Thursday, September 30, 2010

Thursday round up.

At The WSJ, Daniel Henninger advocates a resurgence of the Republican Party’s growth wing.

The growth issue has defaulted to the Republican Party. That's the pity. Hardly anyone in the party remembers how to give economic growth the starring role it deserves.

The last Republicans able to talk about growth as a crucial, creative, essential force, a driver of American prosperity and primacy (think the China threat) were Ronald Reagan, Jack Kemp and Steve Forbes. The current crop of Republican leaders and presidential contenders, about to be handed the opportunity of a generation, are in danger of reverting to the party's austerity-only obsessions. Austerity-only policies are producing Europe's riots.

Reducing spending, controlling entitlements, reforming public pensions—all of that matters. It's important. But any population being asked to "sacrifice" needs to be able to believe something better is possible. That's the challenge of political leadership.

On Forbes, Brian Wesbury and Robert Stein argue that quantitative easing by the Fed is no longer justified.

At Barron’s, Michael Kahn
explains stock prices are depressed when measured against gold.

At CNBC, Steve Forbes
echoes John Tamny's recent prediction of a return to a gold-linked dollar:

On The Future of Capitalism, Ira Stoll
reports on David Malpass’s recent comments on the Fed.

On Asia Times, David Goldman
advocates buying guns and ammo before physical gold.

Also in The Journal, Craig Barrett and James B. Moore Jr.
argue high corporate tax rates push companies offshore.

On The Kudlow Report, Jerry Bowyer
opposes dollar devaluation:

In USA Today, President Carter inadvertently
makes a good point: that anti-establishment revolts arise during weak dollar eras.

The Denver Post’s Mike Rosen
claims calls for tax hikes are based on envy, not economics.

A brief YouTube video
explains the Laffer Curve.

1 comment:

  1. It wasn't the laffer curve that I found interesting because I already understood that theory completely. It was this one that showed up beside the video on understanding supply-side economics.

    debunking supply-side economics and well worth a look.