit above is currently in the Laffer curve article and so is irrelevant here.  Bonewah (talk) 13:22, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: If it wasn't for the Laffer Curve and his later connections to the Nation of Islam, the guy would be a complete nobody. Lipsquid (talk) 21:38, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The question isnt what Wanniski 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. Bonewah (talk) 23:58, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: To say that a nonpartisan academic group who writes peer-reviewed papers on economics with faculty members from Universities around the world is not a reliable source seems very odd.  http://research.chicagobooth.edu/IGM/fellows/index.aspx Do you have a reason why you think they are not a reliable source?  Lipsquid (talk) 03:09, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The reliability of the source is only one small part of my concern here.  You have seen all this before, please respond to the substance of my comments. Bonewah (talk) 13:07, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

text: You listed many things, and it was unclear which was your real concern?  Rather than saying a source you don't agree with is unreliable, which it is reliable, if you want to focus on whether the results of one study of the Laffer Curve is notable enough for inclusion in Jude Wanniski's article.  Then I agree with you that it is not really noteworthy for this article and I won't complain if you remove that paragraph.  Thank you for discussing the edit. Lipsquid (talk) 19:15, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

text: You conveniently forgot my numerous other concerns. Was he referring to only taxes in the US? No.  Was he referring to only federal income tax?  No? Did he in any way suggest that any tax reduction would automatically increase revenue?  No.  You have taken a criticism which is barley even a criticism, misconstrued it, then plastered it everywhere irrespective of its importance to the subject.  This isnt something fundamental to the Laffer curve, its a poll of some economists about one tax at one time that only barely even mentions the Laffer curve, and several of those are comments that indicate an acceptance of the Laffer curve, not a "rejection of the empirical relevance" like we claim.  But you know all of this, or you should, as you were a party to these conversations at Talk:Supply-side_economics, and yet here we are again, Just like Lipsquid, you have no problem ignoring what i have said in the past, ignoring what other editors agreed were legit concerns and forcing me to re-argue the same thing over and over.  Well, i have news for you, im not going to "just drop it" just because you choose to be obtuse and waste my time.  That tactic isnt going to work. Bonewah (talk) 18:18, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

text: Look, I'm not interested in having my time wasted on pointless discussion with somebody who will obviously not be convinced no matter what. As of right now, I'm not the only one disagreeing with you. So consensus is against you. If you want, you can start an RfC and we can discuss it with others. Volunteer Marek  14:55, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticisms of the Laffer curve yet again. 

message: It is my belief that whatever is decided here should apply to the other three articles i named in both the RfC and this subsection.  At least in the case of the Art Laffer article, the content is exactly the same and the same objections apply there as here.  I am going to ping everyone who has commented here in case there is some objection.  If you do have an objection, please spell out here what exactly you see as the issue so we can resolve it. Bonewah (talk) 19:24, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.</div>
It may be relevant to this RfC's outcome to mention that on Laffer curve, the passage in question has been reinstated again (into the lead section!) after some time, under the pretence of an "ungoing edit war" about it. This is even though there seemed to be agreement to leave it out (including by the editor reinstating it now, at least from the lede). Let's please determine whether this RfC's consensus applies. LjL (talk) 23:57, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

text: Or you could open an RfC to include that material like WP:ONUS clearly states "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." Bonewah (talk) 16:03, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Or you could stop trying to WP:GAME wikipedia rules and policies to try and get your way at all costs. This RfC does NOT and NEVER has applied to other articles. Stop being obstinate. At some point it becomes very disruptive.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:55, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Let me see if i understand you fully.  After an RfC covering this topic was closed with a decision of 'remove', you feel that you should be able to unilaterally re-add that very same material and that its incumbent on other editors to argue for its removal and that you should not have to make any effort to gain consensus to re-add this material despite WP:ONUS saying the exact opposite.  And anyone who says that you should do anything at all to gain consensus before adding this material is "gaming the system". Bonewah (talk) 19:39, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes and you need to re-read WP:ONUS.  Having consensus that information is not useful or constructive in one article, does not mean that the same sourced content is now assumed not to be constructive in every topic on Wikipedia.  That would be insane. The RfC made its decision and the information is not in the article.  No one has added it back so this is all rather pointless at this time. Lipsquid (talk) 18:15, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: This RfC should apply to at least the Art Laffer article, plus possibly the supply side economics and the Laffer curve articles as well

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Jude Wanniski. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080723021220/http://www.nationalreview.com:80/100best/100_books.html to http://www.nationalreview.com/100best/100_books.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:46, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified