View this post on Instagram
The fight between former President Obama and President Trump on claiming American economic prosperity has been heating up, but former Reagan economist Art Laffer declared the verdict is clear: President Trump caused the thriving Trump economy. “Trump has caused the Trump economy and deserves all the credit for it,” Laffer told FOX Business' Stuart Varney on Tuesday. “His policies are right on mark … and they really are his policies. President Trump understands the economy. Obama didn't.” Obama inherited an economy on the rocks after the market crashed in 2008, and, Laffer said, he was able to bring it back, albeit slowly. What Americans are seeing now in the Trump economy, he said, is a “continuation and a surge … that is second to none.” “President Obama is a fine man, but he’s not an economist,” Laffer said. Laffer said the seven-year-long recovery under Obama was the slowest in history and now Americans are flourishing in the boom Trump created thereafter. “This is the Goldilocks economy if I've ever seen one,” Laffer exclaimed. “And it's because President Trump understands economics … You get the growth of the U.S. staying at very high rates. You get tax revenues coming in nicely. You keep inflation under control. I mean, what's more to ask?”
Steve Forbes appeared on The WILS Morning Wake-Up with Dave Akerly radio show in Michigan:
He took on New Jersey’s Clifford Case and forever changed the way Reagan conservatives talked about the economy.
But it was Bell’s role in the emergence of “supply-side economics” that cemented his stature in American politics. I rate him among the top four figures in that emergence, along with Jude Wanniski, editorial writer and commentator for The Wall Street Journal; his boss, Robert Bartley, who ran the Journal’s editorial page; Congressman Jack Kemp of New York, at that time famous mostly as a former NFL quarterback for the Buffalo Bills but later highly influential politically; and Bell.
Wanniski, a kinetic figure who operated in a constant state of intensity as if the fate of the world hinged on his latest insight, crafted the argument that America’s growing problem of “stagflation”—economic stagnation mixed with inflation—stemmed from insufficient attention to the supply side of the economy. He sold the idea to Bartley, who turned his editorial page into a kind of journalistic billboard on behalf of this outlier concept. Kemp, reading Wanniski’s Journal editorials (and a particularly influential piece of commentary by him in The National Observer), sought out Wanniski and Bartley with offers to press the cause in Congress. Then Jeff Bell became the first person to test the resonance of the concept on the hustings.
Catherine Rampell probably had a great time writing her fact-free column this week. She will probably be as surprised by this CBS News report on tax reform as CBS News was. Ms. Rampell is now in the unenviable position, along with all of her fellow Democrats, of rooting against the American people and the economy that those people represent. Good luck with that, Ms. Rampell.
CBS News was shocked to hear about how these three families would fare under the newly passed tax reform package.
How the tax bill will affect the returns of three American families
From Speaker Ryan’s Instagram account…a great t-shirt:
Mark Skousen has a good look at the economy on his website:
Skousen adds, “Gross Output and GDP are complementary aspects of the economy, but GO does a better job of measuring total economic activity and the business cycle, and demonstrates that business spending is more significant than consumer spending,” he says. “By using GO data, we see that consumer spending is actually only about a third of economic activity, not two-thirds that is often reported by the media. As the chart above demonstrates, business spending is in fact almost twice the size of consumer spending in the US economy.”
John Tamny writes in the Investor’s Business Daily:
Yardley and Ewing naturally accept the conventional view that “austerity,” whereby politicians have less to spend, is the cause of European weakness. Of course, what they miss — and in their defense most economists miss it too — is the simple truth that governments tautologically have no resources. The latter isn’t some kind of ideological assertion, or some evidence-free libertarian slogan, it’s just fact.
And with the above fact in mind, we have to ask what drives prosperity. It’s not just success, and if it were, Silicon Valley would be very impoverished. What drives prosperity is constant, market-disciplined experimentation with new ideas.
It’s 2,000 carmakers sprouting up in the early part of the 20th century in the U.S. Just about every one of them failed, but rather than implode based on all the bankruptcies, the economy soared. Fast forward to the end of the 20th century, most Internet companies similarly went belly up, but no sane individual would suggest that the U.S. economy was set back by all the bad ideas that eventually vanished.
When businesses are forming, the economy experiences a surge of information about what works and what doesn’t such that we all benefit. Success doesn’t power prosperity, but information does.
– – – – –
In short, the only European “austerity” is that which empowers politicians to allocate the always limited resources created in the private economy. The latter is a barrier to the very experimentation that is necessary for an economy to evolve in prosperous fashion.