- The Washington Times - Wednesday, March 5, 2003

One might expect President Bush to be attacked by Democrats for appointing a staunchly free market-oriented economist as his chief economic adviser. But it is a bit odd for him to be attacked by Republicans for doing so. Yet that is what happened last week when Steve Moore of the pro-Republican Club for Growth attacked N. Gregory Mankiw's appointment as chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers.
Mr. Moore's concerns mainly involve some comments Mr. Mankiw made in the first edition of his best-selling textbook, "Principles of Economics" (not the third edition of his "Macroeconomics," as Mr. Moore writes). He condemns Mr. Mankiw for referring to supply-side economists as "charlatans and cranks" and "snake-oil salesmen" for allegedly convincing Ronald Reagan that taxes could be cut with no loss of revenue.
Of course, no one ever said such a thing. I have thoroughly researched this matter and found no evidence that any economist working for the Reagan administration ever said that. This fact is documented in books by Martin Anderson, chief domestic policy adviser to President Reagan, and William Niskanen, a member of his Council of Economic Advisers. Nevertheless, the canard has been repeated so many times that Mr. Mankiw can be excused for thinking it was true.
Mr. Mankiw was simply trying to illustrate the point that sometimes a fad can sweep the economics profession that later turns out to be false. This is indisputably true. Unfortunately, he chose a poor example to make his point. Mr. Mankiw acknowledged this fact by purging this section from later editions of his book, the third edition of which is due out shortly.
Yet even in the first edition of his textbook, Mr. Mankiw acknowledged that the Laffer Curve is correct in theory it simply shows that at a 100 percent tax rate or a zero percent tax rate no revenue is collected. Every economist knows that this is true. But of course, we are nowhere near a 100 percent tax rate nor were we in 1981 such that one could expect an across-the-board reduction in tax rates actually to raise revenue. Mr. Reagan never said so, nor did any responsible economist.
To his credit, Mr. Mankiw quickly recognized that he had made a mistake. Yet Mr. Moore seems intent on hanging it around his neck forever. This is just stupid, especially in light of the fact that Mr. Mankiw has written extensively in favor of policies Mr. Moore certainly approves of.
One of the things Mr. Moore completely ignores is that Mr. Mankiw had a column in Fortune magazine from 1997 to 2001, in which he regularly promoted strongly free market policies. For example:
In a 1998 column, he praised Milton Friedman as among the top three economists of the 20th century.
In a 1999 column and again in 2000, he criticized the estate tax as one that "restrains the economy, doesn't fall on the rich … and doesn't even raise much revenue."
In another 1999 column, he strongly praised school vouchers, saying, "An economy based on free and competitive markets serves consumers better than one based on central planning."
In one of his last columns, he endorsed the election of President Bush because, unlike Al Gore, he would cut taxes, reform Social Security and antitrust policy, and try to implement school choice.
It is hard to see what more Mr. Moore could ask for in any economist let alone one trained at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and a full professor at Harvard. Let's face it, advocating the free market at such institutions takes a great deal of effort. It would be much easier for Mr. Mankiw simply to parrot the interventionist line at those schools that the market is inherently imperfect and in constant need of government policies to correct its errors.
Yet early in his career, Mr. Mankiw rejected the simplistic Keynesianism that has long dominated both Harvard and MIT. For example, economist Mark Skousen, former president of the Foundation for Economic Education, praised Mr. Mankiw in his book, "The Making of Modern Economics"(M.E. Sharpe, 2001). Mr. Mankiw, Mr. Skousen said, put classical economics at the front of his text and relegated Keynesian economics to a secondary position. Said Mr. Skousen, "In essence, under Mankiw, the classical model becomes the 'general' theory and the Keynesian model becomes the 'special' case the very opposite of Keynes' thesis."
It is also worth noting that Mr. Mankiw's textbook was strenuously attacked by leftists precisely for being too free market-oriented. Socialist Robert Heilbroner criticized it on such grounds in a review in the far left Nation magazine in 1997.
I think President Bush has found an excellent replacement for Glenn Hubbard, who resigned from the CEA to return to his family in New York. Anyone who thinks Mr. Mankiw is a liberal in sheep's clothing simply doesn't know what he is talking about.

Copyright © 2019 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

The Washington Times Comment Policy

The Washington Times welcomes your comments on Spot.im, our third-party provider. Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.


Click to Read More and View Comments

Click to Hide