Monday, August 2, 2010

Monday update.

In today’s WSJ required reading, Art Laffer explains that higher tax rates on the rich likely will reduce revenue.

John Tamny sees the weak dollar as the economy’s biggest problem.

Joseph Y. Calhoun discounts U.S. GDP against other currencies and gold.

On a similar front, has this depressing picture:

At The American Spectator, a cross-section of leading conservatives discuss past Republican mistakes. No one mentions the weak and unstable dollar.

Paul Krugman also sees falling U.S. wealth, but wants to solve it with a lower dollar and more deficit spending.

On The Kudlow Report, Peter Ferrara warns against the wrong kind of balanced budget deal.

Steve Forbes reports on Hungary's move out of crisis towards a flat tax.

At FEE, Steve Horwitz disputes the Keynesian assumption that saving hurts the economy.


  1. Here's something for supplysiders to argue against.

    Ignoring the facts as so ably laid out by Robert Reich is not going to do anyone any good.

  2. Great new blog here. Good articles from both the prespectives of the Supply side and also rebuttals from Keynesians too. Thank you for providing this valuable service Sean R.

  3. Rob G,

    Thanks for the kind words.

    Regarding Reich, his analysis is completely demand side and therefore unreliable. The goal of marginal tax rate cuts is to stimulate not consumption but production. Discussions of spending habits among the wealthy is trivial.

    From a supply-side perspective, the central question is what will raising taxes on the wealthy do to their incentives to take economic risks through business expansion and investment? At the margin, as taxes on work and savings rise, the cost of leisure and consumption decline, meaning less of the former and more of the latter. In a time of already sluggish growth, why would we create additional disincentives to doing business?

    Lastly, as Art Laffer and Peter Ferrara have pointed out recently, Reich's argument that raising taxes on top earners will reduce the deficit is not justified by the historical evidence.

    Thanks again.

  4. PS: Regarding Reich's more substantive claim, I will comment further on the blog.