Arthur Laffer

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Arthur Betz Laffer, Sr. (born August 14, 1940) is a supply side economist who became influential during the Reagan administration as a member of Reagan's Economic Policy Advisory Board (1981-1989). Laffer is best known for the Laffer curve, a curve illustrating tax elasticity which asserts that in certain situations, a decrease in tax rates could result in an increase in tax revenues. Although he does not claim to have invented this concept (Laffer, 2004), it was popularized with policy-makers following an afternoon meeting with Dick Cheney in which he reportedly sketched the curve on a napkin to illustrate his argument (Wanninski, 2005). The term "Laffer curve" was coined by Jude Wanniski (a writer for the Wall Street Journal), who was also present. The basic concept was not new: Laffer himself says he learned it from John Maynard Keynes. The gist of the theory is that tax revenues would be zero if tax rates were either 0% or 100%, and somewhere in between 0% and 100% is a tax rate which maximizes total revenue. Laffer's innovation was to state that the inflection point in the curve was at a much lower level than previously believed: so low that current tax rates were above the level where revenue is maximized. Before Laffer's work, it was universally assumed that the revenue-maximizing tax rate would be only slightly below 100%.

At the time of the famous cocktail napkin incident, Laffer was on the faculty of the Marshall School of Business at the University of Southern California. Earlier in his USC tenure, Laffer played a key role in the writing of Proposition 13, the still-controversial California property tax cap initiative that spawned a host of similar laws around the United States and is generally credited with launching the tax revolt of the 1970s and 1980s. During the mid-1980s, Laffer and many other conservative USC faculty members decamped to Pepperdine University in nearby Malibu; Laffer remained on the faculty for several years.

In 1986, Laffer was a Republican primary candidate for the US Senate in California. (Congressman Ed Zschau won the nomination and lost in the general election to the incumbent Democrat, Alan Cranston).

Laffer is the author and co-author of many books and newspaper articles, including Supply Side Economics: Financial Decision-Making for the 80s. An example of his recent work is an article entitled "Destination USA" concerning the trade deficit, which appeared in the January 3, 2005 The Wall Street Journal. The article argues that the trade deficit is an artifact of the American economy's strong structural features.

Founder and CEO of Laffer Associates in San Diego, he received a BA in economics from Yale University in 1963. He graduated from Stanford University with an MBA in 1965 and a PhD in economics in 1971.

He has six children. His followers include Lawrence Kudlow, the co-host of Kudlow & Co. on CNBC; and Donald Luskin, author of the blog The Conspiracy to Keep You Poor and Stupid.

Free Enterprise Fund ("FEF"): Arthur Laffer is Policy Co-Chairman with Lawrence "Larry" Kudlow as the other Policy Co-Chairman of FEF. FEF has listed five "take action" campaigns on their website (https://www.myfef.org/bin/action.center.election). Four of these campaigns are common conservative financial reforms themes (Repeal Death Tax, Reform Social Security, Reform Sarbanes-Oxley and Budget Reform). The fifth campaign is to Stop MoveOn.org. FEF has produced a television commercial with its central theme asserts that MoveOn.org was started by and run by billionaire George Soros.

Unbeknownst to him, the computer game character Larry Laffer of the famous Leisure Suit Larry series of games was named after him. Arthur Laffer for years had no idea about the existence of the games until much later when Larry's creator, Al Lowe sent him a letter. Lowe planned to program a new application under the name Laffer Utilities featuring Larry and Lowe asked his permission about it. Laffer's secretary had played the games for years, but never made a connection. Laffer gave the permission and also paid a visit to the Sierra On-line studios.

[edit] Publications by Arthur B. Laffer

The following is a partial list of publications for which Arthur B. Laffer is an author (mainly focusing on articles for which he is first author), in descending order by date, including in some cases brief summary excerpts from the text.

Arthur B. Laffer, "You don't need to read this Bush's lips," Wall Street Journal p. A18 (February 14, 2005).

"When 'W' ran for president in 2000, I voted for him but not enthusiastically. I had voted for Bill Clinton in the prior two presidential elections, but with Al Gore as the Democratic candidate in 2000 the choice was easy for me even if I wasn't all that excited about George Bush. I am now flabbergasted by the performance of Bush 43. [...] George W. Bush could well turn out to be the best president in recent history. [...] Because of President Clinton, President Bush's budget deficits can easily be absorbed by the U.S. economy. [...] Supply-side pro-growth economics couldn't ask for a better champion -- nor could any American."

