Finally finished Naked Economics - I highly recommend it

Finally finished the book. Overall I would give it an 8.5 out of 10. It takes a number of highly complex topics and boils them down to understandable chapters that I thought built on each other pretty well. There were a few things I disagreed with, for example Wheelan goes full retard in his support of Anthropogenic Global Warming, but reasonable people can disagree on that. I think he also understates the potential damage health care reform can do to our society. On the other hand he is fairly scathing about earmarks, subsidies, and entitlements and what they mean in regards to economic growth and the future of America's economic health:

Think about what that means. Going forward, somehow we have to raise enough revenue to (1) pay for whatever government we chose to have, which we aren't doing fully now; (2) pay the interest we've accumulated on past bills; and (3) pay for the new expenses associated with an aging population and expensive entitlement promises.

That's going to require serious political leadership and recognition by Americans that the status quo is not an option. Simon Johnson, who had plenty of experience with financial crises as the former chief economist for the International Monetary Fund, has noted, "Overborrowing always ends badly, whether for an individual, a company or a country." During the first decade of the new millennium, three parties borrowed heavily: consumers, financial firms, and the U.S. government. So far two have paid a huge price for that leverage. Is there another shoe to drop. (pg. 324)

Wheelan is also critical of some tax cuts, disputing the idea that the Reagan tax cuts actually ended up increasing treasury revenues (pg. 96, 97), again reasonable people can disagree on this one, and in fact this idea was echoed in National Review this week:

Some people are more sensible about that Laffer Curve talk. Laffer, for instance. Arthur Laffer, whose famous (and possibly apocryphal) back-of-the-napkin diagram launched supply-side tax policy, readily concedes that the growth effects of tax cuts are oversold in the political debate. “Does every tax cut pay for itself? No. I think Irving Kristol wrote that, once — and then did a pretty good job of arguing for it. But if some guy running for Congress in Clayton County, Texas, says all tax cuts pay for themselves, what do we want to do? Go after him with a shotgun? Sure, they’re going to cite me, and there’s very little I can do about it. But there’s the same amount of ignorance on the other side, ignoring the economic feedback effects of tax cuts.”

...

There is considerable debate among economists and federal legume-quantifiers about how large supply-side revenue effects are. The Congressional Budget Office did a study in 2005 of the effects of a theoretical 10 percent cut in income-tax rates. It ran a couple of different versions of the study, under different sets of economic assumptions. The conclusion the CBO came to was that the growth effects of such a tax cut could be expected to offset between 1 percent and 22 percent of the revenue loss in the first five years. In the second five years, the CBO calculated, feedback effects of tax-rate reductions might actually add 5 percent to the revenue loss — or offset as much as 32 percent of it.

Personally I would argue that the balancing of the budget in the 90's is proof that the Laffer curve is accurate and that those rates happened to be the ones at which economic growth and revenue growth matched in a sort of min -max curve, but I am not the PhD. so who cares what I think.

Anyway even if you don't agree with the guy the arguments are well made and worth considering.