Thursday update: Woodhill on growth vs. fairness; Rickards on gold and the IMF; Kudlow on Geithner and Bernanke.

From Forbes, Louis Woodhill argues for economic growth rather than fairness.

In US News, Currency Wars author James Rickards explains the hidden role of gold at the IMF.

From The WSJ, George Melloan highlights US Rep. Kevin Brady’s Sound Dollar Act.

On CNBC, Larry Kudlow critiques Tim Geithner’s political rhetoric and Ben Bernanke's refusal to raise inflation:



In The WSJ, Cato’s Dan Mitchell applauds Switzerland’s fiscal restraint law.

From Bloomberg, Caroline Baum examines the 2013 fiscal cliff.

The WSJ urges Mitt Romney to explain what he will do differntly than Presidents Obama and GW Bush, including on the dollar.

From First Trust, Brian Wesbury highlights Wednesday’s Fed policy statement.

In The WSJ, Stephen Moore reports the Senate’s Postal Service bailout.

On his website, Dilbert creator Scott Adams defends the rich.

The Sound Money Project features a video on inflation:



From Project Syndicate, Keynesian Stephen Roach defends China on trade and the yuan.

At Bloomberg, Jared Diamond notes Japan’s tremendous demographic challenges.

Weekend edition: Kudlow on Romney's supply-side focus; Newt on rising oil; Goldman says the dollar isn't driven by the Fed.

From Forbes, Richard Salsman urges Mitt Romney to strengthen his supply-side rhetoric.

On NRO, Larry Kudlow suggests Romney won last week by focusing on tax cuts and spending restraint.

In The WSJ, Stephen Moore reports that if Newt Gingrich bows out he may endorse Rick Santorum.

The Weekly Standard highlights a study by our friends at Evolving Strategies that suggests Romney is the strongest general election candidate.

In an ad, Newt Gingrich advocates lower gas prices but leave a stronger dollar out of the equation:



At CityAM (UK), Austrian George Selgin blames England for the monetary mess that led to the Great Depression.

On NWE, Nathan Lewis examines the falling commodity-1890s.

From First Trust, Brian Wesbury argues the Fed can’t make the case for QE3.

At Forbes, Jerry Bowyer links low interest rates to weak recoveries.

CBS News notes alternative, higher inflation numbers.

At Calafia Beach Pundit, Scott Grannis highlights Obamacare’s seven fatal flaws.

The Atlantic notes that Yale’s tuition is the same today in gold as in 1900.

The WSJ warns against excess liquidity creation from the world’s central banks.

At Forbes, Nathan Lewis explains the link between the dollar and oil.

On the Kudlow Report, David Goldman suggests oil’s price increase is not driven primarily by the Fed:



Politico reports Ben Bernanke saying gas prices won’t drive up inflation.

On TGSN, Ralph Benko notes the Fed’s poor track record of predictions.

At The American, James Pethokoukis highlights 13 charts that highlight the President’s poor economic record.

US News highlights a poll showing Keynesian spending stimulus is unpopular.

In The WSJ, Fred Barnes applauds US Rep. Paul Ryan’s (WI) ongoing Medicare leadership, but omits polls suggesting the GOP may lose the House in November.

In The WSJ, Democratic Gov. Jack Markell (DE) notes the decline of American IPOs since the 1990s.

The U.S. has experienced a stunning decline in IPOs and stock listings while capital markets in Asia, Europe and South America have thrived. Data from the World Federation of Stock Exchanges show that the number of U.S. IPOs has dropped to only about 100 annually, compared to about 360 a decade ago. In just 15 years, listings on U.S. exchanges dropped from 8,800 companies to under 5,000. Meanwhile, listings on major overseas exchanges doubled. Fewer than 10% of all global IPOs list on U.S. exchanges today, compared with 48% in the late 1990s.

The NYT reports London, not New York, is the money capital of the world.

In The WSJ, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner misdiagnoses the financial crisis of late 2008 as rooted in regulatory lapses rather than currency instability.

At The Atlantic, Matthew O’Brien argues a global currency war would be positive because it would increase liquidity.

In Fiscal Times, Bruce Bartlett notes looming debt and tax rate cliffs later this year.

Wednesday summary: Lindsey defends the wealthy; Domitrovic pans Geithner's corporate tax reform advocacy; Ron Paul grills Bernanke.