Arthur B. Laffer, "Destination USA," Wall Street Journal p. A8 (January 3, 2005).

"Just because the United States has its largest trade deficit ever doesn't mean that we're living beyond our means. Far from it. [...] The most natural, proper, and economically correct response of the foreign exchange markets is for the U.S. terms of trade to have declined and that's exactly what has happened. As far as I can tell, the decline in the dollar is about over; soon we will see the U.S. capital surplus falling back to more normal levels. When a global economic system works as well as ours does, we should just leave it alone."

Arthur B. Laffer, "The Laffer Curve: Past, Present, and Future," Heritage Foundation Backgrounder #1765 (1 June 2004).

Arthur B. Laffer, "Mowed down by taxes," Wall Street Journal p. A16 (October 2, 2003).

"California's recall effort is based 100% on the state's fiscal crisis. Listen up candidates: California's progressive (steeply graduated) tax structure is the cause of the fiscal crisis, which itself is the first-born of the union between fuzzy logic and misplaced emotions. [...] The best form of spending control is the simplest form of spending control; don't give government the extra money during good times and don't shortchange essential programs during tough times. The case for a flat tax is nowhere more compelling than it is in California today."

Arthur B. Laffer, "State of the economy: Tax amnesty—A win-win for everybody," Wall Street Journal p. A15 (June 23, 2003).

"Now that President Bush has pushed his tax-cut proposal through both houses of Congress, it's time to seriously consider a federal, state and local tax amnesty program. The result would be lots of money raised in quick fashion and a supply-side jump-start to the economy. Tax amnesties are legislated periods during which the payment of past unpaid tax liabilities is allowed without fear of legal reprisal."

Arthur B. Laffer and Stephen Moore, "A tax cut: The perfect wartime boost," Wall Street Journal p. A10 (April 8, 2003).

"The U.S. Senate recently halved President George W. Bush's tax cut, supposedly to offset the cost of the war in Iraq. Though this dollar-for-dollar accounting mentality has a crude appeal, it's wrong nonetheless. The U.S. needs this bill passed for its short-term and its long-term effects, and it can afford it. [...] Because of the rapid growth of the Clinton '90s and the reduction in spending and budget surpluses during President Clinton's tenure in office, the U.S. has a degree of fiscal flexibility as never before. Assuming 5% nominal GDP growth per year, the U.S. would have to run deficits of $500 billion per year for the next 10 years just to reach the level of debt relative to GDP that we had in 1993. While we're not suggesting that that would be the "right thing to do," what we are suggesting is that the idea of excessive federal debt is not the appropriate consideration to keep the president and Congress from doing what's right."

Arthur B. Laffer, "California Drainin'," Wall Street Journal p. A10 (January 13, 2003).

"Based on economics, President Bush appears to have a fairly clear path to re-election in 2004. But there is a major potential roadblock currently on display in the oddest of places—the fiscal crisis in California. After more than two years of lackluster performance, the economy has a great deal of pent-up growth and should start making up for lost time soon. [...] But all of this neglects an important aspect of national economic health—the fiscal responsibility of states and municipalities. [...] California is a high-tax state, but other state and local governments also do their fair share of damage to the economy. [...] [President Bush] needs to accelerate the tax cuts that have already been passed, and make sure that Internet sales remain tax exempt. And all the states need to grit their teeth and get a grip."

Arthur B. Laffer, "We've cut rates, now let's cut taxes," Wall Street Journal p. A12 (November 11, 2002).

"To eliminate the markets' reticence all that's needed to get a normal recovery going is a clean resolution to the Iraq crisis. And that appears to be close at hand. But a lot more could be done to accelerate growth and propel this economy back to where it should be. To further stimulate growth on the fiscal policy front the recently emboldened Bush administration would be well advised to accelerate and make permanent its tax cuts."

Arthur B. Laffer, "Wall Street woes—Long-term trends suggest a stock market undervalued," San Diego Union-Tribune p. G1 (21 July 2002).

"The huge drop in the stock market from early 2000 to today is psychological to be sure. My only question would be, is the change in people's psychology based on real change in the economy or is it based on emotion? My conclusion is that the markets are way oversold given the realities of today's economy. Sure, there are lots and lots of problems with corporate governance and accounting, and some of those problems may even involve criminal fraud. But, the accounting problems don't do a whit of damage to the true economic profits of overall corporate America. [...] I personally don't see any major catastrophe on the horizon that would justify stock prices at their current levels. Unfortunately, I'm wrong often, but never deliberately. But still, I have not seen such an attractively price stock market in a very long time."

