Bad Policy Creates Inflation and Opens the Door to Even Worse Ideas
When politicians break the economy, they hurt us in the short term but also create future opportunities to do harm in the name of undoing the damage they inflicted.

It's no surprise to anybody who regularly buys groceries or puts gas in a car that prices are going up. Inflation is running at the hottest rate in 40 years, nibbling away at savings, making a mockery of budgets, and fueling fears about people's ability to make ends meet. What's infuriating is that those rising prices are largely the result of foolish policy choices and that there's actually a constituency for doubling down on political interference in the economy to further crimp our liberty and prosperity.
"The public views inflation as the top problem facing the United States – and no other concern comes close," Pew Research reported last week. "Seven-in-ten Americans view inflation as a very big problem for the country, followed by the affordability of health care (55%) and violent crime (54%)."
The understandable focus on inflation comes after yet another month of rising prices. While the Consumer Price Index shows the annual inflation rate dipped a hair from 8.5 percent in March to 8.3 percent in April, that's still "the largest 12-month increase since the period ending April 1981," according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
That dip can largely be attributed to a drop in energy prices which still left the category 30 percent more expensive than a year earlier. Gasoline was a whopping 43 percent pricier than in April 2021. Food, an unavoidable purchase for pretty much all of us, was 9.4 percent more expensive.
Analysts hope that inflation has peaked and is headed for an annual rate of 4 percent, which is still above the Federal Reserve's target of 2 percent. But the Producer Price Index, considered a leading indicator for prices paid by consumers, stands at 11 percent, suggesting that we're in for a bit more pain before enjoying even modest relief. Maddeningly, these soaring prices are at least partly the result of government officials attempting to "help" us through the disruptions of the pandemic and mandated lockdowns.
"Since the first half of 2021, U.S. inflation has increasingly outpaced inflation in other developed countries," Òscar Jordà, Celeste Liu, Fernanda Nechio, and Fabián Rivera-Reyes wrote in a March analysis for the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco. "Estimates suggest that fiscal support measures designed to counteract the severity of the pandemic's economic effect may have contributed to this divergence by raising inflation about 3 percentage points by the end of 2021."
The Fed economists try to soften their criticism by arguing that "without these spending measures, the economy might have tipped into outright deflation and slower economic growth." But that's speculative. Perhaps such ill effects could have been avoided with fewer heavy-handed interventions in the economy, such as business closures, or offset without flooding the world with dollars. After all, much of the planet avoided comparable price hikes.
"Governments all over the world spent heavily to combat the pandemic, of course, but few handed out cash directly to citizens as the American government did," Reason's Eric Boehm noted.
Jordà, Liu, Nechio, and Rivera-Reyes are hardly alone in their conclusions about over-the-top spending.
"Starting in March 2020, in response to the disruptions of Covid-19, the U.S. government created about $3 trillion of new bank reserves, equivalent to cash, and sent checks to people and businesses," Hoover Institution economist John Cochrane argued in a recent paper. "The Treasury then borrowed another $2 trillion or so and sent more checks. Overall federal debt rose nearly 30 percent. Is it at all a surprise that a year later inflation breaks out? It is hard to ask for a clearer demonstration of fiscal inflation, an immense fiscal helicopter drop."
"As U.S. prices continue to rise by rates not seen in decades, it's become clear that the stimulus came at a significant, unintended cost: inflation," agreed Santul Nerkar and Amelia Thomson-DeVeaux for FiveThirtyEight. "It's unclear whether inflation has reached its peak, but the situation is now economically and politically toxic, and it has left many of the same policymakers, advocates and economists now asking whether the stimulus checks were a mistake."
The situation is not only economically and politically toxic, it also didn't need to happen and "wasn't backed by evidence or economic calculations. It was shaped by politics."