The WSJ suggests Mitt Romney won in Michigan by focusing on the economy.

In The WSJ, Larry Lindsey rebuts Tim Geithner’s claim that the wealthy should pay more taxes for the privilege of living in America:

If you go further back to the pre-Reagan days, when the top tax rate was 70%, the story becomes even more dramatic. Under the four presidents of that era, the income share of the top 5% was 16.8% and their share of the income tax was 36%. In other words, the share of income received by the top 5% has risen 28% and their share of income taxes has risen 64%.

Stated differently, based on the data provided by the Census Bureau and the Internal Revenue Service, the relative tax burden of the top 5% of American earners compared with the remaining 95% has grown from roughly three-to-one prior to 1980 to almost six-to-one today.

At Forbes, Brian Domitrovic notes the half-heartedness of Tim Geithner’s corporate tax reform plan.

In Congress, US Rep. Ron Paul (TX) grills Ben Bernanke on the true inflation rate:



From Alhambra Partners, Joe Calhoun sees inflation undermining the recovery.

At The American, James Pethokoukis introduces the Krugman Curve to compete with the Laffer Curve.

On Zero Hedge, Tyler Durden confirms Iran’s move to accept gold in place of dollars for oil.

The Huffington Post reports the poor struggling with rising food prices.

At RCP, Debra Saunders notes Newt Gingrich’s low gas price advocacy.

On TGSN, Ralph Benko recounts creation of the First Bank of the US.

At Grant’s Interest Rate Observer, James Grant suggests the price of gold for convertibility should be $2,500 (h/t: TGSN).

On The Kudlow Report, former Fed Governor Kevin Warsh critiques Fed policy:



From The American, James Pethokoukis defends the Reagan economic miracle.

In US News, Jeff Bell advocates social conservatism.

At Forbes, Steve Forbes predicts war with Iran.

Monday items: Gold passes $1,700; Goldman cites the popping of the hedge fund bubble; Kudlow counsels calm.

Reuters reports gold passing $1,700/oz.

On Asia Times, Spengler (David Goldman) suggests the market selloff is linked to the popping of the hedge fund bubble.

At NRO, Larry Kudlow counsels calm amidst the market collapse.

On The Kudlow Report, Larry Kudlow interviews Harvard conservative Keynesian Greg Mankiw and former Fed official William Poole about Ben Bernanke’s next steps:



The Washington Post reports weak dollar Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner won’t leave his post anytime soon.

At The Freeman, Jeb Bleckly and Joshua C. Hall refute former-Gov. Eliot Spitzer’s (NY) claim that higher marginal tax rates have no effect on economic growth.

NRO features a symposium on unemployment, but only two of 13 contributors mention the dollar.

In The WSJ, Harvard’s Robert Barro recommends four good reforms and a fifth bad one (a VAT on top of income taxes.) His analysis omits a stable dollar:

First, make structural reforms to the main entitlement programs, starting with increases in ages of eligibility and a shift to an economically appropriate indexing formula. Second, lower the structure of marginal tax rates in the individual income tax. Third, in the spirit of Reagan's 1986 tax reform, pay for the rate cuts by gradually phasing out the main tax-expenditure items, including preferences for home-mortgage interest, state and local income taxes, and employee fringe benefits—not to mention eliminating ethanol subsidies. Fourth, permanently eliminate corporate and estate taxes, levies that are inefficient and raise little money.

Fifth, introduce a broad-based expenditure tax, such as a value-added tax (VAT), with a rate around 10%.

In Time, Amy Sullivan suggests austerity economics may fracture the GOP coalition with Christian conservatives.

From The Witherspoon Institute, Carson Holloway argues the Balanced Budget Amendment violates conservative principles.

Monday round up: Woodhill on Keynesianism; Rapoza on the yuan; Moore on Speaker Boehner's debt limit speech.

From Forbes, John Tamny explains that policies for energy independence are counterproductive.

On RCM, Louis Woodhill argues Keynesian spending doesn’t stimulate economic growth while supply-side tax cuts do.

In The NYT, Greg Mankiw ponders the economy, inflation and the debt.

At Forbes, Ken Rapoza quotes Bretton Woods Research’s Vlad Signorelli discussing the yuan.

On The Kudlow Report, Stephen Moore applauds House Speaker John Boehner for refusing to raise the debt ceiling without deep spending cuts:




At The Street, Peter Morici argues poor U.S. economic management is driving the world back to gold as money (h/t: Ralph Benko).