Arthur B. Laffer, "A buying opportunity," Wall Street Journal p. A12 (15 July 2002).

"The bottom line is that stock prices are currently substantially undervalued—some 48% by my measure. Barring some highly unlikely policy changes that would collapse profits and push interest rates a lot higher—such as higher tax rates, across-the-board protectionism, wage and price controls or a complete reversal of Federal Reserve Board policies—the pessimism prevalent today is entirely unwarranted. In fact, from where I'm standing, it looks as though we're in for a very nice market indeed."

Arthur B. Laffer, "Keep the dollar strong," Wall Street Journal p. A20 (20 May 2002).

"Higher returns abroad and lower returns in the U.S. mean reduced U.S. capital inflows, lower U.S. trade deficits, and, yes, a weaker dollar. If the U.S. wishes to maintain our leadership role in the world economy, we've got to proceed undaunted in our pro-growth agenda. Just talking about a strong dollar won't cut it. In the words of Nobel Prize-winning economist Robert Mundell, we need tight money and tax cuts—and then we'll have prosperity, asset appreciation, employment growth, and a strong dollar."

Arthur B. Laffer, "Real stimulus: A national sales-tax holiday," Wall Street Journal p. A14 (21 November 2001).

"To talk turkey, the new sales-tax holiday proposed recently by two senators is the best short-term tax stimulus idea I've seen in ages. While Patty Murray and Olympia Snowe are both politically left of center, their tax proposal is right on the mark. They propose a federally underwritten national sales-tax holiday that would last for 10 days. The resulting burst in activity could give a real boost to our faltering economy."

Arthur B. Laffer, "The Fed needs help from a cap-gains cut," Wall Street Journal p. A22 (3 October 2001).

"The attack on America posed a serious challenge to an already slowing economy. Fortunately the Federal Reserve, which cut rates again yesterday, has so far responded effectively. Fortunately too the United States remains strong enough fiscally for the tax cuts we need to get things moving. [...] Never before has the timing been better to cut the capital gains tax rate."

Arthur B. Laffer, "Europe must reverse the Euro's slide," Wall Street Journal p. A22 (19 July 2001).

"Since July 1995, the euro has depreciated 36% against the dollar. And yet over that same period Euroland prices have risen by only 12%, compared with a dollar price rise of 17%. Very recently, however, Euroland inflation has begun to rise while the euro continues to fall. Putting it all together paints a scary picture for inflation. Either the euro will rebound sharply, or Euroland's inflation rates will soon exceed those of the U.S. by 500 or more basis points annually and be accompanied by significantly higher interest rates."

Arthur B. Laffer and Thomas J. Martin, "Bullish on Japan," American Spectator p. 28-30 (1 June 2001).

Arthur B. Laffer, "How to make Dubya a winner? The flat tax," Wall Street Journal p. A16 (31 May 2001).

"Broadly, Mr. Bush needs to support a strong dollar and free trade, maintain a powerful Federal Reserve, and oppose farm subsidies and increases in the minimum wage. He also needs to keep Social Security on an even keel and regulations to a minimum. But good trade, monetary and regulatory policies will only set the stage for the one move that will take Mr. Bush over the top. He needs a flagship tax proposal that doesn't compromise the beliefs we hold dear [...] Specifically, Mr. Bush needs to resurrect the flat-tax proposal first proposed by Jerry Brown in the Democratic primaries in 1992."

Arthur B. Laffer, "So you thought the Fed set interest rates?" Wall Street Journal p. A22 (22 March 2001).

"All of the interest rate hoopla surrounding the Fed's Open Market Committee meetings is nothing but a sideshow. I too wish the Fed could just wave a wand and change interest rates, but it can't. In the near term, the Fed has very little power to do much of anything. In the long run, however, the Fed is the single most powerful force in our economic universe. It can and does move planets and change the world. But it doesn't change the world by directly changing interest rates. The key to the Fed's power is its total control over the monetary base—the sum of currency in circulation, vault cash and member-bank deposits at the Fed."

Arthur B. Laffer, "Tax cuts work—and Ireland proves it," The Scotsman p. 14 (21 February 2001).

"The highest marginal tax rate on personal income went from about 65 per cent in 1984 to 42 per cent today. The highest corporate rate went from 50 per cent to 20 per cent. [...] the tax cuts in Ireland worked just as well as they had worked in the US. Employment soared, government spending fell, government revenues rose, the budget moved into surplus, and the public debt declined. It doesn't get any better."

