Monday update.

Thanks to Alan Reynolds for recommending a 1986 compendium from the Adam Smith Institute (UK), It Pays to Cut Taxes. I've added it to the Classic Articles section.
----------

At Forbes, Charles Kadlec explains that economists increasingly accept that tax rate cuts and lower spending are essential to economic growth.

On The Next Right, D.R. Tucker advises supply-siders to better document the benefits of their ideas to average Americans. (Hat tip: Frum Forum.)

At NRO, Larry Kudlow wonders if President Obama is moving towards supply-side economics:

And now it’s fascinating to watch the money-politics dynamic continue. On a recent Sunday talk show, top Obama economic advisor Austan Goolsbee sounded like a Reagan disciple. “You’ve got direct incentives for companies to invest in the country,” he said. And he went on to describe a new Obama economic model that sounds suspiciously supply-side: “The focus has got to be on investment, on exports, and on innovation. . . . The president is firmly in that — planted in that camp — and we are going to grow our way out of this.” (Hat tip to economist Don Luskin.)

On The Kudlow Report, Stephen Moore expresses skepticism about the President’s change of heart:




At Forbes, John Tamny responds to Scott Sumner’s charge of anti-intellectualism.

The WSJ editorializes that Canada is prospering thanks to corporate tax rate reductions:

Relative levels of taxation matter because companies and investors send capital where it can achieve the highest returns. Yes, U.S. companies often pay a lower effective tax rate thanks to loopholes, but the variability leads to economic inefficiency and investment distortions. Low marginal rates have helped the likes of Hong Kong (16.5%), Singapore (17%) and Ireland (12.5%) attract capital, while the high U.S. rate keeps hundreds of billions of dollars from coming to America from offshore.

Also on Forbes, Amity Shlaes praises the use of new technology to communicate sound economics.