Friday, June 11, 2010

Friday round up.

David Goldman analyzes the stock market.

David Malpass calls for less spending, along with low taxes and sound money, as part of his agenda.

At AEI’s The American, Nick Schulz reports supply-side economics is alive and well in Sweden.

An editor at The Christian-Science Monitor argues the effect of next year’s tax cuts will be less than Art Laffer thinks.

An IEA blog post asks asks, "Do we need a central bank?" (Hat tip: anti-dismal)

Interestingly, the US survived until 1913 without a central bank and enjoyed robust growth. Since then the Fed has essentially failed in its objectives of ensuring monetary and financial stability. Interest rates have fluctuated between zero and 21 per cent, prices have continued to rise, and financial crises have been frequent.

Bob McTeer explains the widening trade deficit, and suggests the dollar’s strength hurts the recovery.

In The NYT, David Brooks endorses the idea that reduced spending is stimulative.

Low interest rates were not the cause of the housing boom, argues Casey B. Mulligan at The NYT’s Economix blog.

On Fox, WSJ editorialist Stephen Moore endorses Art Laffer’s theory of a crash in 2011.

The Atlas Economic Research Foundation posts a good video on trade.


  1. I totally agree with David Malpass on a stable currency and lower tax rates, but I believe the recommendations of lower government spending are misplaced. The important issue is to have government spend on the right things. The level of government spending should be dictated by government spending on what it does best.

    In truth when government takes over elements of the private sector, as Malpass demonstrates with small business, it does two very destructive things. First it crowds out private business and so contracts the private sector while expanding the cost of the public sector. The second is that reducing the private sector government reduces its tax base.

    Government intervention both increases the cost of government and reduces the source of revenue to cover costs.

    We should be calling for the government to divest itself of everything that can be done by the private sector. This will have a double benefit primarily to government itself. It will reduce government cost and increase government revenue. Progressives are their own worst enemies.

  2. TSG-Sorry, I've been patient but your comments have become distracting and unhelpful. Thoughtful comments on policy, even if they offer a counter perspective, are welcome and will be published. Insults and political attacks are a waste of time and will no longer appear on this page.