Arthur B. Laffer, "Tax Cuts, Then and Now; A veteran of Ronald Reagan's 1981 cuts looks at the Bush plan," Newsweek Web Exclusive (9 February 2001).

"George W. Bush's tax-cut proposal does have shortcomings, but it is an enormous step forward. It will benefit the American economy in the near term by bringing the current slowdown to a quick end. In the long run, it could increase the economy's growth rate. [...] Cutting the highest tax rates, the inheritance tax and addressing the marriage penalty are the primary elements of the proposal's good economics. Because of these features, the 10-year budget impact of Bush's proposal will turn out to be far less than $1.6 trillion. Because taxpayers will work harder and smarter and use fewer tax shelters, the revenue losses to the government will be dramatically less than the politicians now forecast. Welfare spending and income-support programs will also be commensurably less as the economy expands. The poor, minorities and the disenfranchised will have the best form of welfare-good, high-paying jobs. Bush's tax proposal will not only cost a lot less than anyone currently believes, but it is also the best way to help the poor. The risks are low because of our large budget surpluses and the need is great because of the economic slowdown."

Arthur B. Laffer and Stephen Moore, "To soak the rich, cut their tax rates," Wall Street Journal p. A26 (24 October 2000).

"What's striking is that all of the critics of the 1997 capital gains cut and the Reagan tax cuts in 1981 -- the very same crowd of skeptics who have been proven wrong twice now -- continue to crusade with their discredited class warfare rhetoric against the Bush tax cut plan. Mr. Gore's charge that the top 1% get 50% of the Bush tax cut comes from the union-funded Citizens for Tax Justice. That partisan outfit wrongly predicted that the 1997 capital gains cut would lose billions of dollars for the Treasury. [...] And even if there were to be some revenue losses from the Bush tax cut, we can be nearly certain that they would be nowhere near the $2 trillion number that Mr. Gore is using to try to scare voters. History proves that Mr. Gore really is playing with 'fuzzy' numbers, as Mr. Bush calls them."

Arthur B. Laffer, "Economist of the Century," Wall Street Journal p. A16 (15 October 1999).

"The first word that came to mind when I heard that Robert A. Mundell had just won the Nobel Prize in economics was vindication. Back in the 1960s Mr. Mundell, who then taught at the University of Chicago, was considered beyond the fringes of mainstream economics. He was the leader of a small group of economists—most of the time I thought it was just the two of us—who advocated fixed exchange rates, warned of impending inflation if the U.S. went off gold and called for tax cuts to spur economic growth. Many in the profession called him a kook. Today they call him a Nobel laureate."

Arthur B. Laffer, "Japan rises again," Wall Street Journal p. A22 (11 October 1999).

"In April the Japanese government cut the highest marginal tax rate on personal income (federal and local) to 47% from 63%. [...] There were no phase-ins, no exceptions, no ties to deficit reduction, nor any of the other gimmicks so popular in continental Europe and the U.S. This was pure supply-side economics. As if that weren't enough, Japan also cut the capital gains tax rate and the inheritance tax rate, abolished the transactions tax on stock trades and suspended for two years the special 1% tax on corporate pensions. Is it any wonder that the yen has strengthened by massive amounts in the foreign-exchange market? Or that the Japanese stock market, with dollar gains of some 36%, is this year's best performing major stock market in the world? Or that Prime Minister Keizo Obuchi's popularity is soaring? All of the classic responses to a massive tax-rate cut in an overtaxed economy are now visible in Japan."

Arthur B. Laffer, "The Reagan-Clinton Presidency," International Economy 12 (2), 22-24 (1998).

"If you can get by the smell, Bill Clinton hasn't been all that bad as president. His lack of morals and lack of core values really does stand him in good stead for leading an economy that is already on a rock and roll path to Valhalla. At present, doing no damage is as good as it gets. [...] Without Reagan there could never have been Clinton. And without Margaret Thatcher, there could never have been Tony Blair. The function of wealth creator is a necessary precondition for the role of wealth preserver."

Arthur B. Laffer, "Creating wealth, not just 'savings'," Wall Street Journal p. A22 (15 October 1996).