The WSJ notes tax receipts have risen substantially.

At The WSJ, Stephen Moore reports on Treasury Secretary Geithner’s measures to keep government paying its bills without a debt ceiling increase.

On Kudlow, James Pethokoukis debates the President’s criticism of CEO pay:




On Lew Rockwell, David Stockman advocates return to the gold standard.

In The Financial Times, John Dizard suggests gold is money but is otherwise useless.

At COAL, Paul Krugman cites Mundell’s Impossible Trinity in arguing for emerging market currencies to appreciate.

Also on COAL, Krugman argues inflation isn’t a problem because wages are flat or falling.

Wednesday update: Lipsky suggests questions for Bernanke; Kudlow and Lehrman on Bernanke; Kristol on the need for a pro-growth candidate.

Bloomberg reports Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke will maintain QE2 through June but is unlikely to enact QE3.

In The WSJ, Seth Lipsky offers questions for Fed Chairman Bernanke.

At NRO, Larry Kudlow suggests gold rose today due to Fed chairman Bernanke’s statement.

On The Kudlow Report, Lew Lehrman discusses Bernanke’s statement:




At The Weekly Standard, Bill Kristol quotes Lew Lehrman and pines for a GOP candidate with a deep understanding of the conservative economic model.

From Cato, Alan Reynolds corrects the President on wages and tax rates.

The NY Sun chides Treasury Sec. Geithner for his strong dollar claim.

Despite negative stories today in The NYT and on NPR, on NRO Ryan Stiles argues Republicans are in good shape on the budget debate.

On Fox News, Stephen Moore discusses energy prices:




At NRO, Kudlow rebuts attacks on the energy industry.

On The Daily Caller, John Mueller explains the flaw in Bernanke’s view of the Great Depression.

Tuesday summary: Lehrman on the dollar standard; Domitrovic hails Jack Kemp; Wesbury ponders Geithner's strong dollar claim.

From The WSJ, Lewis Lehrman explains that the dollar standard enables the high U.S. budget and trade deficits.

At Forbes, Brian Domitrovic credits Jack Kemp with restoring the American Century.

Strangely, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner announces his support for a strong dollar ahead of Ben Bernanke’s Wednesday press conference.

On The Kudlow Report, Brian Wesbury puzzles over Geithner’s statement:




From RCM, John Tamny counters David Stockman’s claim that America is bankrupt.

On G. Gordon Liddy’s radio show, Tamny argues that rapid economic growth would enable a substantial shrinkage of government.

The WSJ critiques Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke’s management of the dollar.

On Fox News, Future of Freedom’s Jacob Hornberger discusses the monetary rebellion in the states:



In The LA Times, liberal columnist Michael Kinsley links fiscal deficits to inflation.

From Forbes, Charles Kadlec doubts the Fed’s ability to control inflation.

In The NYT, Paul Krugman notes the slow growth of European nations under austerity budgets.

Wednesday round up: Tamny and The Sun on gold; Kudlow is pessimistic on a budget deal; Wesbury on the end of QE2.

On RCM, John Tamny notes that $1,500 gold signals a major problem.

The NY Sun urges the President to address the falling dollar.

At NRO, Larry Kudlow suggests Treasury Sec. Tim Geithner is overly optimistic about a budget deal.

On The Kudlow Report, Brian Westbury discusses the end of QE2:




From Bloomberg, Amity Schlaes notes that lower tax rates often boost government revenues.

From Hoover, Richard Epstein argues against income redistribution.

Smart Money Europe explains that the euro is strong because the dollar is weak.

The WSJ reports Vladimir Putin calling U.S. monetary policy “hooliganism.”

“Look at their trade balance, their debt, and budget. They turn on the printing press and flood the entire dollar zone — in other words, the whole world — with government bonds. There is no way we will act this way anytime soon. We don’t have the luxury of such hooliganism,” he said.

Even as Putin blamed the U.S. for printing money — something for which Russia was criticized during periods of hyperinflation in the 1990s — other Russian officials said there is no alternative to the U.S. dollar and declined to discuss cutting the country’s dollar holdings.

On TGSN, Daniel Ryan suggests the gold standard empowers the people.

At the Atlanta Federal Reserve’s Macroblog, Dave Altig cites this Robert Mundell paper to suggest Mundell is not a critic of Keynesianism (h/t: COAL).

