The Wall Street Journal takes a look at Jeff Bell’s campaign for the US Senate in New Jersey.
Republican Senate Hopeful Says Easy-Money Policies Have Led to Budget Deficits
Also, Larry Kudlow writes about the damage continually being done the Kennedy name in the Investor’s Business Daily:
Dan Mitchell writes on his blog:
– – – – –
From the UK, good news for supply-siders:
At last, David Cameron is being much bolder on tax
Here are five reasons why today’s tax cuts should be embraced enthusiastically.
1. They show that the Tories are re-embracing supply-side economics and the lessons they had originally learnt in the 1970s and 1980s but then appeared to forget
These tax cuts will boost people’s incentives to work and save; by allowing folk to keep more of their own money, they create a closer connection between effort and reward, something which is at once ethically sensible and economically efficient. George Osborne had previously shown that he believed this with corporation tax – he has slashed rates to improve investment and competitiveness – but had sent mixed messages on other taxes, wrongly hiking capital gains tax, for example. Today’s announcement confirms that the Tories are once again a pro-market party. Sure, the actual extent of the cuts is not huge, and they will take years to kick in. But they will nevertheless be worth an estimated £7.2bn a year by 2020. This is an important and welcome day in British politics. Supply-side economics are back, not a minute too late.
Ralph Benko continues his previous writing for Forbes.com:
There appear to be but two technically plausible ways of getting there. One is Nobel economics laureate Robert Mundell’s proposal of a world currency. The other, of course, represents a sort of “reversion to the mean.” Restore a 21st century international gold standard.
While the gold standard is very unfashionable it by no means is absurd. Then-World Bank Group president Robert Zoellick, in 2010, was dead on when he observed in an FT column that “Although textbooks may view gold as the old money, markets are using gold as an alternative monetary asset today.” About a year later, the Bank of England issued a startling but meticulous white paper demonstrating that the “Federal Reserve Note standard” materially has underperformed, in every area considered, both the Bretton Woods gold-exchange standard and the classical gold standard itself.
Ralph Benko for Forbes.com:
Keynes expressed wariness of the risk of currency depreciation (better known as inflation). Sure enough, eventually the Federal Reserve indeed became “overwhelmed by the impetuosity of a cheap money campaign.” The Fed cheapened its product — Federal Reserve Notes — by 85% since 1971 (and by about 95% since the Fed’s inception).
A dollar today is worth a 1913 nickel and a 1971 nickel and dime. This gives a whole new meaning to the phrase “nickeled and dimed to death.”
Cheapening of money is very bad for business. It is really, really, terrible for labor. Ron Paul, call your office: Keynes proved quite right to be dubious about the Fed.
Why do so few of the economists who exalt Keynes share his tough-mindedness toward the Fed? Why do so few grasp the irony of their mesmerized adulation of an institution with such a mediocre (and sometimes catastrophic) track record? Many acorns have fallen far from the tree.
One of the factors in play involves one of the standard tropes of mercantilism, to which Kudlow and Moore allude: the intentional depreciation of a national currency to gain unfair trade advantage. This is what classically was called a “beggar-thy-neighbor” policy. The neighbor, in this instance, is America. Forbes Media chairman, and Editor-in-Chief, Steve Forbes, and Forbes.com columnist Nathan Lewis, both gold standard advocates, are zealous critics of mercantilism (as is this columnist).
– – –
Also, in the world of the delusional, The Krug was given his box of crayons again today and the NYT is running an op-ed today where Krugmanomics are on full display.
Message to The Krug: please show us the evidence that “most Americans” want any of the things you suggest. We’ll wait right here and we’ll put on another pot of coffee.
Under the gold standard, the value of the dollar would be fixed to a certain amount of gold
NEW BRUNSWICK, N.J. (AP) — Republican Jeff Bell spent three decades in Washington working on policy and wrote a book promoting all aspects of social conservatism. But so far his campaign for the U.S. Senate has centered on just one issue: returning the United States to the gold standard.
“We are in a situation of stagnation,” Bell said earlier this month in a speech to a real estate conference in New Brunswick. “Why don’t they let market interest rates return to our economy?”
Like other supporters of the gold standard, Bell is an acolyte of Ronald Reagan and Jack Kemp, the late congressman, secretary of housing and urban development and vice presidential nominee who made the call for cutting taxes to stimulate the economy part of a national debate in the late 1970s. Bell, now 70, won the Republican nomination for a New Jersey U.S. Senate seat in 1978 largely by advocating the kind of Reagan-era tax cuts some credit with spurring the economy.
From the Daily Caller:
Also, at Forbes Steve Moore writes about the differing tax policies of Kansas vs. Illinois: