From Forbes, Nathan Lewis explains why, if the gold standard is so effective, the world left it.
At The WSJ, Stephen Moore notes that taxes are rising in blue states and falling in red states.
The NY Sun advocates that Robert Zoellick be considered to lead the IMF.
On The Kudlow Report, Sen. Tom Coburn (OK) discusses his withdrawal from Gang of Six budget talks due to insufficient Medicare cuts:
At Forbes, Reuven Brenner likens the U.S. economy today to 1970s Canada.
In The WSJ, Seth Lipsky opposes selling the U.S. gold supply.
James Grant, editor of Grant’s Interest Rate Observer, believes that “a resumption of gold convertibility is not politically impossible. . . . Is it not a historical fact that gold-convertible currencies did yeoman’s service for 100 years and more?” He is with Mr. Lehrman, who stressed on National Public Radio this week that the gold standard is ripe for American leadership: “We have all the grounding and the basis for the United States taking the lead in establishing the convertibility of the dollar today.”
Surely Mr. Lehrman is right that if we are to return to an era of sound money, America would be the logical leader. That was my takeaway from the interview with Mr. Poehl in 1986. The point on which he was most clear was that if there was to be monetary reform, “the U.S. would certainly have to take the lead. That just goes without saying, because the U.S. is the strongest country.”
From the Independent Institute, Jeffrey Rogers Hummel suggests the Federal Reserve has become the economy’s central planner.
The Mellman Group releases poll data on the economy, indicating substantial room for an upbeat, pro-growth message.
USA Today reports continued weak job creation.
In The WSJ, Dick Armey and Matt Kibbe suggest entitlement reform is the key to national leadership.
At The NYT, Paul Krugman argues the weaker dollar has helped U.S. manufacturing.
Also in the Times, Christina Romer endorses the lower dollar.
The AP features James Grant saying it’s best to be in cash.