On COAL, Paul Krugman challenges the notion that inflation is expansion of money and credit.

Think Progress reports U.S. Rep. Paul Ryan (WI) got booed at a constituent meeting for opposing raising tax rates on the wealthy to address the deficit.

Friday items: Woodhill discounts the Dow for gold; Lehrman and Grant testify on monetary policy; Geithner supports a world reserve currency.

From The Weekly Standard, Lewis Lehrman argues for a gold-backed dollar.

At Forbes, Louis Woodhill measures the Dow against the gold price.

U.S. Rep. Ron Paul (TX) held hearings yesterday on Federal Reserve policy and rising prices, featuring Lewis Lehrman and James Grant:



(Parts 2-8 of the hearing, here, here, here, here, here, here and here.)

(Lehrman’s written submission here, Grant’s here. H/t: Ralph Benko, Rich Danker.)

The Telegraph (UK) reports world markets were stunned by Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner’s suggestion that the U.S. supports a global reserve currency.

From last week, The WSJ recounts a hapless Fed official’s explanation to working people that price inflation is under control.

So Mr. Dudley tried to explain that other prices are falling. "Today you can buy an iPad 2 that costs the same as an iPad 1 that is twice as powerful," he said. "You have to look at the prices of all things."

Reuters reports that this "prompted guffaws and widespread murmuring from the audience," with someone quipping, "I can't eat an iPad." Another attendee asked, "When was the last time, sir, that you went grocery shopping?"

At RCM, Cato’s Kevin Dowd and Martin Hutchison tie dollar volatility to the recent boom/bust cycles and suggest investors are pulling out of the U.S. as a result.

From Future of Capitalism, Ira Stoll notes the Ways and Means Committee Chairman wants a top tax rate of 25 percent.

At Democracy Journal, supply-side critic Jonathan Chait laments the GOP’s refusal to raise tax rates.

We can identify three phases of supply-side craziness in Republican Party history. In phase one, the Republican establishment greeted supply-side economics with incredulity. The messianism and insouciant disregard for sound fiscal principles sounded more like a nutty left-wing scheme than anything a Dwight Eisenhower or even a Barry Goldwater might recognize. George H.W. Bush called it “voodoo economics.” A great blaze of tax cutting at the outset of the Reagan presidency quickly produced massive deficits, and the Reagan Administration — still dominated by an older generation of Republicans — quickly retrenched. It quietly raised taxes in 1982 and 1983, and then in 1986—aghast at the massive corporate tax loopholes that had grown out of its initial tax cuts—agreed to a tax reform that, even in the course of lowering nominal rates, shifted a larger share of the tax burden onto the rich by sweeping the tax code of subsidies for the wealthy.

Through the next decade, in phase two, the Republican Party stayed committed to anti-tax absolutism in rhetoric, but it remained largely tethered to fiscal reality in practice. In 1990, George H.W. Bush agreed to a major deficit-reduction package, including substantial spending cuts, in return for a small hike in the top marginal income tax rate, from 28 to 31 percent….

Which brings us to phase three. Over the last 20 years, the penetration of taxophobia within the Republican Party has been total. Reducing taxes, especially taxes on the rich, has been enshrined as the party’s unquestioned central policy goal. Virtually all Republicans at the national level have signed a pledge concocted by anti-tax fanatic Grover Norquist pledging never, under any circumstances, to support higher taxes. No such pledge exists for spending.

On Forbes, Peter Ferrara suggests Social Security accounts are still a viable option.

From Fiscal Times, Bruce Bartlett argues Tea Party Republicans are blowing it by focusing on small, unpopular budget cuts.

Wednesday round up.

In response to yesterday’s large Republican electoral gains, John Tamny argues for sound money as key to political success:

Despite the undeniable good that will result from the Tea Party movement hopefully forcing the political class to show spending discipline wrought by strict constitutional limits, there’s seemingly a big hole in the platform. Specifically, it’s hard to discern any interest in stabilizing the value of the dollar.

This is important, and it’s also a constitutional issue. Indeed, the Constitution empowers Congress “to coin money, regulate the value of”, and this line in the document if properly read says that Congress must legislate the issuance of dollars that hold a specific value today, tomorrow, and ten years from now.

