The Economic Far Right & the G.O.P.

Interesting Op-Ed by Jonathan Chait in today’s NYT: Captives of the Supply Side. Chait makes the interesting argument that as far as the GOP is concerned, it is not the religious right, but the economic far right that calls the shots:

"Last year, Senator John McCain earned widespread ridicule for
publicly embracing Jerry Falwell, whom he had once described as “evil.”
But an equally breathtaking turnabout occurred earlier in the year,
when Mr. McCain embraced the Bush tax cuts he had once denounced as an
unaffordable giveaway to the rich. In an interview with National
Review, Mr. McCain justified his reversal by saying, “Tax cuts,
starting with Kennedy, as we all know, increase revenues.” It was the
political equivalent of Galileo conceding that the Sun does indeed
revolve around the Earth."

That’s a pretty fair assessment of the Supply Side camp in the Republican party.  Enthralling my pal Larry, they dominate the economic debate to the point where there is no debate:

"Mr. McCain is not alone. Every major Republican contender — Rudy
Giuliani, Fred Thompson, Mitt Romney — has said that the Bush tax cuts
have caused government revenues to rise. No prominent Republican
office-seeker dare challenge this dogma for fear of offending the
economic far right.

Yet there is no more debate about this question among economists
than there is debate about the existence of evolution among biologists.
Most economists believe that it is theoretically possible for tax rates
to be high enough that a reduction in rates could actually produce more
revenues. But I do not know of any tenured economist in the United
States who believes this is true of the Bush tax cut

Granted, economic growth sometimes causes revenues to rise faster
than expected after a tax cut, as has happened since the 2003 tax cut.
But sometimes revenues fall faster than expected after a tax cut, as
they did after the 2001 tax cut. And sometimes revenues rise faster
than expected after a tax increase, as they did after the 1993 Clinton
tax increase.

Even very conservative economists who have worked for the Bush
administration — including Greg Mankiw, a former chairman of the
Council of Economic Advisers under President Bush who is now an adviser
to Mr. Romney — have publicly stated that today’s tax revenues would be
even higher were it not for the Bush tax cuts
."  (emphasis added)

That’s a fascinating observation. Apparently, this belief is heresy:

"No Republican candidate can risk committing heresy by acknowledging
this bipartisan consensus among economists. On social issues, however,
Republicans actually tolerate diversity of thought. For example, Mr.
McCain, Mr. Giuliani and Mr. Thompson all oppose, on federalist
grounds, a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage."

Meanwhile, lots of credible economists are quite critical of the Supply Side argument (as well as some amusing goofs) — including Greg Mankiw.

And as we’ve long said here, the main credit for the current expansion
lies with the Fed’s Ultra-low rate cuts, and global growth — not
either the 2001 or 2003 tax cuts.

I am curious: is there a general consensus amongst readers as to whether or not Supply Side is legit or not?

What say ye?


Captives of the Supply Side
Jonathan Chait
NYT, October 9, 2007

Category: Economy, Politics, Psychology, Taxes and Policy

Fear & Greed Index

Category: Data Analysis, Markets, Psychology, Technical Analysis

Distributed Content Blog Advertising Model

A few people wrote in to ask me about yesterday’s Nielsen/Media Matrix rant.

-Some pointed out (privately) the flaws in these systems, noting they have been very error-prone in other media — radio, television, newspapers — for years.

-A few told me I was wildly wrong, and this is just a standard measuring approach. (I don’t buy that, as its easy enough to measure EXACTLY how many ads are actually served or clicked on. The aggregation/assignment approach, is a recipe for inaccuracy and abuse).   

-Several media people told me that the anarchy of the blogosphere terrifies the MSM, and this was an attempt to make it more acceptable (a "clean well lit place" one wrote).

-A major advertising executive asked a question that was most intriguing: "Why do you care, and what does it matter anyway?"

That’s a thought provoking question, worthy of an answer. Here’s mine:

There is little doubt that Blogging is changing how people get information, analysis and opinion. Major Media has recognized that there is a certain aggregation of readers, many of whom are not represented in the MSM readership. This means their advertisers are not reaching these consumers.

Based in part on this, I made a proposal to a large media firm over the summer, describing what I saw as an opportunity to create a new advertising structure for a large magazine or newspaper.

Read More

Category: Financial Press, Web/Tech, Weblogs

Alan Greenspan on The Daily Show

Category: Federal Reserve, Television

Biggest M&A Year in History

Category: Corporate Management, M&A, Markets

Soon to be worthless: Nielsen Net Ratings and comScore Media Metrix

Category: Data Analysis, Digital Media, Financial Press, Venture Capital, Web/Tech, Weblogs

October Linkfest: Week in Preview

Category: Financial Press

Spam Assassin

Category: Weblogs

A Robust Segment of the Housing Market

Category: Consumer Spending, Credit, Economy, Real Estate

October Linkfest: Week in Review!

Category: Financial Press