Do you find that his writing is very hard to follow? He makes sense to me, but I've been reading his writing for about 15 years now. He has always seemed to me

Do you find that his writing is very hard to follow? He makes sense to me, but I've been reading his writing for about 15 years now. He has always seemed to me to be significantly underappreciated. Maybe it's because people can't understand him. The OP column was about how supply-side economics (tax cuts for the rich -> so much growth that the tax cuts pay for themselves) has been tried many times and in no case has there ever been convincing evidence that it worked. Furthermore, when the exact opposite has been implemented (tax increases for the rich), nothing bad has ever happened. So a rational conclusion would be that supply-side economics doesn't work and the idea ought to die once and for all. But in reality, politicians keep bringing it back from the dead.