The FiveThirtyEight writers pointed out that Democrats pushed for larger stimulus checks as part of their effort to win the Georgia Senate run-offs. Giving people free money was a seemingly promising way to buy ongoing support. As of February 2021, 78 percent of Democrats and 64 percent of Republicans strongly supported the idea of receiving fat checks. But vast infusions of new money into an economy erode purchasing power.
"Voters don't seem to be rewarding Democrats and Biden for the extra money granted by the stimulus," Nerkar and Thomson-DeVeaux added. "A majority of voters blame Biden for inflation — including a sizable chunk of Democrats — and disapprove of his handling of the economy more broadly."
The president is under water across the board, but the RealClearPolitics average of polling on his handling of the economy currently has Biden's approval rating at a dismal 37.1 percent.
Unfortunately, earlier political tinkering in an economy opens the door to later political tinkering as the situation deteriorates in ways that the public doesn't always understand. It offers an opportunity to be exploited by authoritarians who want greater government control of production, buying, and selling.
"The prices Americans are paying for groceries and other essentials are at all-time highs," Senator Elizabeth Warren (D–Mass.) huffed last week. "One of the reasons? Giant corporations are price gouging & reaping record profits. We need to put a stop to corporate gouging that drives up prices for families."
That's BS, as economists point out. But it's a way for Warren and her ideological allies to pass blame for the government's failures to the private sector. They propose to penalize businesses for responding to the dollar's declining purchasing power with "unconscionably excessive price increases," a term "which is disturbingly defined nowhere in the legislation," noted Reason's Liz Wolfe.
The result of yet another intervention in markets is less likely to be lower prices than reduced availability of goods if producers can't recoup costs measured in dollars that shed value by the day. No doubt, politicians will see that as yet another reason for them to blame scapegoats and push to expand their own power. When politicians break the economy, they hurt us in the short term but also create future opportunities to do harm in the name of undoing the damage they inflicted.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Curing inflation is simple - all the government needs to do is to introduce wage and price controls, let solons like Elizabeth Warren set fair prices for everything.
Home income solution to enable everyone to work online and receive weekly payments to bank acc. Earn over $500 every day and get payouts every week straight to account bank. (rrt32) My last month of income was $30,390 and all I do is work up to 4 hours a day on my computer. Easy work and steady income are great with this job.
.
More information. >> https://brilliantfuture01.blogspot.com/
Hi Shanelle R. Olsen
share very interesting information ,
I'm reading also here for some good and energetic acritical.
https://testfiledownload.com/file-extension/
Inflation is mostly a bullshit man made construct to excuse all sorts of economic behavior.
Here come the long gas lines of the seventies.
My favorite thing about inflation is how people get raises that put them into higher tax brackets without getting more purchasing power.
That's definitely an accident. That weaseldick Mark Zandi was on TV this morning trying to explain how higher corporate taxes would curb inflation. These people truly are evil.
Thank you for reminding me why I don't have cable or an antenna.
You ran out of gov't welfare money buying your booze?
Your TV is in the pawn shop again?
Thanks for reminding me. I haven't gone shopping for guns since the pawn shop moved. Last time I was there some guy was pawning a blued GP 101 with a 4" barrel. I wanted it but the guy behind the counter bought it for his own collection. Asshole.
sarcasmic
November.19.2021 at 1:45 pm
Flag Comment Mute User
I don't carry a gun. I'm not a great shot and I lack training. Doing so would be inviting trouble that I don't know how to handle.
Yup. What's your point?
Sounds like sarcasmic is being a responsible gun owner. Isn't that what we all want? Gun owners who know when, and when not, to carry a gun?
Oh wait, I know what this is! This has nothing to do with the issue of gun safety! This is just another cheap shot from Jesse the attack dog who doesn't know how to do anything except bark and snarl.
"BARK BARK I don't care if I try to mock sarc for being a responsible gun owner, I just like to mock people BARK BARK"
He apparently think that's some sort of a "gotcha" but I don't see how. As you said he's trying to paint my being responsible as a bad thing. I don't get it.
