[lit-ideas] Re: Popper's Napkin
- From: "Donal McEvoy" <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> (Redacted sender "donalmcevoyuk" for DMARC)
- To: "lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2017 20:01:39 +0000 (UTC)
Something Popperian is going on atThe Smithsonian.>
First thought: yikes.
On further reading: nope.
DL
From: "dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Tuesday, 17 October 2017, 13:23
Subject: [lit-ideas] Popper's Napkin
Something Popperian is going on atThe Smithsonian. In one of the most iconic
moments inmodern economics, professor Arthur Laffer sketches a curve on a bar
napkin (thiswas in 1974, at the Two Continents restaurant, across the street
from theTreasury Departmment) to show an aide to Gerald R. Ford why the
federalgovernment should cut taxes. In 2015, The Smithsonian announcesthat it
was putting the napkin on display. Laffer, however, says the napkin ismost
likely a keepsake. Among the Popperian clues: The napkin on display is
cloth,while the original napkin was paper. The napkin on display is
dated9/13/74, while the original meeting took place after the November 1974
midtermelections. And the napkin on display isinscribed to Donald H. Rumsfeld,
then Ford’s chief of staff. Laffer met withDick Cheney, Mr. Rumsfeld’s deputy.
Laffer adds for Popperian effect: “Lookat how neatly it was done! You tell me
how, late at night with a glass of wine,you’re going to do it that neatly.” The
credit at the Smithsonian reads:“Economist Art Laffer sketched a new direction
for the Republican Party on *this*napkin, illustrating his theory that lowering
taxes increased economicactivity.” BrianDomitrovic, of Sam Houston State
University whohas researched on the creation of the Laffer Curve, says, using
almost anti-Popperianterms, the sum of the available evidence showed that the
Smithsonian’s napkin “mostcertainly” is “an ex post facto creation.” The
Smithsonian acquired the napkinin 2013. It was donated by Mrs. Wanniski. But
Peter Liebhold, the curator forThe Smithsonian’s division of work and industry,
who acquired the napkin in2013, said the museum was confident of its
authenticity. The Laffer napkin has long beenshrouded in mystery, partly
because none of those present at the originalmeeting thought that it was
particularly historic at the time. Laffer met with Cheney for drinks atthe Two
Continents with Wanniski in December. Wanniski brought Grace-Marie Arnett,a
friend. At the restaurant, Laffer grows frustratedas he tried to explain the
value of tax cuts to Cheney, finally grabbing apaper napkin so he could draw a
visual aid. The Laffer curve looks,if we may use Wittgensteinian parlance (he
was obsessed with verbs of ‘seeming’)like the nose of an airplane, and is meant
to show that higher tax rates canreduce tax revenues — and lower tax rates can
bring in more money. Arnett says that she recalls themoment vividly because she
had never seen the Laffer Curve before, and shefound it illuminating. Arnett,
alla anti-Popper, said sheis *certain* that the meeting had happened after the
elections (because untilthen, she was working for a Republican House candidate
in Texas.) And, moreimportantly, she adds, echoing almost A. J. Ayer, the
philosopher ofknowledge-as-certainty, “I absolutely *know* that it was a paper
cocktailnapkin.” Laffer adds: “There was a napkindone at the Two Continents,
but I don’t know, alas where it ended. Probably inthe trash.” It was Mrs.
Patricia Wanniski who foundthe cloth napkin at the back of a drawer of
Wanniski’s clothing – and donatedto The Smithsonian. Popper might wonder: why
did Lafferdedicate the napkin to Mr. Rumsfeld and write the date “9/13/74”? One
possible “explanation” issuggested by Rumsfeld. His datebook shows that he
dined with Laffer and Cheneyon Sept. 16, 1975, and that he had made a note at
the time that Laffer drew acurve “on a napkin.” Is it possible, Leibnix would
ask, Lafferreprised that napkin for Wanniski, creating a reproduction of a
reproduction? Laffer says, alla A. J. Ayer, hesimply is not sure. (vide Ayer’s
account of ‘knowledge’ as subjectivecertainty). As if to refute Popper, Laffer
addsfor effect: “It is hard to say which napkin was which and when and where.”
Cheers, Speranza
Other related posts:
