Tag Archives: Forbes

Supply Side Reading 9-2-14

Tuesday News: In the NY Times Jared Bernstein calls for dethroning ‘King Dollar’; In Forbes.com, Ralph Benko asks Janet Yellen to mend the Fed

Politics and Government

In the Washington Post, Hunter Schwarz writes if Britain were a U.S. state, it would be the second poorest.

From Forbes.com, Ralph Benko details how the Delaney Act will bring a trillion dollars, and policy sanity, back to America.

In The Star Ledger, Matt Friedman writes Jeff Bell, running for Senate in NJ, “does not appear to be running a campaign, but using his campaign to flog his pet issue.”

At Town Hall, Dan Mitchell weighs in on the lower tax rates v.s. targeted tax credits fight.


Monetary Reform

In the NYT, Jared Bernstein calls for dethroning ‘King Dollar.’

From Forbes.com, Ralph Benko asks Janet Yellen to mend the Fed

At Cato, Steve Hanke covers Europe’s poor economic performance this summer.

From Forbes.com, Norbert Michel asks if the Federal Reserve is running on empty.

At Project Syndicate, Brad DeLong calls our economic state “The Lesser Depression”

At Uneasy Money, David Glasner wonders if Milton Friedman could tell the difference between real and pseudo gold standards.


The Big Squeeze

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Supply Side Reading 8-28-14

Thursday Update: Brian Domitrovic warns the GOP could “reform” its way to Keynesianism; Ralph Benko profiles Senator Rand Paul.

Politics and Government

At Forbes.com, Brian Domitrovic warns the GOP could “reform” its way to Keynesianism.

At Forbes.com, Ralph Benko profiles Senator Rand Paul.

John Tamny, of Forbes.com, offers a brilliant defense of “asymmetrical information” (aka insider trading)


Monetary Reform

From the Menger Center, Paul-Martin Foss writes the St. Louis Fed goes to bat against the gold standard, strikes out.

Hussman Funds details the growing gap between Wall Street and Main Street as a result of the Federal Reserve’s policies.

At The Weekly Standard, Michael Warren covers the recent Rasmussen Poll showing American’s are worried about inflation, don’t trust the Fed to fix it.

In TGSN, Ralph Benko presents his interview with Jerry Bowyer, Part 1

In The WSJ, George Mellon reports on how the Fed may raise rates.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

SAP: Big Data And The 2016 US Presidential Election

I was recently interviewed for this piece by business and IT writer Debra Donston-Miller about Big Data and 2016. I’ll have more to say about the subject soon enough, but for now, enjoy this article.

SAP Forbes logo GPH Consulting

Big Data And The 2016 US Presidential Election

By Debra Donston-Miller, May 7, 2013

If big data was something of a secret weapon during the presidential election of 2012, it promises to loom large as we run up to 2016.

There’s no doubt that big data is playing an increasingly big role in business, politics, healthcare, education, retail and numerous other industries. With the right tools and expertise, organizations can slice and dice data to reveal trends and other information that will inform decisions about future strategy and direction.

“[Big data] is the idea that we are finally able to do with a huge body of data things that were impossible to achieve when working with smaller amounts, to uncover to new insight and create new forms of economic value,” said Kenneth Cukier, co-author with Viktor Mayer-Schönberger of “Big Data: A Revolution That Will Transform How We Live, Work, and Think,” and data editor of The Economist. “So, for example, the reason we have self-driving cars or very good computer translation is not because of improvements in processors or algorithms, though they are useful, but because we have vastly more data from which the computer can calculate the probability that a traffic light is red and not green, or which a word in one language is a suitable substitute for a word in another.”

During the 2012 election, big data was used to great advantage—namely, by Barack Obama, in his re-election campaign.

A November 2012 article in Time magazine, “Inside the Secret World of the Data Crunchers Who Helped Obama Win, reported, “Data-driven decision making played a huge role in creating a second term for the 44th President and will be one of the more closely studied elements of the 2012 cycle. … In politics, the era of big data has arrived.”

Cukier said campaigns have always been run on information, but in 2012 big data helped optimize that information and activities around it.