No, it’s because someone can’t keep his stories straight.
OWNING a gun and CARRYING a gun are two different things.
LOL
Maybe he feels that the only reason to buy a gun is to carry it around. You know, like how he still carries his blankie.
Well, there is this meme out there that some men carry around guns in order to compensate for "inadequacies" elsewhere. Perhaps Jesse is just surprised that not everyone carries around big guns all the time like he does.
I seriously don't understand how he thinks that's some sort of "gotcha."
Honestly I don't think he's that bright.
Hey look, the leftist child molester is repeating leftist shibboleth, as if we don't all recognize his confession via projection.
LOL
He's not. He saw in his mind an opportunity for an attack and he took it. He acts instinctually, like a junkyard dog.
The funniest part is that he thinks he's clever.
He must, if he thinks that pointing out that I'm a responsible gun owner is a "gotcha" when I talk about buying guns. As if he caught me in a lie. It takes a head full of cement to think that's clever.
?
Please explain how my stories are inconsistent.
Because you go all Jekyll and Hyde-from-consequences whenever you change bourbons and run at the mouth.
No. I'm Doctor Heckle and Mister Jive.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZkOn0-yt9E
"He loves the world, except for all the people..."
No, you’re just drunk, or a dry drunk.
Even a small HDTV antenna would be difficult to mount reliably on a weather worm refrigerator box located in a piss soaked alley. And cable wouldn’t be available at all.
Hitler?
Elon Musk just went off on Biden about saying how higher corporate taxes would curb inflation.
And luckily during a stock market correction, capital losses you can claim in excess of capital gains aren't still capped at 3,000 dollars per year like they were 40 years ago.
Oh wait...
Reason's leading economics expert told me there is literally no inflation. Well, except for a 10 cent per pouch increase in spittin' tobaccy. And only low-class people use that disgusting stuff anyway.
#DefendBidenAtAllCosts
#BestEconomyEver
Don't forget matzah.....prices for matzah were up for Pesach.
#JoeBidenIsTheSecondComingOfJimmyCarter
" . . . We need to put a stop to corporate gouging that drives up prices for families."
So we fire 'Congress Inc.' Now what?
The biggest problem with "throw the rascals out" is that there is nothing to throw in except a different set of rascals.
Fresh, chastened rascals who are quaking in their slippers over the fate of their predecessors.
It looks like you live in a state where it's legal - - - - - -
Do any of the democrats look chastened or quaking ?
Dems are the rascals on the way out, hopefully taking their RINO steeds with them, unless midterms see another midnight Brandon Bump.
Only to be replaced by another crop of assholes. What you fail to understand is that people who seek political office are scum, regardless of their party.
Oh yes, certainly the actions and rhetoric on the left and right are TOTALLY comparable.
At this point, what difference does it make?
Two sides of the same coin.
Whoooooosh.
Yeah. Right over your head.
One side of the coin (used to) give lip service to economic liberty while being openly hostile to personal liberty.
The other side is openly hostile to economic liberty while giving lip service to personal liberty.
Put the two together and it doesn't really matter how the coin falls.
Liberty will be lost.
I still think we should replace elections with lotteries. Because people who seek power are the last people who should have it.
It really couldn't be worse than what we have.
It would be worse. What's going on now is the system breaking down because the system isn't flawless, but it's better than the majority of other systems. Athens tried the "randomly appointed officials" thing and it didn't work for a polity the size of one city.
Democracy requires people seeking office to represent certain ideas and positions, and the popularity of those positions is reflected. When elections are "fortified" to protect against the political will of the electorate, you lose a big chunk of it. You also lose it when ideas aren't allowed to be discussed in a free market because the government is threatening and regulating big tech to get them to shut down "misinformation," which is just the real information six months too early.
In the structure of a constitutional republic it would be rather different from Athens. And officials weren't randomly appointed. They were chosen by the assembly.
