Wednesday round up: Danker and The Economist on China; Lehrman on transitioning to gold; The NY Sun says Paul won the debate.

From Forbes, Rich Danker explains the Chinese trade deficit is more a function of the dollar’s reserve status than currency manipulation.

The Economist notes that as China’s currency has risen, so has its trade deficit.

At The Washington Examiner, Lew Lehrman summarizes the steps to get to a gold standard.

On The Kudlow Report, a panel discusses Herman Cain’s rise in the polls:

 

The NY Sun argues US Rep. Ron Paul (TX) won last night’s debate due to his monetary answers.

At a press conference, Cain doesn’t sound like a monetary reformer:

“Representative Paul wrote a book called ‘End the Fed.’ I believe we can fix the Fed,” Cain said. “Because when I ask the Ron Paul people, ‘what would you replace it with?’ they don’t have an answer.”

Cain said he is falsely accused of opposing an audit of the central bank.

“As far as auditing the Fed, in the vernacular of my grandfather, I does not care,” he said, quickly slipping into the third person. “But what Herman Cain has said is, ‘It’s not going to be one of my top issues … If members of Congress were to get together and bring me legislation to audit the Fed, I’d sign it. But I don’t have a problem with it. Now, that being said, you don’t need the president to sign a bill to audit the Fed. Representative Paul sits on a committee that already has that authority!”

On International Liberty, Dan Mitchell scrutinizes Cain’s 9-9-9 tax plan.

Politico features an analysis of Cain’s tax plan by supply-sider Gary Robbins, who predicts it would stimulate strong growth (h/t: Bretton Woods Research).

At First Trust, Brian Wesbury and Robert Stein see reason for economic optimism.

The WSJ quotes from Larry Lindsey’s The Growth Experiment (1990):

[The Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981] did not pay for itself as some of the most enthusiastic supply-siders claimed it would. Personal income tax collections were lower under ERTA than they would have been had tax rates never been cut. . . . However, the reductions in very high tax brackets easily paid for themselves and produced a rather sizable increase besides. This increase helped finance a large part of the reduction in taxes from lower- and middle-class taxpayers. Though this is not what some enthusiastic supply-siders predicted during the political fight for the tax cuts, it is what basic supply-side theory would predict. . . .

Putting theory to one side for a moment, were the Reagan tax cuts a good idea? More specifically, could the country afford them? By 1985, at a revenue cost in that year of $33 billion, economic output was between 2 and 3 percent higher than it would have been without the tax cut. That extra growth stands for millions of new jobs and a higher standard of living. Moreover . . . the tax cuts had salutary effects on inflation, investment, and savings and contributed only marginally to the deficit.

By the standards of government programs this one would have to be judged a bargain.

In The WSJ, Peter Wallison blames federal programs but not the weak dollar for the subprime mortgage mess.

At Slate, William Saletan notes Mitt Romney’s liberal answers in last night’s debate.

The WSJ suggests the latest economics Nobel Prize was for supply-side economics:

 

The Atlas Sound Money Project reports on last week’s Heritage conference on a stable dollar.

At COAL, Paul Krugman argues Keynesianism has been validated by the current crisis.

Weekend edition: Lewis on gold's simplicity; Wesbury says current spending will require middle class tax hikes; Stein sees a better economy ahead.

From Forbes, Nathan Lewis explains the simplicity of gold-linked currency.

On The Daily Caller, Brian Wesbury suggests current spending levels will require raising middle class taxes.

At Fox News, Steve Forbes predicts the President will sign whatever debt ceiling bill Congress passes.

On The Kudlow Report, James Pethokoukis discusses the debt ceiling:




At CNN, Stephen Moore analyzes the debt ceiling impasse.

From Forbes, Reuven Brenner cites foreign examples of how to assess the US budget deficit, and cites the need to increase entrepreneurship.

At NRO, Bob Stein suggests the sluggish economic numbers will improve later this year.

The WSJ highlights a Kauffman Foundation study on how to stimulate more new businesses:

The Kauffman Foundation proposes a "startup act" to make it easier for new companies to survive and contribute to long-term growth. One key is making ieasier to access the capital markets, at a lower cost, at early stages of business formation. Messrs. Schramm and Litan want to permanently waive any capital gains taxation for long-held investments in startups over their early years. (We prefer a zero capital gains tax on all investments, but this is a start.)

Another good idea is an unlimited annual supply of an "entrepreneurs visa" available to any immigrant who wanted to come to the U.S. to start a business, with a particular focus on newcomers with expertise in engineering, science and technology. Still another proposal is regulatory reform. To "cleanse the books of inefficient and costly rules," any regulation that took more than $100 million from the private economy would lapse automatically after a decade.

On RCM, Jeff Snyder of Atlantic Capital Management advocates a strong dollar.

Reason TV lauds monetarist Milton Friedman on the anniversary of his birthday.

On Kudlow, Brian Wesbury and Don Luskin discuss the weak economy:




On The Fiscal Times, Bruce Bartlett contrasts President Obama’s negotiation style with President Reagan’s.

From ABC’s This Week, Keynesian Paul Krugman explains his view of why the economy is weak and how spending cuts will make it worse. (Part 2, here.)

At COAL, Krugman argues most of the recent deficit surge stems from the recession:

At Economix, Clinton economist Laura D’Andrea Tyson links the fiscal deficit to the weak jobs and investment climate.

The Huffington Post, Keynesian Jared Bernstein notes the rise of wage inequality since the early 1980s.

Wednesday items.

On NRO, Larry Kudlow suggests the negative yield on inflation-adjusted securities is signaling inflation.

Cato’s Dan Griswold rebuts myths about free trade.

On Carpe Diem, Mark J. Perry explains that current account deficits are balanced by capital account surpluses:


At Café Hayek, Don Boudreaux defends free trade.

On Forbes, Brian Wesbury and Robert Stein argue bullish investments have been more profitable than bearish.

On The Kudlow Report, Don Luskin debates the Fed’s feint towards lighter than expected monetary stimulus:



The WSJ notes that low-tax states have better economies than high-tax states.

On Townhall, Thomas Sowell recalls past tax cutting successes.

On NRO, Michael Tanner urges Republicans to focus on deep, painful spending cuts.