Wednesday update.

On Forbes, historian Brian Domitrovic explains the 1970s were lousy for low income people, even though taxes on the rich were high.

At New World Economics, Nathan Lewis analyzes gold's continued rise.

On The Kudlow Report, John Rutledge debates China’s trade policies with super-hawk Peter Navarro and a fired-up Larry:




At Fox Business News, Stephen Moore argues US tax and regulatory policy are driving jobs overseas.

In The WSJ, David Wessel reports the President is proceeding with tax reform (hat tip: The Kudlow Report).

Also from The Journal, Hugo Restall notes inflation’s impact on China’s housing market.

On CNBC, Stephen Moore debates winners and losers in 2010:




On IBD, Walter Williams opposes fair trade.

At an Asia Society event next month, Nobel Laureate Robert Mundell will answer, “Is Gold the Answer to Currency Wars and Unstable Exchange Rates?”

On NRO, U.S. Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) explains his views.

NRO: So your goal is to end the federal government’s monopoly over currency, essentially.

PAUL: That is it. It has monopoly control over supply of money and credit. And it was never meant to be that way. Under the gold standard, the supply of money is dependent on the market and the interest rates are dependent on savings rather than the Fed dictating the interest rate.

When I first came to Congress in the Seventies, gold wasn’t even allowed be owned. It was ’75 or ’76 when it became legal again. And some people used gold as a protection back then. It was $35 an ounce and now, look, its $1,400 an ounce. So it’s a system that deserves our attention.