I don't know how serious I really am, but if without changing anything else, if the House were chosen randomly from eligible citizens would it really be worse? I think that even just not having the motivation of getting re-elected would change the dynamics a lot.
Make serving in the legislature like jury duty.
Have you ever discussed economics with average people? It could be worse.
It really really really could. Imagine if Biden was competent and got BBB passed.
Change is better than leaving them in office.
Why? Throw the bums out only to have them replaced by more bums. Party doesn't matter. People seek power to wield it. Not to dismantle government and restore our liberties. They seek office to do something, not to undo. That's why I don't vote. Because it doesn't matter.
Keep them in rotation. We can’t afford politics as a career.
That makes no sense at all.
Because what we are doing know is working out so well.
*Now.
Seriously, what will throwing the bums out fix if they're only going to be replaced by more bums?
The problem isn't party or lack of term limits. It's that the government has too much power, and that people seek power to wield it.
I think "throwing the bums out" at least makes it somewhat harder for particular people to accumulate power. Doesn't get close to solving the real problem that you identify, but it at least slows it down a little. And maybe some of the more egregious stuff from the last batch might get undone.
How often are things undone? Other than Prohibition and the insurance mandate, I can't think of anything significant.
Not very often. Gotta move on to the next thing.
Sure, it's "harder" for individual politicians to gain power...
Long live the career bureaucrat all powerful hivemind!
Sarc can’t bear the thought of his beloved democrats being separated from their seats of power. Who would he privately worship if they were gone? Certainly not that big meanie Trump!
Has any of the fedgov's responses been actually beneficial to its citizens?
Infrastructure didn't mean infrastructure. We spend more on Ukraine's borders than our own. Monetary supply has been increased by 50%. Lockdowns were useless and caused greater harm. FDA still won't reopen baby formula plant.
Gee, it's like we have al illegitimate regime intent on destroying our nation for the Great Reset or something. You know, like is openly discussed in WEF seminars.
81 million voters can’t be wrong, right?
"It's not who votes, but who counts the votes that matters."
-another Joe
81 million votes, you mean
Has any of the fedgov's responses been actually beneficial to its citizens?"
You ask as if their intentions were to be a benefit, benefit for them at controlling us maybe. a lot of the shit happening now is pretty much intentional since every thing that was said bad would happen if they do "X" has happened.
Unmentioned by the writer is that though out of office, Trump pushed for a higher pay out to Americans ($2000.00) in the last go-round and that for his 4 years:
"The growth in the annual deficit under Trump ranks as the third-biggest increase, relative to the size of the economy, of any U.S. presidential administration, according to a calculation by a leading Washington budget maven, Eugene Steuerle, co-founder of the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center. And unlike George W. Bush and Abraham Lincoln, who oversaw the larger relative increases in deficits, Trump did not launch two foreign conflicts or have to pay for a civil war.
Economists agree that we needed massive deficit spending during the COVID-19 crisis to ward off an economic cataclysm, but federal finances under Trump had become dire even before the pandemic. That happened even though the economy was booming and unemployment was at historically low levels. By the Trump administration’s own description, the pre-pandemic national debt level was already a “crisis” and a “grave threat.”
The combination of Trump’s 2017 tax cut and the lack of any serious spending restraint helped both the deficit and the debt soar. So when the once-in-a-lifetime viral disaster slammed our country and we threw more than $3 trillion into COVID-19-related stimulus, there was no longer any margin for error..."
https://www.propublica.org/article/national-debt-trump
Bull. Trump was the most libertarian and fiscally conservative president ever. He vastly reduced the size and scope of government while reducing the federal deficit. Anyone who says otherwise hates America.
Up until Covid and uniparty wanting more money, yeah he actually did.
But you're DEFINITELY not a leftist.
The only people who think I'm a leftist are certified retards who honestly believe that criticism of their team equals support of the other team.
Glad you finally got certified.
Congrats!
Ideas!
Or people who read your comments.
