The public policy blog of the American Enterprise Institute

Subscribe to the blog

Discussion: (5 comments)

  1. Max Planck

    “And, what if (somehow) Congress enacted a solution to the “fiscal cliff” that eliminated the corporate income tax, thus causing real GDP growth to surge to 7%?”

    Not only would this further bankrupt the country, all you would do is spur the sales of Prada dresses and Hermes ties.

    GDP wouldn’t grow by a turd’s worth. Growth drives profits. Profits don’t by themselves drive growth, and that evidence is sitting in front of you RIGHT NOW. As Father Kung would say “This Day, This Hour, This Minute.”

    This is the drivel that is produceds when people are paid what to write as opposed to being paid to write what they think.

    One morning Mr.Pethokoukis will have his own epiphany about this- and it’s going to cause him considerable pain.

    Is this output of fecal slurry worth your soul, Mr. Pethokoukis?

    1. Liberal Roman

      You are a moron. I hope no one else responds to you cause that last sentence is all the response your post deserves.

      1. Max Planck

        Mr. Pethokoukis wasn’t always like this. He gets paid to write what he does, and I will pay him the compliment that I sincerely doubt he believes one tenth of what he produces.

        I’ve been around the block a few times, pal. I know what goes on. You would do well to listen.

  2. I find much value in the idea of the Federal Reserve adopting a nominal GDP target. It provides a rule-based system to guide monetary policy and an anchor to economic expectations….

    Why not just let the free market deal with the demand for money and credit? Since when is the AEI admitting to favouring central planning?

  3. Todd Mason

    Absolutely, market driven algorithms worked so well for program traders in the 80s and long term capital mgmt in the 90s, why not put the Fed on autopilot?

    The Fed has the authority to print money, which is what NGDP targeting is all about. What’s more it has used it to the point of alarming some FOMC members. Here is Dallas Fed chief Fisher speaking in QE1 — the Fed is now on QE3 — to make the point that more liquidity won’t help until someone actually uses it: “The Fed, as I see it, has taken a leap of faith that our political leaders will forge a sensible budgetary and regulatory path that incentivizes businesses to put to work the money the Fed is printing to invest in creating jobs for American workers.”

    Can you say Keynesian? Can you understand now why AEI would embrace a path that clearly scares the crap out of Fisher?

Comments are closed.

Sort By:

Refine Content:


Additional Keywords:

Refine Results

or to save searches.

Refine Content