Talk:Larry Kudlow

Focus of "Director of the National Economic Council" section seems editorial
I'm curious why this whole section is written in point/counterpoint style -- where rather than describing the general work during his time in this position, this section is used to select statements he has made and then make counterarguments to those statements. Regardless of the veracity of either Kudlow's points or the counterpoints cited, this type of format seems better suited for Politifact or other political sites, and seems to veer off the purpose of a biographical page. Indeed, source 19 is from Politifact. I don't see many examples of similarly formatted sections in most other political or entertainment-type figures on Wikipedia.

Another issue with using this style is that it almost seems dedicated against Kudlow as currently written and therefore biased or editorial. So, if the section focus remains as-is, it seems warranted that we include articles about his correct predictions/forecasts, etc as well (e.g., https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-03-14/kudlow-s-best-worst-calls-from-no-2007-recession-to-trump-bump). But either way -- I think it's a bit of an odd way to handle a biographical page.

Does anyone else agree and think this would be worthwhile to revise?

Loozana (talk) 03:39, 30 September 2019 (UTC)


 * I too, agree 100%,a real a hatchet job. 2A02:C7F:DD00:9E00:50CB:A3E0:5498:5AB2 (talk) 08:11, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Spot on. Yet another reason to close the constant pop ups from Wikipedia asking for $$. Total hack blog infested with truth denying marxists 32.219.198.98 (talk) 01:09, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

I agree 100%. This section is a hatchet job, particularly mean-spirited and one-sided, obviously written by a malcontented Democrat. The section, for the reasons stated by Loozana should be re-written for balance or excised and replaced with statements of his work there. 2601:80:4001:F940:A44F:F42B:49C7:DFA7 (talk) 01:48, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

“economist”
I challenge that just because Bear Stearns gave Kudlow the title “chief economist” makes him an economist. He has no economic credentials and has never authored any peer-reviewed studies. Like his friend Steve Moore, some have described him as an economist to give him a patina of legitimacy for his cheerleading for Republican economic policies. He’s a salesman for Laffer tax cuts.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Larry_Kudlow&diff=969821746&oldid=965512459

soibangla (talk) 17:25, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, if he had a job as an economist, he's an economist. O3000 (talk) 22:02, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree! Afarkas (talk) 18:50, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * No, he is not an economist. The mainstream of world opinion does not consider him an economist and Bear Stearns is not a source for determining who might be an economist. SPECIFICO talk 20:08, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Guess I have to respond. I didn’t say he’s a good economist, or has the background for it. My personal opinion is that his concepts of economics are laughably simplistic. But, the question is not whether he can be cited by Wikipedia as an expert in economics (Heaven forbid). The question is whether or not he is an economist. Since he has had multiple jobs as an economist, the answer is yes; he is a professional economist. Further, RS say he is/was an economist. And if I weren’t retired; I’d remove the scare quotes as they are purely POV pushing and particularly unsuitable in a BLP. O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:56, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * regardless he has experience that many will never have. Also there's alot of bias in this section. it mentions his forecast for the next few years in 2001 with the Bush tax cuts bill but fails to mention that he probably would've been correct in his predictions if not for September 11. Probably shouldnt be left out considering it was unforeseen and shocked the economy pretty noticeable in the first month alone. for the sake of the glorious nonpartisan offerings that is ( or isnt) wikipedia Neekoanddiming (talk) 16:21, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
 * probably would've? we don't do that here. soibangla (talk) 16:43, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
 * The New York Times has repeatedly labeled him as an economist, which utterly makes sense given that he was a chief economist at a large Wall Street firm. He was not an academic, but applied economists can still be called economists.
 * For avoidance of doubt on this issue, we can use the term "Wall Street economist" in the lead; something like is an American conservative broadcast news personality, columnist, political commentator, and former Wall Street economist makes the most sense to me. — Red-tailed hawk  (nest) 05:03, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
 * As I said above, I don't consider Bear Stearns' job title to be significant in any respect. And even among Wall St. firms, Bear's business at time of Kudlow's employment was execution and clearing with a lesser amount of syndicate participation. At that time, it was not a business that would have conferred credibility on "economist". Few Wall St. firms employed economists in 1979. Later, as BS's business broadened, it did employ serious economists. On the other hand, the breadth of coverage relating to Kudlow greatly increased after he joined the Trump Administration, so most sources refer to his role there. While they don't call him an economist very frequently, they do refer to him as head of the Economic Council. Anyway, "economist" may be misleading and elevate his views as if they were the views of an economist. "Wall St. economist" seems OK if only for the ambiguity of it, but I still don't see much WEIGHT for the word "economist" as opposed to economic adviser, head of NEC, economic pundit, etc. There are plenty of RS calling his pundit predictions laughably inept and incorrect, not that we need to emphasize any of that. SPECIFICO talk 13:59, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:51, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * "Our Pledge to America's Workers" (45604416292) (cropped).jpg

Neutral point of view lacking
This article is signicantly lacking in a neutral point of view and reads more like a hatchet job, a litany of purported mistakes and unfulfilled predictions. From this article, one could only conclude that Mr. Kudrow never got anything right whatsoever. A little fairness would be appreciated. 2601:648:8700:1F20:8E0A:525B:A36:ABF2 (talk) 20:51, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
 * What do you suggest be added to the article and what sources WP:VERIFY that content? SPECIFICO talk 23:01, 10 August 2023 (UTC)