I mean 2 years of attacking people who were anti mask, under a dozen comments negative of the dnc or biden despite the last 18 months, etc.
You spend all your time trying to get Mike and Jeff to like you.
I'd be happy to debate you except that you're a liar.
Sarc, that is exactly why people kick you around every day... You are aware of that much, at least?
Yeah. JesseAz's lies have had quite an effect.
He’s muted me. Like Jeffy, Sarc fears me. He’s also under the false assumption that I am Tulpa.
Which is ridiculous. I’m not nearly as nice as Tulpa.
"Anyone who expresses skepticism over the claims of right-wing propaganda is a leftist"
Narz has basically been excommunicated for it.
You spent the last 2 days trying to force a self described leftist into being a conservative to defend the left. Not sure you should be saying anything.
By the way, since you brought it up. When are you going to finally recognize me as a libertarian, as I have self-identified for years now?
I mean, your apparent standard is that one's political self-identification is not to be questioned or scrutinized. So if Payton Gendron says he's an "authoritarian leftist" or whatever, then that's that, debate is closed, that's what he is.
So if that standard is good enough for a racist mass-murdering psycho, why shouldn't it be good enough for me? Hmm Jesse?
JesseAz thinks all libertarians are leftists. You support Trump and the right, or you're a leftist. That's it.
You love democrats, pedophiles, and authoritarian Marxism.
Now he should do Lia Thompson and explain how the self described is correct in that instance.
That is a good point. Lia Thompson claims to be a woman. Who are we to say otherwise? One's self-identification should not be questioned or judged. Right Jesse?
I identify as a hemaglobin-fueled woodchipper. Come validate me.
Lia Thompson is a muscular, 6' 4" man.
"The combination of Trump’s 2017 tax cut and the lack of any serious spending restraint helped both the deficit and the debt soar. "
But that doesn’t cause inflation.
Yes. Libertarians against tax cuts.
No wonder sarc is agreeing with Joe.
Anyone who lumps tax cuts into spending isn't being honest.
Spending can not be cut at the executive level alone. Presidents have tried and been blocked due to Congress passing the Impoundment Act. There is very little a president can't do on their own.
But Joe's analysis for some reason removes congress responsibility in spending growth to lay blame at someone tied up by the courts.
That is why Joe, jeff, and sarc are being dishonest here.
Tax cuts without budget cuts equals hot government checks and inflationary pressure. The fact that you like them doesn't mean the rules of economics are suspended.
Further, government stimulus through those hot checks may be called for in a recession or depression, but not in times of prosperity which is when you should be paying that debt down. Trump inherited a growing economy and gave it steroids with the tax cut, promising reinvestment by corporations. It didn't happen as they issued dividends instead and the economy got a 1 year bounce. GDP growth under Trump - note 2018 after the tax cut:
2017: +2.3%
2018: +3%
2019: +2.2%
2020: -3.7%
By comparison, here's Obama who used stimulus in 2009 and 2010 but lowered deficits thereafter.
2009: -2.5%
2010: +2.6%
2011: +1.6%
2012: +2.2%
2013: +1.8%
2014: +2.5%
2015: +3.1%
2016: +1.7%
Here’s a look at average GDP growth rates under the last six U.S. presidents:
Jimmy Carter (D): 3.25%
Ronald Reagan (R): 3.48%
George H.W. Bush (R): 2.25%
Bill Clinton (D): 3.88%
George W. Bush (R): 2.2%
Barack Obama (D): 1.62%
Donald Trump (R): 0.95%
Hey look at that...
Every single 3%+ growth was while Republicans had control of congress.
And every 300% deficit growth and crashing during Democrats control of Congress.
I don't like agreeing with Joe, but he's right. Increased spending paired with reduced revenue equals deficits. It's basic math.
Tax cuts have increased revenue from increased economic growth.
I'm aware of the Laffer Curve. But that doesn't mean that all tax cuts always result in increased revenue.