In short, the Tea Parties, to be successful, must demand that the political class get serious about redefining the dollar in terms of gold. If not, all their spending, tax, pro-Constitution and anti-bailout protests won’t mean a whole lot, and the economy’s full recovery will remain a distant object.

At NRO, Larry Kudlow makes a similar point:

The GOP needs a King Dollar policy, preferably one backed by gold. A depreciating dollar will drain cash from the U.S. and send it overseas; foreign investment into the U.S. will be stunted by a chronically weak dollar. And the inflationary consequences of the devaluing dollar will ultimately outweigh any low-tax-rate incentives.

As the dollar kept falling during the Bush years, it blunted the pro-growth effects of the 2003 tax cuts. There is a crucial lesson to be learned here: A strong and stable dollar is an essential complement to low tax rates.

Regarding Team Obama, it now appears that Tim Geithner’s protest that no country can devalue its way into prosperity was a lot of smoke-blowing. His credibility is going to suffer.

On The Kudlow Report, Stephen Moore analyzes the electoral results:



At CNBC, John Carney predicts Treasury Sec. Geithner is a goner.

On Bloomberg, supply-side guru Robert Mundell raises alarm bells that the falling dollar will create deflationary pressures in Europe:

In an earlier speech at a forum run by Bank of America- Merrill Lynch, Mundell, 78, said the Fed’s quantitative easing was “terrorizing” the world economy. In the interview, he drew parallels between a quantitative easing-induced dollar devaluation and the “inflation tax” of the 1970s, where depreciation caused by rising U.S. prices reduced the value of dollar holdings of governments and investors around the world.

“Dollars were depreciating in value, dollars were the major reserve, this was a tax on dollars held outside” the U.S., Mundell said.

On CNBC, David Stockman claims the U.S. Fed has destabilized the world economy and forces emerging markets to buy U.S. bonds:



At Politico, Cato’s David Boaz advocates Republicans focus on the economy, but makes no mention of the dollar.

On CNBC, Professor Mundell answers five questions about himself.

Tuesday round up.

At RCM, John Tamny criticizes Treasury Secretary Geithner’s plan to manipulate trade balances through continued dollar weakness.

In The WSJ, University of Chicago’s John H. Cochrane analyzes Geithner’s trade balance argument.

Since when is every trade surplus or deficit an "external imbalance" in need of correction? It makes sense for a country that has good investment prospects to import a lot of goods, run trade deficits, and borrow money. Years later, the country puts the resulting products on boats to pay the lenders back. The U.S. borrowed abroad to finance our railroads in the 19th century and ran surpluses when Europe was rebuilding after World War II. Were these "imbalances"?

Or consider a country (say, China) with a lot of middle-aged workers who need to save for retirement. It makes perfect sense for them to put stuff on boats and send it to a second country (say, the United States) whose people want to consume the goods. The people in the first country invest their earnings, say, by buying the bonds issued by the second country. And as they retire, they cash in the bonds and buy goods flowing the other way.

Do these and similar stories exactly account for current trade patterns? I don't know. But nobody else does, either. In particular, the army of economists in the basements of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) has no clue exactly how much each country should be saving, or where the best untapped global investment opportunities are around the world—including whether trade patterns are "normal" or "imbalanced."

On CNBC, Keynesian Stephen Roach lashes China currency bashers:




Cato’s Steve Hanke recounts the history of US efforts to destabilize China’s currency.

Investor’s Business Daily offers non-monetary ways to increase exports.

At NRO, Stephen Spruiell comments on Paul Krugman’s claim that lower revenue due to contraction, not abnormally high spending, accounts for the budget deficit:




On The Washington Times, Richard Rahn argues taxes already have been increased by $352 billion.

At Alhambra Investments, Joseph Y. Calhoun, III assesses the economy.

On The Kudlow Report, Steve Forbes suggests the budget deficit can be reduced with strong growth:




Reprinted from First Things, David Goldman and Reuven Brenner analyze the Keynesian roots of the current crisis. (H/T: Dick Fox at Supply-Side Forum.)

Friday round up.

On Asia Times, David Goldman critiques Sec. Geithner’s call to target national trade balances.

Robert Mundell showed in his Nobel-Prize winning work that trade deficits arise from anexcess or deficiency of savings in a national economy; if the Chinese want to save 50% of GDP, they can only do so by exporting goods, because there aren’t sufficient outlets for savings inside China. The trade deficit is the symptom, not the cause, of a complex of economic problems. To target a trade deficit is lunatic. Some countries with very young populations and huge investment opportunities should have enormous trade deficits; some countries with aging populations and high savings rate should have enormous trade surpluses.

