Talk:Jude Wanniski
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] (If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) |
||
Contents |
[edit] No degree?
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)
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.
[edit] Two Santa Claus Theory
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)
[edit] Serious Research
dpotter: I would agree that a lot of research has gone into supply-side economics, but it seems to me that those who still adhere to it do so by ignoring all other influences on economic expansion, and shifting blame to the Fed whenever the policy doesn't work (or perhaps better to say, whenever the policy implementation doesn't happen to coincide with a natural economic upswing). I'm all for lower taxes, but it seems specious to claim that they actually increase. Even David Stockman eventually relented on that claim, and admitted that the whole policy was a trojan horse. Anyway, whatever. Neutrality dictates that Wanniski be credited with being a major player in many of its developments in American history, whether he is considered an "economist" or not.
On another note: isn't it interesting that the architect of one of the policies most villified by those on the left side of the aisle found himself to be a staunch ally and prescient prognosticator against a different villified policy, 20 years later? I suppose it goes to show that foreign policy and fiscal policy can indeed be completely independent of partisanship or ideology. I still can't believe he endorsed Kerry....
[edit] Supply-side = Trojan Horse?
I don't think there is much controversy over the fact that *sometimes* tax revenue increases after tax rates have been lowered. This in fact happened in the 80s after the Reagan tax cuts and earlier in the 60s after the Kennedy tax cuts. Re:less of Mr. Stockman's opinion, Mr. Wanniski consistently advocated that optimal tax rates (i.e. the rates that raise the largest revenue) are not neccesarily higher tax rates. Mr. Wanniski never (to my knowledge) advocated the "starve the beast" school of tax-cuts.
- We can now add the Bush(43) tax cuts to the list of those which immediately preceded tax revenue increases. I have no specific knowledge of whether Wanniski supported monetarist (especially Milton Friedman's) "starve the beast" policy. dpotter 00:01, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
- Cutting taxes just before a boom or a war proves nada. Try it during a depression. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 159.105.80.92 (talk • contribs).
- Firstly, I invite you to consider that the very premise of supply-side economics is that tax cuts result in economic expansion. With that viewpoint in mind, "cutting taxes before a boom proves nada" is a rather flat argument. With regards to attempting tax cuts during a depression - both the Reagan and Bush(43) cuts occurred during recessions and were followed by increased tax revenues. (By the way, whether increase tax revenues is a good thing is a more interesting discussion!) dpotter 00:01, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] reply
Sure, revenue increases coincided temporally with tax cuts in the 1980s, but Reagan also increased taxes SIX times, the population growth of the baby boomers had a large impact, and it would be perilous to dismiss the role of Paul Volcker's monetary policy on the growth after 1983 (when he released the monetary supply after his 6 year disinflation program.) To claim that the tax cuts caused the revenue increases is just really dubious.
As far as the Kennedy tax cut, most macroeconomic discussions note the return to full employment from an increase in aggregate demand – a Keynesian effect entirely. Some might argue that the fiscal stimulus was excessive, and precipitated the 1966 credit problems as the Federal Reserve initially tried to offset the spike in aggregate demand. The acceleration of inflation in the rest of the 1960s is something the supply-side crowd tends to dissemble.
Now, this isn't a knock on Wanniski, but more of a response to the first sentence of your post. I don't mean to take the conversation too far afield.
Quigonpaj 20:55, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
- Kennedy tax cut - the Vietnam war might have had somthing to do with economic growth. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 159.105.80.92 (talk • contribs) .
-
- The big war spending followed Kennedy's death by a couple years. It contributed to the overall era but not the early part. Paulmeisel 03:30, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] fair enough
I'm not sure if this is the appropriate context to go into the details of whether or not the Reagan or the Kennedy tax cuts were merely coincendental to the subsequent growth in tax revenue.
In general, I would like to make two points with re: to Mr. Wanniski's legacy
The first is that there is no evidence that Mr. Wanniski was attempting to trick the American populace into shrinking the size of their government by depriving it of revenue. All available evidence indicates that he truly believed his prediction that the 80's tax cuts would increase tax revenue. The fact that tax revenue subsequently increased is merely one piece of evidence supporting Mr. Wanniski's integrity on this point.
The second point is that the 80's tax cuts need to be considered in their historical context. The marginal rates in the 1970's were quite high (the top rate in the 70% ballpark), and inflation was causing more middle class wage earners to encounter these high ratess. For better or worse, the changes made in the tax code from 1981 to 1988 have become part of the political mainstream in this country. No serious attempt has been made to return to the high marginal rates of the 70's. Neutrality dictates Mr. Wanniski be given credit for advocating the "flatter" tax code that is now part of the political mainstream in America.
[edit] Kerry
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)
[edit] He endorsed Kerry
Someone mangled the page. I editted it. Feel free to improve my changes, but there is no doubt he endorsed Kerry in '04.
[edit] Golf Partner
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)
[edit] Two Santa Claus Theory
I've merged Two Santa Claus Theory to Jude Wanniski. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-25 09:51Z
