![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | It is requested that an image or photograph of Jude Wanniski be
included in this article to
improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific
media request template where possible.
The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
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
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=wanniski&hl=en&lr=&btnG=Search
---
It is a fallacy to credit Wanniski with the sole development of supply-side economics, and a still greater fallacy to argue whether or not supply-side theories deserve accolades. IMHO, it's neutral for us to describe the subject's background and allow the reader to determine what weight to lend to the theory.
Bruce Bartlett described the genesis of supply-side economics in his paper Supply-Side Economics: "Voodoo Economics" or Lasting Contribution?: "Much of the early work had been done by economists Paul Craig Roberts...and Norman Ture. Another key player was Jude Wanniski...who came to supply-side through the works of economists Robert Mundell and Arthur Laffer. A lot of serious research underlay supply-side economics, much done by economists who would have rejected the supply-side label."
dpotter 14:17, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Supply side theory - trickle down - goes back to the 1800s, probably earlier. Something to do with sparrows eating seeds from horse manure.
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)
---
No argument here except that the Two-Santa article outweighs the Wanniski article, and would give the (incorrect) impression that Two-Santa was one of Wanniski's major works. Perhaps a merge should be delayed until some other portions of Wanniski have been developed?
dpotter 14:17, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
---
I found it conventient to see an entry for the Two Santa Claus Theory.
I vote against the merge too -- Lee Vonce 20:49, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
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)
Someone mangled the page. I editted it. Feel free to improve my changes, but there is no doubt he endorsed Kerry in '04.
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've merged Two Santa Claus Theory to Jude Wanniski. — Quarl ( talk) 2007-02-25 09:51Z
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)
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)
One more time, the criticism that this shouldn't be included because "it's US-centric" is ridiculous. Which country was Wanniski living in? Which country was he working in? Where is he actually known? Oh, that's right. The US. And since this is the idea that's he's most known for - even though it's not named after him he was it's most known promoter - it's obviously relevant. Volunteer Marek 16:28, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
Should the description of the Laffer curve in the section 'Lower taxes' make reference to an IGM poll of economists taken in 2012? If so, how should that poll be described? We are currently using the following text
References
Please note, similar edits and discussions exist on Art Laffer:
and the Laffer curve
Bonewah ( talk) 20:28, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
@ TheRedPenOfDoom, Volunteer Marek, Lipsquid, Absolutelypuremilk, DanielVallstrom, LjL, and Capitalismojo: @ Darx9url, Damotclese, and FoCuSandLeArN: 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)
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: /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment Lipsquid ( talk) 22:44, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
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)
Discussion closed, if you want an RfC on another page open it there. Lipsquid ( talk) 07:57, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Jude Wanniski. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 03:46, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | It is requested that an image or photograph of Jude Wanniski be
included in this article to
improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific
media request template where possible.
The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
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
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=wanniski&hl=en&lr=&btnG=Search
---
It is a fallacy to credit Wanniski with the sole development of supply-side economics, and a still greater fallacy to argue whether or not supply-side theories deserve accolades. IMHO, it's neutral for us to describe the subject's background and allow the reader to determine what weight to lend to the theory.
Bruce Bartlett described the genesis of supply-side economics in his paper Supply-Side Economics: "Voodoo Economics" or Lasting Contribution?: "Much of the early work had been done by economists Paul Craig Roberts...and Norman Ture. Another key player was Jude Wanniski...who came to supply-side through the works of economists Robert Mundell and Arthur Laffer. A lot of serious research underlay supply-side economics, much done by economists who would have rejected the supply-side label."
dpotter 14:17, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Supply side theory - trickle down - goes back to the 1800s, probably earlier. Something to do with sparrows eating seeds from horse manure.
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)
---
No argument here except that the Two-Santa article outweighs the Wanniski article, and would give the (incorrect) impression that Two-Santa was one of Wanniski's major works. Perhaps a merge should be delayed until some other portions of Wanniski have been developed?
dpotter 14:17, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
---
I found it conventient to see an entry for the Two Santa Claus Theory.
I vote against the merge too -- Lee Vonce 20:49, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
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)
Someone mangled the page. I editted it. Feel free to improve my changes, but there is no doubt he endorsed Kerry in '04.
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've merged Two Santa Claus Theory to Jude Wanniski. — Quarl ( talk) 2007-02-25 09:51Z
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)
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)
One more time, the criticism that this shouldn't be included because "it's US-centric" is ridiculous. Which country was Wanniski living in? Which country was he working in? Where is he actually known? Oh, that's right. The US. And since this is the idea that's he's most known for - even though it's not named after him he was it's most known promoter - it's obviously relevant. Volunteer Marek 16:28, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
Should the description of the Laffer curve in the section 'Lower taxes' make reference to an IGM poll of economists taken in 2012? If so, how should that poll be described? We are currently using the following text
References
Please note, similar edits and discussions exist on Art Laffer:
and the Laffer curve
Bonewah ( talk) 20:28, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
@ TheRedPenOfDoom, Volunteer Marek, Lipsquid, Absolutelypuremilk, DanielVallstrom, LjL, and Capitalismojo: @ Darx9url, Damotclese, and FoCuSandLeArN: 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)
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: /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment Lipsquid ( talk) 22:44, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
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)
Discussion closed, if you want an RfC on another page open it there. Lipsquid ( talk) 07:57, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Jude Wanniski. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 03:46, 6 January 2016 (UTC)