At Forbes, Shikha Dalmia scolds Republican for joining Democratic China bashing:

But the idea that selling abroad creates jobs at home and buying abroad destroys jobs at home is an old mercantilist fallacy that Adam Smith handily refuted more than 200 years ago. Back then it at least had intuitive plausibility, but today it is obviously false given that the manufacturing chain spans the whole globe. Indeed, under the intricate global division of labor that currently exists, the whole idea of “Made in China” is largely a bureaucratic fiction.

On The Kudlow Report, Larry debates Sec. Geithner’s recent strong dollar sentiments:



At his blog, Scott Grannis argues it is China, not the U.S., that gets the short end of the trade stick.

They sell us mountains of cheap goods, then turn around and invest most of the proceeds (equivalent to our trade deficit with China) in U.S. Treasury securities. We get the goods, and we get to keep the money. Then we devalue the dollar, and they lose on their investment. Why we would want them to stop doing this is beyond me, though if I were a Chinese citizen, I would be furious with my government for directing such massive quantities of my country's export earnings to Treasuries. The central bank of China has no need to further increase its already-massive reserves; instead, the government should be relaxing capital constraints, allowing Chinese citizens more freedom to save and invest abroad in the types of vehicles with which they feel most comfortable. China's workforce is aging daily, and like Japan a few decades ago, China's economy cannot accommodate all the savings of the Chinese people—they are essentially forced to save overseas.

Contrary to what you read in the press—which mistakenly believes that our large trade deficit with China is something we need to worry about—China is the one that needs to worry, not us.

At Green Faucet, Brad Zigler summarizes the decline of world currencies versus gold.

On The Freeman, Christopher Lingle debunks the notion of an export multiplier.

At Carpe Diem, Mark J. Perry explains the factors behind income inequality.



In an editorial, The LA Times suggests austerity is the only alternative to Keynesian stimulus.

On the Peter Peterson-funded Fiscal Times, Bruce Bartlett defends Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels support for a VAT tax.

Thursday items.

Housekeeping note: I've added Alan Reynold's 1984 piece, "Managed Money" to the Classic Articles section.
--------------------------------

The WSJ reports that following this week’s strong dollar comments, Treasury’s Tim Geithner advocates a global exchange-rate agreement.

At NRO, Larry Kudlow wonders if Sec. Geithner is serious about wanting a stronger dollar.

On The Kudlow Report, David Goldman discusses Geithner’s remaks:



At Seeking Alpha, John M. Mason comments on Robert Mundell’s recent WSJ interview.

On Catholic Culture, Dr. Jeff Mirus summarizes Goldman and Reuven Brenner’s recent article on Keynesian economics.

Keynes’ idea is simple. In fact, it is simple by construction, for it focuses on the very short term within a closed economy. If consumers won’t spend, the government will spend for them; if businesses won’t invest, the government will invest for them; and if investors won’t take risks, the central bank will reduce the yield on low-risk investments to almost nothing. The risk-taking of entrepreneurs, the cleverness of inventors, the skills and motivation of the workforce, the competitiveness of industries—all the granular reality of a dynamic society, chugging along through trial and error—vanish into Keynesian aggregates like gross domestic product, price indices, productivity, and so forth. Behind all the technical language stands the assumption that bureaucracies, with no business experience whatsoever, can somehow make wise decisions about allocating capital—and do so quickly. These gross simplifications take on the aura of academic theurgy when packaged into seemingly complex mathematical models that occult their ridiculous assumptions.

The Telegraph (UK), Terry Smith argues against raising British tax rates.

At Forbes, Rich Karlgaard suggests the key to restoring economic growth is more small companies reaching the billion-dollar mark.

In Investor’s Business Daily, David Beckworth and William Ruger critique Fed policy from a monetarist perspective.

On Kudlow, Don Luskin says the Fed not the Treasury determines the dollar’s value:



Cato’s Dan Mitchell wonders why distrust of government seems to be a partisan issue.

Wednesday update.

In Forbes, Paul Hoffmeister urges Sen. Kyl (R-AZ) to embrace sound money as part of his pro-growth agenda.

