Sunday, October 10, 2010

Weekend update.

On New World Economics, Nathan Lewis recounts Germany’s hyperinflation after World War I.

At Investors Business Daily, Tom Giovanetti and Merril Matthews
distinguish between tax cuts that stimulate work and investment versus demand-side rebates.

During the early debate over the proposed Bush tax cuts, the Institute for Policy Innovation conducted a study by economists Gary and Aldona Robbins that analyzed which policy options might produce the most economic bang for the buck.

According to the study, several types of tax cuts will easily pay for themselves by generating more revenue through increased economic growth than they cost in static revenue loss. A capital-gains tax cut, for instance, generates more than $10 in new GDP for every $1 loss in static revenue.

Accelerated depreciation — similar to what President Obama apparently has proposed — repeal of the alternative minimum tax (AMT) and an investment tax credit for equipment all more than pay for themselves, according to the Fiscal Associates model.

And a corporate rate cut, which wasn't part of the Bush tax cuts, generates almost $3 in increased GDP for every $1 lost in static revenue.

On The Kudlow Report, Stephen Moore analyzes the weak job numbers:

At RCM, Larry Kudlow
notes that bad economic news is paradoxically bullish, as it increases likelihood of political successes for Republicans.

On CNN, Stephen Moore
debates Arianna Huffington on the economy.

The Herald Tribune
profiles Donna Arduin, an Art Laffer protégé.

It was in California that Arduin met Arthur Laffer, the supply-side economist who had greatly influenced Reagan and other conservative leaders.

Laffer defended the basic principles of supply-side economics, which includes tax cuts, spending cuts and regulatory relief, that infuses much of Arduin's work.

"People do make decisions based on taxes as to whether they work or employ people," Laffer said. "If you tax people who work and you pay people who don't work, don't be surprised if you find a lot of people not working."
On Money Control, Cato’s Steve Hanke discusses the downside of quantitative easing.

The Washington Post
asks a collection of Keynesians what to do about China’s currency.

No comments:

Post a Comment