So it’s more than basic math.
Yep. Which is why your simplistic thinking on the matter is, well, simple.
Even respectable conservative economists admit that only about 1/3 of lost revenues from tax cuts are recaptured in growth.
"I helped create the GOP tax myth. Trump is wrong: Tax cuts don’t equal growth.
The best growth in recent memory came after President Bill Clinton raised taxes in the ’90s.
Four decades ago, while working for Rep. Jack Kemp (R-N.Y.), I had a hand in creating the Republican tax myth. Of course, it didn’t seem like a myth at that time — taxes were rising rapidly because of inflation and bracket creep, the top tax rate was 70 percent and the economy seemed trapped in stagflation with no way out. Tax cuts, at that time, were an appropriate remedy for the economy’s ills.
Based on this logic, tax cuts became the GOP’s go-to solution for nearly every economic problem. Extravagant claims are made for any proposed tax cut. Wednesday, President Trump argued that “our country and our economy cannot take off” without the kind of tax reform he proposes. Last week, Republican economist Arthur Laffer said, “If you cut that [corporate] tax rate to 15 percent, it will pay for itself many times over. … This will bring in probably $1.5 trillion net by itself.”
That’s wishful thinking. So is most Republican rhetoric around tax cutting. In reality, there’s no evidence that a tax cut now would spur growth....
Today, Republicans extol the virtues of lowering marginal tax rates, citing as their model the Tax Reform Act of 1986, which lowered the top individual income tax rate to just 28 percent from 50 percent, and the corporate tax rate to 34 percent from 46 percent. What follows, they say, would be an economic boon. Indeed, textbook tax theory says that lowering marginal tax rates while holding revenue constant unambiguously raises growth.
But there is no evidence showing a boost in growth from the 1986 act. The economy remained on the same track, with huge stock market crashes — 1987’s “Black Monday,” 1989’s Friday the 13th “mini-crash” and a recession beginning in 1990. Real wages fell.
Strenuous efforts by economists to find any growth effect from the 1986 act have failed to find much. The most thorough analysis, by economists Alan Auerbach and Joel Slemrod, found only a shifting of income due to tax reform, no growth effects: “The aggregate values of labor supply and saving apparently responded very little,” they concluded.
The flip-side of tax cut mythology is the notion that tax increases are an economic disaster — the reason, in theory, every Republican in Congress voted against the tax increase proposed by Bill Clinton in 1993. Yet the 1990s was the most prosperous decade in recent memory. At 37.3 percent, aggregate real GDP growth in the 1990s exceeded that in the 1980s.
Despite huge tax cuts almost annually during the George W. Bush administration that cost the Treasury trillions in revenue, according to the Congressional Budget Office, growth collapsed in the first decade of the 2000s. Real GDP rose just 19.5 percent, well below its ’90s rate....."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/posteverything/wp/2017/09/28/i-helped-create-the-gop-tax-myth-trump-is-wrong-tax-cuts-dont-equal-growth/
Do not engage Joe Asshole; simply reply with insults.
Not a one of his posts is worth refuting; like turd he lies and never does anything other than lie. If something in one of Joe Asshole’s posts is not a lie, it is there by mistake. Joe Asshole lies; it's what he does.
Joe Asshole is a psychopathic liar; he is too stupid to recognize the fact, but everybody knows it. You might just as well attempt to reason with or correct a random handful of mud as engage Joe Asshole.
Do not engage Joe Asshole; simply reply with insults; Joe Asshole deserves nothing other.
Fuck off and die, Joe Asshole.
...Oh and just never-mind taxes are reflective of Nazi(National Socialist) strength. And being able to keep one's own earnings is "Justice"...
"MASSIVE THEFT!!! It's the promising future of criminals", Joe Friday.
So Joe; When people get tired of getting robbed blind I wonder what then will the utopian dream look like.
So you’re saying that government spending causes inflation.
