Weekend edition: Lewis on trade deficits; The WSJ, Moore and Kudlow critique the President's jobs plan; Malpass on Greece.

From Forbes, Nathan Lewis suggests the gold standard didn’t keep the trade deficit down. This chart seems to counter Lewis’s analysis:

At Forbes, Bill Flax argues the recovery is stalled by unsound money.

The WSJ critiques the President’s job proposal. Stephen Moore comments on the plan. In NRO, Larry Kudlow adds his two cents.

On The Kudlow Report, David Malpass discusses Greece:





At Forbes, Peter Ferrara defends Reaganomics.

From National Review in November 1980, the late, great Robert D. Novak describes the challenges facing the newly-elected Reagan Administration, including cutting tax rates, restoring a gold standard, and fighting off Republican austerity advocates.

In The WSJ, James Grant reviews a book on economists.

Also in The WSJ, Cato’s Daniel Ikenson advocates lowering tariffs on imported raw materials.

As important as access to foreign markets is, however, some of the most significant obstacles to U.S. export success aren't foreign-made but homegrown. If the president is genuinely committed to spurring economic growth and job creation, he will take the lead on reducing or eliminating duties that U.S. producers pay on imported raw materials and components they need for manufacturing. This would instantly boost the competitiveness of U.S. products at home and abroad.

From Heritage, Curtis Dubay sets the record straight on the effects on growth of the Clinton tax hikes and the Bush tax cuts.

IHS features George Mason’s Don Boudreaux explaining free trade:



The Tax Foundation’s William McBride analyzes the true level of taxes paid by corporations.

At Forbes, Charles Kadlec notes the high jobless rate among African Americans.

Tuesday summary.

On NRO, Larry Kudlow explains that continued volatility between the dollar and euro is damaging the world economy.

At Forbes, Brian Domitrovic recounts how Sen. George Mitchell derailed George H.W. Bush’s drive for a capital gains tax cut in favor of higher taxes, dooming Bush’s presidency.

On The Kudlow Report, Heritage’s Curtis Dubay debates tax rates:




In The WSJ, Seth Lipsky reviews Nixon Fed chairman Arthur Burns’ diary.

At Alhambra Investments, Joseph Calhoun expresses cautious optimism on the economy.

Also on Kudlow, Brian Wesbury discusses the stock market’s weakness:




In Forbes, Wesbury and Robert Stein see the economy improving.

On NRO, Reihan Salam explains the negative budget impact of raising upper income tax rates.

NRO’s editors cite Art Laffer in opposing Sen. McCaskill’s (MO) millionaire tax rate increase.

The economic facts are a good deal more complicated. As the always-sensible Reihan Salam reports in the current edition of National Review, economists expect that raising taxes at the top end would reduce economic growth significantly. Democrats will call that a Republican talking point, but it is consistent with the findings of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, currently under the management of Douglas Elmendorf, a Democratic appointee. The CBO numbers suggest that a partial preservation of the Bush tax rates — meaning a compromise that raises taxes on “the rich,” in this instance defined as those earning $250,000 or more — would reduce real GNP by 1.2 percent, as lower revenue necessitates more government borrowing, slowing down long-term economic growth. But an across-the-board extension would reduce real GNP by only 0.6 percent, cutting the economic losses in half. Another way of saying that is that the growth effects of extending the tax cuts at the affluent end of the scale would make up half of the forgone real GNP associated with the tax cuts. That isn’t Arthur Laffer’s analysis, it’s the Democratic-led CBO’s.

From the Mises Institute, Frank Shostak rebuts Nouriel Roubini on the gold standard. (Hat tip: Ralph Benko.)

At Capital Gains and Games, Bruce Bartlett continues to drift from classical economics by endorsing floating currencies.