Weekend round up.

On RCM, John Tamny argues lower housing prices are good for the economy.

Also on RCM, Larry Kudlow advocates pro-growth tactics to improve the employment picture.

From The Heritage Foundation, Steve Forbes makes the moral case for capitalism:





The NY Sun advocates an audit of Federal Reserve bail outs.

In The WSJ, John Fund reports the Americans prefer spending cuts to tax increases by 59% to 30%.

The Huffington Post reports just how grim the unemployment data really is:



At The San Francisco Chronicle, Lisa Smith summarizes the Laffer Curve.

From AEI’s The American, Donald Losman rejects deflation predictions, citing rising gold.

Also in The Journal, Holman Jenkins notes weakening support for the euro among former supporters.

Even faced with maximal turmoil, Europeans are still trying to have it both ways. The bailout to-ing and fro-ing by European authorities is conditioned largely on their unwillingness to choose between conflicting goals—on one hand, a continent of competitive and open economies; on the other hand, a "social model" that cushions established interest groups and voting blocs from the stress of competition.

A very different approach to managing the current crisis is imaginable. Put the European Central Bank in charge of printing liquidity to prop up the continent's banks. (Right now it's printing liquidity to prop up governments, which are propping up the banks.) Let badly indebted governments go into default and negotiate more manageable terms with their creditors (mostly banks). Let politicians in these countries invest their limited political capital in promoting growth rather than austerity. Let them cut taxes and deregulate their labor markets.

This would certainly sound preferable to voters than job-killing tax hikes and spending cuts to appease far-off German taxpayers who are being dragooned into refinancing their insupportable debts. The most encompassing description of Europe's problem, after all, is the one not mentioned enough: a shortage of growth.

Weekend update.

On New World Economics, Nathan Lewis recounts Germany’s hyperinflation after World War I.

At Investors Business Daily, Tom Giovanetti and Merril Matthews distinguish between tax cuts that stimulate work and investment versus demand-side rebates.

During the early debate over the proposed Bush tax cuts, the Institute for Policy Innovation conducted a study by economists Gary and Aldona Robbins that analyzed which policy options might produce the most economic bang for the buck.

According to the study, several types of tax cuts will easily pay for themselves by generating more revenue through increased economic growth than they cost in static revenue loss. A capital-gains tax cut, for instance, generates more than $10 in new GDP for every $1 loss in static revenue.

Accelerated depreciation — similar to what President Obama apparently has proposed — repeal of the alternative minimum tax (AMT) and an investment tax credit for equipment all more than pay for themselves, according to the Fiscal Associates model.

And a corporate rate cut, which wasn't part of the Bush tax cuts, generates almost $3 in increased GDP for every $1 lost in static revenue.

On The Kudlow Report, Stephen Moore analyzes the weak job numbers:



At RCM, Larry Kudlow notes that bad economic news is paradoxically bullish, as it increases likelihood of political successes for Republicans.

On CNN, Stephen Moore debates Arianna Huffington on the economy.

The Herald Tribune profiles Donna Arduin, an Art Laffer protégé.

It was in California that Arduin met Arthur Laffer, the supply-side economist who had greatly influenced Reagan and other conservative leaders.

Laffer defended the basic principles of supply-side economics, which includes tax cuts, spending cuts and regulatory relief, that infuses much of Arduin's work.

"People do make decisions based on taxes as to whether they work or employ people," Laffer said. "If you tax people who work and you pay people who don't work, don't be surprised if you find a lot of people not working."

On Money Control, Cato’s Steve Hanke discusses the downside of quantitative easing.

The Washington Post asks a collection of Keynesians what to do about China’s currency.