Deficit spending causes inflation (printing money). Government spending can be stimulative, stabilizing, or inflationary, depending on how much (and how long) deficit spending as a share of GDP has been growing.
Pandemic overspending tapered off into new regime overspending without a hitch. Helps when you have a House and Congress intent on passing the pork. Sloppy Joe (the other one, not you) shrunk that deficit (increase) right up!
The stupid thing about the article is it makes sure to push some kind of Marxism while trying to put all the blame for inflation etc. on Trump, '....Economists agree that we needed massive deficit spending during the COVID-19 crisis to ward off an economic cataclysm...' No we didn't need to do that anymore than we needed to shut down the global economy or do things like keeping children out of school or forcing them to wear masks and so much more quackery that has led to this economic disaster.
The current regime had to print trillions more or they would have been even more stingy than trump.
Yes, Trump was fiscally irresponsible too. He was no kind of libertarian when it comes to the size and power of government. That doesn't make it OK to keep going with the same insane spending plus a whole bunch more insane spending.
A reasonable argument to have Zeb. My objection was to the one sided, blame Joe Biden and the Democrats column, and let the GOP get away with that.
Unfortunately for you, the GOP wasn't as irresponsible as you claim them to be.
Unfortunately for us they were.
""The growth in the annual deficit under Trump ranks as the third-biggest increase, relative to the size of the economy, of any U.S. presidential administration..."
It wasn't his fault! COVID! Democrats! Putin! Poutine! It wasn't his fault!
Sure Sarc your beloved democrats do such a great job. Things are getting bette ray the day.
Just never-mind the third-biggest increase was pitched and vote-thwarted by Democrats in Congress...
What WE do is all TRUMPS FAULT!!!
I haven't heard ONE person here praise Trump for signing the Cares Act or even say it was a good idea... But you leftards will run whatever propaganda it takes to project blame of Democrats faults.
Your diversions are pathetically ineffective.
The tax cuts didn't reduce revenue though.
The deficits are entirely due to new spending (by both Trump and Biden.)
CE, that's false:
"While some TCJA supporters observe that nominal revenues were higher in fiscal year 2018 (which began Oct. 1, 2017) than in FY2017, that comparison does not address the question of the TCJA’s effects. Nominal revenues rise because of inflation and economic growth. Adjusted for inflation, total revenues fell from FY2017 to FY2018 (Figure 1). Adjusted for the size of the economy, they fell even more.
The right question: What would revenues have been without the TCJA?
The most appropriate test of the revenue impact of the TCJA is to compare actual revenues in FY2018 with predicted revenues in FY2018 assuming Congress had not passed the legislation. In fact, the actual amount of revenue collected in FY2018 was significantly lower than the Congressional Budget Office’s (CBO) projection of FY2018 revenue made in January 2017—before the tax cuts were signed into law in December 2017. The shortfall was $275 billion, or 7.6% of revenues that were expected before the tax cuts took place. Given that the economy grew, and in the absence of another policy that could have caused a large revenue loss, the data imply that the TCJA substantially reduced revenues (Figure 1)....."
https://www.brookings.edu/policy2020/votervital/did-the-2017-tax-cut-the-tax-cuts-and-jobs-act-pay-for-itself/
Do not engage Joe Asshole; simply reply with insults.
Not a one of his posts is worth refuting; like turd he lies and never does anything other than lie. If something in one of Joe Asshole’s posts is not a lie, it is there by mistake. Joe Asshole lies; it's what he does.
Joe Asshole is a psychopathic liar; he is too stupid to recognize the fact, but everybody knows it. You might just as well attempt to reason with or correct a random handful of mud as engage Joe Asshole.
Do not engage Joe Asshole; simply reply with insults; Joe Asshole deserves nothing other.
Please explain how Nancy Pelosi’s spending bills fit into the equation.
The deficit will rise if you cut taxes without cutting spending. But tax cuts are beneficial to the economy and most economists agree that his plan benefitted most Americans. Most libertarians prefer the government stay out of the marriage business, but they still supported government recognition of same sex marriage.