"Once George Bush raised taxes in 1990 and President Clinton raised them further in 1993, savings fell again. Fortunately, monetary policy during the '90s has been excellent and has kept savings from falling to the lows of the mid-'70s. Our nation once again stands at a crossroads deciding whether to continue a policy of high taxes and restrained growth, or change course and cut tax rates to foster more growth and more savings. The Reagan-era tax cuts not only spawned excellent economic growth but also enormous savings. Based on such historic lessons, the Dole-Kemp plan looks like a real winner."

Arthur B. Laffer, "Reaganite's view of Bush," San Francisco Chronicle p. A16 (17 October 1992).

"One of the silliest things I've heard coming out of this campaign is that Darman was correct when he told Bush in 1988 not to make the 'read-my-lips' pledge. The pledge was the right thing to do. Not keeping that pledge was the wrong thing to do. Bush still doesn't get it. Lots of other issues can be enumerated from the collapse of the economy to Saddam Hussein's continued rule in Baghdad. [...] The final and perhaps most important point is that, if Clinton screws up the country, you'll get a great GOP president in 1996 the likes of Kemp or Quayle. If Bush wins you'll get a rotten four years and by 1996 you'll still have nothing to look forward to. Bush doesn't deserve to be re-elected."

Arthur B. Laffer, "Trading Policy Outlook," Industrial Policy and International Trade, p. 175-186, Volume 62 in Contemporary Studies in Economic and Financial Analysis (London: JAI Press, 1992).

Arthur B. Laffer and Christopher S. Hammond, "Either California's Housing Prices Are Going to Fall or California's in for One Helluva Rise in Personal Income," Investment Strategy and State and Local Economic Policy, p. 49-64 (London: Quorum Books, 1992).

Arthur B. Laffer, "Is the California Tax Revolt Over? An Analysis of California's Proposition 111," ibid., p. 157-167.

Arthur B. Laffer, "Golden State swings its ax at golden goose," Wall Street Journal p. A14 (16 July 1991).

"California is in for an unpleasant surprise of considerable magnitude. The sales tax increase that went into effect yesterday will, over the next several years, do enormous damage to the Golden State's economy. Property values and employment among California's most vulnerable people will be the hardest hit. But everyone will suffer. [...] My estimates for all these effects derived from a combined time series cross-section analysis of the 50 states over the past 35 years are as follows: — California's real estate prices will be down from their previous highs by close to 20% by the end of 1994. — California's unemployment rate will rise -- relative to the rest of the nation -- by more than 2.5% from June of 1990 to the end of 1994. — California's personal income per capita -- again relative to the rest of the nation -- will fall by a total of 6% by the end of 1994. — California's bond ratings will be lowered. — California's budget will remain in crisis."

Arthur B. Laffer, "Water, water everywhere, not a drop at market prices," Orange County Register p. K01 (3 March 1991).

"Using rice, cotton, and alfalfa farmers as scapegoats for California's current water crisis is wrong. In fact, why anyone would describe California as having a water shortage is beyond me. The price of water is simply too low and the reason the price of water is too low is because governments control its distribution. It's as simple as that. [...] To minimize the damages from a prolonged history of abusive government interference, the state of California should forthwith: Charge all farmers, government agencies, and other water users the same price for water, no exceptions."

Arthur B. Laffer, "America in the World Economy: A Strategy for the 1990s: Commentary," America's Global Interests: A New Agenda, p. 122-125 (London: Norton, 1989).

Arthur B. Laffer and Martin G. Laffer, "Yes, tax the guy behind the tree," Wall Street Journal (6 September 1988).

"This is a plea to politicians of all persuasions to raise taxes and raise them now. [...] The plan: A federal tax amnesty program, in cooperation with the individual states, coupled with a massive effort by government to reach compromise agreements with taxpayers on what is owed and how those amounts could be collected."

Arthur B. Laffer and Truman Clark, "Don't blame deficit for market problems," USA Today p. 10A (26 October 1987).

"One of the silliest explanations for last Monday's stock market crash is that budget deficits are somehow responsible. Financial markets respond to new information, but large budget deficits have been around for years. [...] About the most senseless thing they could do would be to raise tax rates. Raising tax rates always entails the risk of triggering a recession, and recessions expand budget deficits rather than reduce them. [...] However, it is wrong to see the deficit as a sign of insufficient tax revenue. The deficit is the consequence of runaway federal spending."

Arthur B. Laffer, "Heightened foreign competition only route for American prosperity," The Journal Record (9 June 1987).

