On Forbes, Nathan Lewis argues the Eurozone’s economic problems shouldn’t undermine the euro.
In The WSJ, Holman W. Jenkins, Jr. suggests the euro is working as it should:
Those who say if only Greece still had its own currency, so much pain would have been avoidable, exaggerate. Under no possible currency regime would Greece have been able to go on forever borrowing money from foreigners to live beyond its means or its willingness to work. The same is true to lesser degree of other troubled European economies, including Portugal and Spain.
All along, the challenge of the euro was the challenge that undid the gold standard—to make "the law of one price" prevail across multiple countries in the age of interest group democracy. "One price" in one country works—Americans will pick up and move 3,000 miles for a job, but even in America, not without pain.
Yet the nostalgia for a Europe of independent currencies is mostly nostalgia for an illusory shortcut—even more so as services, rather than tradable goods, become the overwhelming source of employment in modern economies. Greece, with its sun and history, has every potential to make a happy, privileged existence inside the euro zone. Today's growth gap between Europe's north and south, which some say proves the unwisdom of a common monetary policy, is hardly organic—it's the product of their common mistake in loading too much debt on unreformed southern economies in giddy expectation of euro-based prosperity.
At RCM, Joe Calhoun says Paul Krugman is right that defaulting on debt can be healthy.
On Yahoo Finance, Steve Forbes addresses Greece’s debt problems:
The WSJ editorial board argues the dollar’s decline has been good for wealthier, heavily invested Americans but terrible for blue collar workers and the middle class.
The WSJ reports Sen. Richard Shelby (AL) will urge Fed Chairman Bernanke to adopt and explicit inflation target.
From IBTimes (UK), Gabriel Mueller compares the dollar and gold price of the 1970s to the present (h/t: Ralph Benko).
At RCP, U.S. Sen. Pat Toomey (PA) supports Tim Pawlenty’s economic growth proposal.
RCP: Tim Pawlenty has come out with what many consider to be a very pro-growth economic plan. Would you support Pawlenty's plan?
Toomey: I haven't had a chance to break down and study every element of his plan, but I am very enthusiastic about the fact that he has made economic growth -- encouraging that growth through tax reform, lowering the top marginal rates, and the abolition of the tax on capital gains -- that he has made it the centerpiece of his campaign is very constructive and very good news. A very important part of our message needs to be our ability to restore economic growth and job creation. Now, [Pawlenty] has established a very ambitious goal of 5 percent economic growth.
RCP: Do you think that's a reasonable goal?
Toomey: If we had really dramatic tax reform, if we got our fiscal house in order, if we reform the big entitlement programs, if we rein in the regulators, and if we expand trade, I think it is entirely possible. You could average that. We could have a wave of innovation and investment that could very well produce something like that and it's a good goal to have.
From The WSJ, Stephen Moore analyzes the weak recovery.
On Bloomberg, Caroline Baum suggests unstable tax policy is damaging the economy.
At Slate, Annie Lowrey acknowledges that some tax cuts do pay for themselves.
On The Kudlow Report, Stephen Moore and James Pethokoukis debate the economy and debt:
In The American Spectator, G. Tracy Mehan, III, wonders why we would raise taxes now.
At Forbes, Peter Ferrara recommends health care reforms that would achieve much of Obamacare’s aims without job-killing mandates.
On TNR, Jonathan Chait cites Bruce Bartlett arguing Republican claims about tax hikes’ negative impact is overstated.
At American Thinker, Henry Oliner defends supply-side economics.
No comments:
Post a Comment