On Asia Times, David Goldman mocks Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner’s claim that the U.S. will not devalue the dollar.

At The Kudlow Report, Dick Armey suggests big Tea Party wins will mean less corporate welfare and a sound dollar:



On Gordon Liddy’s radio show, John Tamny discusses gold, oil and the weak dollar.

At Smart Money, Don Luskin predicts higher stock prices.

Bloomberg reports inflation fears are raising Treasury bond yields.

At The Heritage Foundation’s Foundry blog, David Weinberger makes the historical case against raising tax rates in a recession, featuring this amusing clip from “Ferris Bueller’s Day Off”:



Cato’s Dan Mitchell argues against conservative acquiescence to a VAT tax.

In The Washington Examiner, AEI President Arthur Brooks analyzes the top 10 factors contributing to unemployment. Sound money doesn’t rate a mention.

In The WSJ, John Chambers and Safra Catz argue U.S. taxes on foreign income are keeping capital from being repatriated.

On CNBC, David Malpass explains how Fed policy is damaging the economy:



In the UK, Prime Minister Cameron tests Jude Wanniski's Two Santas Theory with budget austerity and tax increases.

From earlier this year in The Washington Examiner, Ralph Benko pays homage to supply-side guru Robert Mundell.

Weekend update.

In The WSJ, Steve Moore interviews House GOP chief Eric Cantor on the party's election message. No mention of sound money.

Another concern is that Republicans lack a coherent growth agenda beyond simply cutting spending. To this, Mr. Cantor objects: "We will start by unraveling the economic damage that has been done by their agenda, whether it's health care, or whether it's the financial reg reform or regulations from EPA that are strangling businesses."

On The Kudlow Report, Don Luskin is optimistic about the economy:



At RCM, Larry Kudlow sees few improvements coming from the President’s staff shakeup.

Also in The Journal, Charles Schwab suggests the Federal Reserve’s low interest rate policy is damaging savers and reducing the availability of credit.

The negative impact of current policy is clear. The near-zero interest rate experiment is weighing on consumer and investor confidence, and the Fed signals its lack of confidence with each "extended period" proclamation. It is providing banks with low-interest financing that can be used to create modest returns through a carry-trade in U.S. Treasurys but is adding nothing to the velocity of money, which is what actually generates economic growth.

The Fed's super-loose policy has driven down the security and spending power of savers, particularly those in retirement who played by the rules during their working years and now depend on the earnings from their savings for a decent quality of life. As a result, savers and investors are being forced to take more risk with their money as they hunt for higher yields.

The extreme monetary policy is also having no positive impact on the availability of consumer or business credit, job growth or consumer and business spending.

At Market Oracle (UK), Barry Grey summarizes the emerging global currency war.

The Las Vegas Review Journal reports on a Steve Forbes speech.

On Kudlow, Larry debates Sec. Geithner’s call for more stimulus spending:



Robert Reich likens today’s Republicans to Herbert Hoover. He omits that the Great Depression’s main causes – an unstable dollar, a large tariff, and tax rate increases – are items on his party's current agenda.

Thursday items.

The NY Sun rolls its eyes at Alan Greenspan's recent remarks that gold is the canary in the currency coal mine.

At Investor's Business Daily, Cato's Alan Reynolds analyzes Keynesian spending vs supply-side tax cuts.

The WSJ's Dan Henninger sees spending as the election's main issue.

At The Kudlow Report, Larry examines Japan's currency fluctuations.

At The WSJ, a collection of conservative Keynesians and monetarists offer a mixed agenda for economic growth (cutting spending and entitlements, freezing regulations, and maintaining current tax rates). Most problematic is the fifth point, which calls for a Taylor Rule-style monetary policy rather than a commodity price rule.

The WSJ reports on Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner's call for a higher yuan at a House hearing.

At The Money Illusion, Scott Sumner points out that currency revaluations don't necessarily improve trade deficits.

Steve Forbes discusses successful investment strategies of the past decade.

A note on David Malpass's Senate race: Earlier this week, supply-sider Malpass lost his Republican primary bid for the U.S. Senate in New York. While I followed the campaign from afar, I can't help but note that Malpass seemed to cast himself most clearly as a spending hawk, rather than focusing his campaign on tax cutting, sound money and economic growth. Running as a budget cutter, Malpass was one of the crowd rather than a standout candidate for growth; an odd strategy.