"What the Federal Reserve must do to keep prices stable is to reduce the amount of money being held by the public. In such instances, the Fed should sell bonds to the public in exchange for their excess cash until that selected price returns to its target level. The reverse process would be appropriate if the selected price falls. Eventually the entire process should be made automatic by returning the dollar to full convertability both here and abroad. [...] Bank deregulation is also long overdue, and reserves now being held interest-free at the Fed should be paid interest. This large tax on banks—and only banks—will, if allowed to continue, greatly damage our financial markets."

Arthur B. Laffer, "The Ellipse: An Explication of the Laffer Curve in a Two-Factor Model," The Financial Analyst's Guide to Fiscal Policy, p. 1-35 (New York: Greenwood Press, 1986).

Arthur B. Laffer, "The Complete Flat Tax," ibid., p. 108-140.

Arthur B. Laffer, "The Tightening Grip of the Poverty Trap," ibid., p. 141-159.

Arthur B. Laffer, "Congress throws curve at supply-side cure," Chicago Sun-Times (26 August 1985). Also published as "Supply side: It works," Washington Post p. A15 (20 August 1985).

"Quite frankly, my error on the deficit was due to my overly generous perception that Congress would live up to its appointed role. The solution to the deficit problem must also include spending restraints. Tax cuts alone just aren't enough."

Arthur B. Laffer, "A High Road for the American Automobile Industry," World Economy 8 (3), p. 267-286 (1985).

Arthur B. Laffer, "Vindication," Wall Street Journal (25 May 1984).

"The Laffer Curve is, and always has been, a pedagogic device illustrating that changes in tax rates influence both the revenue collected per dollar of tax base and the very size of the tax base itself. The sophomoric notion that such a curve purports to show that cutting tax rates automatically reduces deficits should never have seduced any profound 'insider.' Lower tax rates may or may not reduce the budget deficit. Many factors come into play. The longer a reduction in tax rates is in existence, the more likely it will expand total revenues. [...] As things now stand, the fourth quarter of 1984 will have a federal deficit running at an annual rate of $130 billion. Given the strength of the recovery, state and local surpluses should increase to $73 billion from $58 billion by the fourth quarter of 1984, thus yielding a cumulative government deficit at an annual rate of less than $60 billion. So who says Reaganomics doesn't work and that the Laffer Curve is a figment of the imagination? "

Arthur B. Laffer, "Reinstatement of the Dollar: The Blueprint," Economic Notes 0 (2), p. 158-176 (1982).

Victor A. Canto, Douglas H. Joines, and Arthur B. Laffer, Foundations of Supply-Side Economics—Theory and Evidence (New York: Academic Press, 1982).

Arthur B. Laffer and Richard Zecher, "Some Evidence on the Formation, Efficiency and Accuracy of Anticipations of Nominal Yields," J. Monetary Economics 1 (3), p. 327-342 (1975).

Arthur B. Laffer, "Monetary Policy and the Balance of Payments," J. Money, Credit, and Banking Part I 4 (1), 13-22 (1972).

"In sum, the role of the United States as the world's banker has tended to reduce the recorded U.S. trade surplus."

Arthur B. Laffer and R. David Ranson, "A Formal Model of the Economy," J. Business 44 (3), p. 247-270 (1971).

"Review of findings: 1. Fiscal policy, as represented by federal purchases of goods and services (assumed exogenous), provides a powerful temporary stimulus to GNP. Over a year, the cumulative effect is near zero. [...] 8. The results with respect to the GNP deflator do not confirm the existence of a 'Phillips Curve.'"

Arthur B. Laffer, "Trade Credit and the Money Market," J. Political Economy 78 (2), 239-267 (1970).

"Monetary theory has a large number of unresolved basic issues. In fact, at times it is doubtful just what the meaning of the word 'money' is [...] The first section of this paper attempts to show that the empirical counterpart of the classical concept of money must include unutilized trade credit [...] In the second section of this paper]] estimates are made of the simultaneously determined supply and demand equations for toral real money [...] The third and final section empirically compares and contrasts three views of the money market."

Arthur B. Laffer, "Vertical Integration by Corporations, 1929-1965," Review of Economics and Statistics 51 (1), p. 91-93 (1969).

"When the surface of the economist is scratched we generally find a belief that vertical integration in the corporate sector has increased during the past few decades, if not longer. This proposition, however, has not been put to a rigorous empirical test for the entire corporate sector. [...] The conclusion reached on the basis of this empirical evidence is that there has not been any discernible increase in the degree of vertical integration in the corporate sector. If anything, there might have been a slight decline."