Monday summary: Benko on congressional sound money legislation; Tamny on GDP; Wenzel on the Fed's tight money error of summer 2008.

From Forbes, Ralph Benko reports congressional sound money legislation.

At RCM, Louis Woodhill explains the terrible employment data.

In Forbes, John Tamny analyzes the problem of reliance on GDP.

On The Kudlow Report, Benn Steil discusses the eurozone crisis:



At The WSJ, James Bovard highlights efforts to create a happiness index to replace weak GDP statistics.

From PJ Media, David Goldman explains declining labor force participation.

On RCM, Keynesian Paul Samuelson sides with Ben Bernanke over Paul Krugman on inflation.

At RCM, Bill Frezza notes the negative economic consequences of restrictive immigration policy.

The Mises Institute features Robert Wenzel’s NY Fed speech, in which he cites his warning of the dramatic monetary tightening of summer 2008:

After growing at near double digit rates for months, money growth has slowed dramatically. Annualized money growth over the last 3 months is only 5.2 percent. Over the last two months, there has been zero growth in the M2NSA money measure.

This is something that must be watched carefully. If such a dramatic slowdown continues, a severe recession is inevitable.

We have never seen such a dramatic change in money supply growth from a double digit climb to 5 percent growth. Does Bernanke have any clue as to what the hell he is doing?

The WSJ suggests the new French president follow German chancellor Gerhard Schroder’s example.

At The NYT, Paul Krugman advocates breaking up the euro.

In The WSJ, Jon Huntsman notes the Chinese government’s profound economic insecurity.

Monday update: Chapman on Europe; Pethokoukis on Huntsman; Brenner on corporate taxes.

India’s Free Press argues gold-backed currency is best for the common person (h/t: Ralph Benko).

From Alhambra Partners, John Chapman analyzes Europe’s economy using Ludwig von Mises.

At The American, James Pethokoukis gives Jon Huntsman another look.

On The Kudlow Report, Sen. Bob Corker (TN) debates the payroll tax cut versus permanent tax increases:

 

On Forbes, Reuven Brenner explains the impact of corporate taxes on business decisions.

In The NY Sun, Ira Stoll assesses Newt Gingrich’s candidacy.

At The American, Mark Perry suggests China’s currency exchange rate amounts to a subsidy of US consumers.

In The WSJ, Stephen Moore examines Herman Cain’s campaign and future prospects.

At The WSJ, business executives discuss the impact of regulation:



At Forbes, John Tamny reviews Judge Andrew Napolitano’s new book.

From The American Family Association, Tamny discusses Europe and the ongoing currency crisis.

Friday items.

A FreedomWorks press release says the organization will co-sponsor a panel discussion in Washington this week on sound money.

From Wednesday, Larry Kudlow reports on the stock market’s progress.

On The Kudlow Report, Stephen Moore analyzes the high jobless numbers:




At Encima Global, David Malpass assesses the jobless report.

On RCM, John Tamny takes a counter intuitive view of a US-debt default.

At Reason, Nick Gillespie downplays the role of economic growth in the current deficit:




The NY Sun notes silver's recent rise.

At National Review, Rich Lowry praises entrepreneurial innovation.

From the Mises Institute, George Selgin suggests the Fed has been a failure:




In The WSJ, John H. Cochrane suggests national debt defaults are preferable to bailouts.

On NRO, Kevin Williamson scolds Americans for Tax Reform for opposing the Simpson-Bowles tax plan.

Thursday round up.

At The Washington Post, Fed Chairman Bernanke justifies yesterday’s decision to add $600 billion to the economy.

The NY Sun editorializes that the dollar’s value will predict the fate of the Boehner Republicans.

On The WSJ, Dan Henninger argues Republicans should focus on economic growth over spending cuts:




At Asia Times, David Goldman outlines why quantitative easing won’t work.

On NRO, Larry Kudlow suggests stopping bad ideas may be the best outcome of the Republican House.

The WSJ editorializes against quantatative easing:

The Fed first tried QE, as it's called, with $1.75 trillion of bond purchases starting in December 2008, but that was at the height of the financial panic when markets were frozen. The Fed's justification for this current round is that inflation is too low and growth too slow to reduce unemployment. The Fed promised to buy $600 billion in bonds for starters, and to keep buying until the rate of inflation rises, presumably above its 2% target.

This is a terribly risky strategy for what we expect will be little economic gain. The Fed hopes the policy will have the effect of reducing long-term interest rates by 25 to 50 basis points or more, but the 10-year Treasury bond is already near historic lows. Marginal business borrowers aren't worried about the price of money; they're worried about the vagaries of economic policy. QE2 only adds to this uncertainty, as the Fed expands its role into fiscal policy and credit allocation.

Meanwhile, Mr. Bernanke's monetary cowbell will flow into higher commodity prices and other assets, perhaps leading to more bubbles. It has already caused havoc around the world, as investors flee the dollar for other currencies. Dollar-bloc countries are already seeing an increase in their price levels and several are contemplating capital controls.

In The Financial Times, U.S. Rep. Paul Ryan (WI) emphasizes growth – including sound money.

On The Kudlow Report, Brian Wesbury sees the Fed funds rate as too low and likely to lead to inflation:




At Forbes, Steve Forbes suggests provisions to change in Obamacare.

From the Mises Institute, Austrian Robert Murphy challenges "60 Minutes" on taxes.

Australia’s you.com discusses the effect of tax rates on the Rolling Stones (H/T: Greg Mankiw):

The Stones are famously tax-averse. I broach the subject with Keith in Camp X-Ray, as he calls his backstage lair. There is incense in the air and Ronnie Wood drifts in and out--it is, in other words, a perfect venue for such a discussion. "The whole business thing is predicated a lot on the tax laws," says Keith, Marlboro in one hand, vodka and juice in the other. "It's why we rehearse in Canada and not in the U.S. A lot of our astute moves have been basically keeping up with tax laws, where to go, where not to put it. Whether to sit on it or not. We left England because we'd be paying 98 cents on the dollar. We left, and they lost out. No taxes at all. I don't want to screw anybody out of anything, least of all the governments that I work with. We put 30% in holding until we sort it out." No wonder Keith chooses to live not in London, or even New York City, but in Weston, Conn.

Of course, it wasn't just the taxman's pinch that forced the Rolling Stones to focus on the bottom line. They also got screwed by record labels. "In the early days you got paid absolutely nothing," recalls Jagger. "The only people who earned money were the Beatles because they sold so many records."