“Obama’s data scientists made pioneering innovations on applying big data to politics,” said Cukier. ”They learned through testing what the optimal sum was when requesting a donation. Every piece of promotional literature online and offline is tested before it goes live at scale. They micro target down to subgroups of the population that were otherwise not picked up by campaigns in the past because it was hard to get granular information on those groups and what moved them to vote a certain way. As a result, campaigns try to tailor their activities down the seemingly ‘individual’ level — not broad, lumpy categories like the ‘soccer moms’ used in Clinton’s campaigns in the 1990s.”

The role of big data will only increase in the 2016 presidential election, with practitioners using technology to hone in on data much more granularly than ever before. In addition, say experts, the use of big data will overlap with social media and other platforms.

“For the 2016 presidential election, we can expect big data to play a much more central role than ever before,” said Cukier. “[We’ll see] micro-targeting of individuals and narrow subgroups of the population, tailored messages over social media platforms, instant feedback loops to the campaign about what works and what doesn’t to move voters, and data collected from the private sector to build predictive models of what works best for fundraising, activating the base of supporters and the get-out-the-vote activities.”

Pay attention to some of the hotly contested issues and the preparation for 2014 Senate elections, and you will see big data at work and a preview of what’s to come in 2016.

“There will be data testing in the run-up to 2014,” said Steve Parkhurst, political consultant, GPH Consulting. “There have already been debates this year on issues like the sequester, the Second Amendment and immigration, for example, and I’m sure the big data databases are filling up with usable data. The data drill-down is no doubt tracking where voters are looking and what those voters are saying, especially online.”

All of this is not to say that the process will be easy. Analysis of big data is a highly complex task, and at this point in time it requires a very specialized—and often expensive–skill set.

“Not just everyone can set up a big data shop,” said Parkhurst. “The people who are really good at it are going to charge a premium price.”

Luckily, technology providers are heeding the call for products and services that can tame the big data beast. Indeed, said Cukier, two of the biggest barriers to big data are narrow thinking and a dearth of leadership.

“The only real obstacle is one of mindset,” said Cukier. “We need to think creatively about what we can do with the data and how important it is. It takes both ingenuity and leadership.”

Leave a comment

Filed under 2016, republican, republican party


By Jerry Bowyer

May 4, 2009 for Forbes.com

We’re going to need another Jack Kemp. We’re in the same mess now as we were when he rose to prominence in the 1970s: rising taxes, energy rationing, and a misguided belief that we can counter all of that with the printing press. We’re going to need someone who can understand the fundamental truth of the Laffer Curve, and still has the charisma to lead men and women in the political sphere.

I owe Jack Kemp a lot–we all do. His supply-side optimism helped supplant the near-universal conservative pan-gloomism of the ’70s. George Gilder wrote the book, and Reagan won the White House, but before both of them, Kemp cracked the code. Kemp took the groundbreaking and brilliant work of Art Laffer and Robert Mundell and turned it into a real political movement and real-world legislation (and rescued it from becoming a Jude Wanniski cult). Kemp helped Reagan to convert from Goldwater-root-canal-high-tax-low-deficit economics and gave the GOP a new lease on life.

Kemp should have been the successor, but the Bush dynasty pulled their many strings and won the White House, and the party lost something. The Republicans have wandered in the economic wilderness, to some degree, ever since. Bush Sr. governed as a Keynesian. So did Clinton, in his first term. In his second term, Clinton governed as a supply-sider. Bush Jr. never really had it clear in his mind: demand-side tax cuts in 2001, supply-side tax cuts in 2003, Sarbanes-Oxley financial strangulation, car-crushing CAFE standards, mark-to-market, bailouts–a mixed supply-side legacy at best.

Now, as everybody and their brother tells us that the only way for the GOP to get back on top again is to stop all this tax-cutting and supply-side growth stuff, it is worth asking whether the Kemp/Reagan formula is obsolete.

I, for one, do not believe that it is.

The main thing about Kempism is that it actually worked. What the big-government conservatives can’t see from their perches at think tanks and newspapers is reality. Central planning doesn’t work. I don’t care about the emerging voting patterns of bo-bos (David Brooks’ “bohemian bourgeois”). I don’t care if the lawyers and nonprofit executives who live in their planned communities hate Sarah Palin and swoon at Barack Obama. I don’t care about any of that, because politics is not the final word; reality is. That’s what Kemp got, and so many in the party now do not.

