CAMPAIGN '96: THE VIEW FROM UP HERE

• Share

IF THE ADAGE IS RIGHT that says "where you stand depends on where you sit," then getting inside the mind of presidential hopeful Steve Forbes means visiting a rarefied seat indeed. Imagine that you've won the prebirth lottery and entered the world destined to inherit $400 million and a publishing empire. What might you fear most? Losing your endowment. You might squander it through bad investments, of course, but that's something you can hope to control. Any money manager can tell you the real threats you face: taxes and inflation.

Maybe it's no coincidence then that Forbes' column, "Fact and Comment," which has run in Forbes since the mid-1970s, reveals an absolute mania for cutting taxes and preserving "sound money." Everyone has heard about Forbes' flat tax. But what else does he stand for? Where Malcolm Forbes was famous for collecting Faberge eggs and toy soldiers, Steve Forbes' writings show him to be a collector of policy fetishes that range from mainstream to downright odd. The one constant is their angle of vision, which, as befits an heir, is decidedly a view from the top.

It's hardly news that Forbes is an apostle of supply-side economics, whose creed of tax cuts above all was discredited by the huge deficits of the 1980s. Nor is it a surprise that in a business magazine, taxes and prices would be popular topics. What's striking is the sheer intensity of Forbes' obsession. Since 1988, Forbes has written at least 65 pieces that urge tax cuts, moan about taxes here and abroad, look back with anger on tax hikes past or hail great tax cuts and cutters of yesteryear. No fewer than 45 columns, meanwhile, give lectures on the need for stable money, preferably achieved by returning to a gold standard, and berate the Federal Reserve and other financial authorities for assorted crimes against currency. By contrast, just a handful of Forbes' columns discuss welfare reform or returning power to the states, other longstanding G.O.P. favorites.

Under the influence of supply-side guru Jude Wanniski, Forbes argues on the stump that, as was the case between World War II and the late 1960s, "we must tie the value of the dollar to a fixed measure, such as gold, so that a dollar today will be worth a dollar tomorrow." He also argues that using the gold standard to fix the dollar's value vis-a-vis other currencies would boost world trade.

While some experts say going back to a scheme of "fixed" exchange rates could make commerce more predictable, most businesses already protect themselves against currency fluctuations through modern hedging transactions. Most economists warn that the cost of returning to a gold-based currency could be enormous. Monetary authorities may be forced to raise interest rates even in the midst of a recession to encourage dollar purchases needed to defend the dollar's fixed value. The result? A mild business downturn could spiral into something far worse. Sticking with the gold standard in this situation would be the economic equivalent of a pilot's refusing, upon seeing a collision ahead, to take the plane off autopilot.