At NRO, Larry Kudlow suggests the dollar’s decline is causing Egypt’s food riots and destabilizing the developing world.
From 1998, Jude Wanniski recounts how the 1970s weak collar caused revolutions in Iran and Iraq.
On The Kudlow Report, Don Luskin assesses the world inflation situation and how it will impact the U.S.:
At Asia Times, David Goldman recommends buying oil stocks.
On Fox Business News, David Malpass discusses Egypt.
Steve Forbes delivers a superb address at the Reagan Library, including a substantial discussion of the dollar and gold:
At Forbes, Nathan Lewis explains that gold-backed currency is the most stable and reliable.
The NY Suneditorializes on the recent decline in gold.
At Asia Times, David Goldman notes that U.S. exports to China are one of the economy’s few bright spots:
From AEI, John Makin examines the prospects of the yuan becoming a world currency.
The Asian Financial Forum releases a summary of Robert Mundell’s recent speech.
On Alhurra TV, Steve Forbes discusses how to create more jobs (the opening is in Arabic but the interview is in English):
In Forbes, Reuven Brenner reports on Federal Reserve bookkeeping.
From City Journal, Nicole Gelinas makes a strong argument for a 21st century Reaganomics.
The WSJanalyzes the Financial Crisis Inquiry Report:
The questions to which Americans need answers are: Why did the pursuit of riches lead to catastrophe in 2008, and why was the crisis concentrated in housing and the mortgage-securities markets?
Democrats on the commission mention the role of Federal Reserve monetary policy in creating a credit bubble, but they spend far more time arguing that the Fed should have prevented the consequences of this subsidy for financial products with heavier regulation of lending. But when have regulators ever in history had the wit or will to stop a credit-fueled financial mania? Read your Kindleberger, guys.
Also in The Journal, Stephen Moore recounts conservative disappointment at Mike Pence’s decision not to run for president.
Cato’s Dan Mitchell notes the Laffer Curve effect of tax changes in France.
On Forbes, Ralph Benko skewers Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke’s quantitative easing plan.
At The WSJ, Michael Boskin explains the data that support tax rate cuts over spending stimulus.
On The Kudlow Report, Jerry Bowyer defends the eurozone and calls for sound money and lower taxes:
The WSJ editorial board notes the harm higher top tax rates do to job creators.
On NRO’s Corner, Cato’s Mark Calabria rebuts David Beckworth’s “conservative case for QE2.”
The WSJreports U.S. Rep. Mike Pence’s (IN) superb recent Detroit Economic Club speech calling for a supply-side reform agenda.
After criticizing the excessive money creation under Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, Mr. Pence called for eliminating the Fed's dual mandate to pursue both price stability and full employment. He wants the Fed to focus exclusively on price stability and thinks the U.S. should consider returning to gold in setting the value of the dollar. President Reagan understood that inflation is the thief of the middle class and that investor confidence is destroyed when governments debase the value of their currencies. Mr. Pence apparently understands this, too.
In The Washington Times, Richard Rahn examines insider trading.
In City Journal, Nicole Gelinas advocates tax reform:
Moreover, cutting tax breaks would be in the best supply-side tradition. Supply-side economists, after all, have long counseled lower tax rates for a reason: they figured that regular people could spend and invest their money more wisely than the government could. But rate reductions can’t work if the government continues to run people’s lives through the rest of the tax code.
Right now, we may have supply-side tax rates, but thanks to tax breaks, we’ve got a thoroughly demand-side tax code. That’s a toxic combination, considering that we need healthy economic growth to help us confront our national debt. The economy can’t grow optimally if Washington encourages Americans to pour more borrowed money into their houses at the expense of more productive investments. Nor can the economy fight its way out of stagnation if state and local governments keep pushing up their own taxes, with an assist from Capitol Hill and the White House.
At Lew Rockwell, Gary North obsesses over deficits and omits economic growth from his critique of the Laffer Curve.
On Forbes, John Tamny explains rising commodity prices indicate a falling dollar, not economic strength.
The WSJcritiques the Treasury’s trade balancing proposal as a recipe for further decline.
In any event, how do the world's would-be central planners know what is the ideal trade surplus or deficit? Many factors determine the competitiveness of a country's exports, including productivity, wage flexibility and more. Should nations like Germany that have run prudent fiscal policies, reformed their labor markets and raised productivity be chastised for exporting more goods than they import? Should countries like Australia be penalized for selling natural resources to a developing China that needs those imports to fuel growth? Should China be punished for exporting cheap goods to willing U.S. consumers?...
There was a time when U.S. officials understood that focusing so much attention on trade deficits and surpluses was counterproductive. In 1976, an advisory committee to the Treasury that studied the international economic accounts concluded: "The words 'surplus' and 'deficit' should be avoided insofar as possible . . . These words are frequently taken to mean that the developments are 'good' or 'bad' respectively. Since that interpretation is often incorrect, the terms may be widely misunderstood and used in lieu of analysis." The world could use such wisdom today.
On The Kudlow Report, Art Laffer worries about the dollar’s future:
On The Daily Caller, Jared Whitley (a friend) argues the Tea Party should focus on growth, including a sound dollar, rather than budget cuts.
At The NYT, former Obama advisor Christina Romer recommends against austerity.
In The WSJ, Keynesian (and cash for clunkers advocate) Alan Blinder advocates short-term rebates and credits, plus increased government spending.
From July, Alan Reynolds analyzes the flaws in Blinder’s model.
Also on Kudlow, Dan Mitchell debates the impact of lower tax rates on the budget deficit:
In The LA Times, Nicole Gelinas suggests letting bad banks fail is necessary for recovery.
On NRO, Reihan Salam recommends streamlining government to reduce debt, but makes no reference to increasing the rate of growth.