The central planning political consensus was at least as strong in the 1970s as it is now. David Frum should know that: He wrote a fine history of that awful decade. I’m sure that if there had been blogs back then, Washington conservatives would have told us how out of touch Kemp (and Reagan) were with the political consensus, and they would have been right. But they would have been wrong, too, because in the end, the political consensus does not rule the land; reality does.

Foreign affairs and terror prevention were incredibly passé in the years leading up to Sept. 11, 2001. No one wanted to talk about that stuff. Books about it did not sell. Then, reality caught up with our Utopian illusion: Indifference didn’t work in defending us against the jihadists. More handcuffs on the CIA and the FBI than on the terrorists in the name of civil liberties didn’t work, either. Reality won again, and the political consensus lost.

This will happen again–in economics. Bushbamanomics, the new Washington consensus, will fail. Just as Nix-Carternomics did. They violate the iron laws of created human nature–and so, they must fail.

Where is the next Kemp to be found? Not from the big government right. Yes, they’ll keep their titles as the holders of the So and So Chair at the D.C. Institute for C-SPAN 2 Appearances, funded by some poor, deceased entrepreneur. They’ll still be The New York Times‘ favorite conservatives. They’ll still appear on PBS regularly; but they won’t lead the party.

He (or she) won’t come from the gloomy right, who love to drone in Spenglerian tones about the inevitable decline of the Republic. I didn’t sign on to Reagan/Kemp to “stand athwart history yelling stop.” That’s the left’s job. They were the ones who tried to stop history, to push it back into the bottle, to stifle the whirlwind of creative destruction. I signed up for the Reagan/Kemp program to stand behind history and kick it hard in the butt, yelling “get moving again.” “Create microchips and miracle drugs. Get the Soviets into the ash bin of history, quickly. Bring the slums of Calcutta and Soweto into the modern world.”

Our recent crop of GOP pretenders has been most un-Kempian. Kemp understood that reality has the power to bring people with very different agendas and concerns together. I remember one of the big media liberal pundits speaking about the GOP convention in 1984, I think, after Kemp spoke. It might have been Sam Donaldson. He said “These Republicans think they can take born-again Christians and combine them with high-tech entrepreneurs. It won’t work.”

But it did work. It worked because high-tech entrepreneurs needed lower taxes, and Reagan gave it to them. Born-again Christians were right, the sexual revolution didn’t liberate the culture; it degraded it. These two groups didn’t have a lot of personal chemistry between them, nor either with the foreign policy hawks who were the real “realists” of the cold war. Personal chemistry didn’t bring these people together–reality did. All reality needed was a guy who was willing to search for the truth about the way the world works, to disconnect his flinch reactions about how the political culture would react to the truth, and then explain the basic truths of things over and over again with joy. Jack Kemp was that guy.

Now, of course, smaller men divide up the coalition that Kemp conceived and Reagan created. Some of them talk at length about the sanctity of life but then lash out at the “Club for Greed.” Some will cut taxes to the bone, but are bored by dead babies. They believe in “divide and conquer,” but of their friends, not their opponents.

Let me offer some thoughts on where the next Kemp will (and will not) come from: probably not from the establishment. Washington doesn’t grow problem-solvers, it grows power-accumulators. I’m talking about the rightand the left. I’m talking about those in the network of think tanks, lobbying firms and advocacy groups, which constitute the government in exile. The first group crowds around the president; the second group crowds around the money. Neither actually face anything like economic reality. The next Kemp will really get economics, but will be an outsider to the profession. Economics is often best learned outside of a graduate school of economics. Kemp learned it while cooking breakfast for Art Laffer and peppering Art with questions. Of course, Kemp really learned his economics by growing up in an entrepreneurial household.

Laffer is still with us, and still a generous teacher. So are Kudlow and Forbes. My guess is that the next Kemp will be a reader of Laffer, a watcher of Kudlow and a subscriber of Forbes. This person will not have to try to remarry faith and entrepreneurship, because the two were never properly divorced. The conservative establishment will say, “who is that? I’ve never met them at any of our gatherings.” But he (or she) will have energy, and enthusiasm, and problem-solving ability, and more ambition for ideas than for power.

History is about to enter another ditch. Someone will need to stand behind it and give it a hard kick in the butt and yell “get moving again.” I can hardly wait.

Jerry Bowyer is chairman of Bowyer Media and a CNBC contributor.

Leave a comment

Filed under Op-Ed