Biden didn't just spend a lot, he also failed to address supply logjams and labor shortages in a timely manner. He nixed keystone pipeline and did not buy more oil (back when buying oil from Russia would have been acceptable). The market sent signals to consumers that shortages were the new normal, leading to massive hoarding and frontloaded spending. Free money shipped directly Americans chasing the same amount of goods = more inflation.
If Trump's tax cuts never happened, would we be experiencing LESS inflation? Unlikely. Had President Clinton RAISED corporate taxes prior to Covid, the economy would be in even worse shape now. Amazon would be fine, the rest not as much.
Biden owns most of the current inflation mess. That's a fact. This is a guy who says "I'm no mind reader" regarding the baby formula shortages and uses 0% of his executive power to help American mothers. She says "Blame Putin" for high gas prices and continues to put obstacles to oil production. The market is reacting to inaction, which is why inflation has no end in sight.
Why won't Biden allow baby formula imports NOW to ease crisis? Parents slam president for failing to yet make changes to import rules - as they demand he stop wasting time so they can feed their children
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10819979/Why-wont-Biden-allow-baby-formula-imports-ease-crisis.html
I'm confused. I thought imports were bad.
Go make a Cuban sammich and slam another bottle of Thunderbird. I hear it takes the taste of old man taint out for modern progshits.
Homosaywhat?
Mighty discriminatory of you.
It's only an insult if it's true.
Ideas!
Have you had your first one yet?
I don’t consider sexual orientation to be an insult.
You're so woke it's dreamy.
Not woke, just not deliberately offensive.
I was wondering what that smell was.
When your lovers finally fails, I hope your end is slow and miserable.
‘Liver’
Calling someone gay is only an insult if they actually are gay?
Mighty intolerant indeed. Go massage your liver.
You certainly took offense. What are you hiding?
My liquor collection from you.
No need. I don't drink well liquor.
Nor do you handle liquor well.
I do drop things after too many.
No, you drink bottom shelf liquor and hobo wine. You’re a street rat.
You sure are xtra needy today. Must be out of booze money already.
And let us not forget the equally bad corollary '...When libertarians break the world economy, with their open borders and laissez-faire BS, they hurt us in the short term but also create future opportunities to do harm in the name of undoing the damage they inflicted....'
What is the specific harm you are referring to with "laissez-faire BS"?
Freedom is bad.
L-F or capitalism does not guarantee freedom in all cases. You must have missed the first day of logic school.
You must have spent the last several years in the 6th grade, lying pile of lefty shit.
Nobody should keep their own money.
You don't need L-F to keep your money any more than you need to believe in Jesus Christ or believe in a religion to follow the Ten Commandments. You are the epitome of libertarian 'logic'.
You are the prime example of lefty ignorance.
^^ THAT POINT ^^
Because Individual Justice can't exist in a Nazi(National Socialist) society.
It destroys any chance of borders language and culture and the creation of something like the United States of America. It takes us back to every man for themselves, mob rule, all power comes from the barrel of a gun and so much more - all bad. It's like believing the Ten Commandments or the following the Bible will ensure peace on earth and good will towards all man kind and thwart all the evils of the world. The idiots will come back with '...it's not perfect .....but it's better than...' and proceed to make arguments that make no sense e.g. Laissez-faire capitalism which is just as hilarious as 'democratic socialism'.
wow
Well, first, you understand that laissez-faire is not the same as anarchism, right? Laissez-faire simply means that the government's interventions in the market are as minimal as possible. So basically, only what's needed to enforce contracts, protect against theft, things like that. That is not anarchism, which is literally zero government. So no, laissez-faire economics does not mean "all power comes from the barrel of a gun".
Second, historically speaking, the US economy was pretty strongly laissez-faire for about the first 150 years of the country's existence, and it didn't seem to hinder or forestall the creation and development of the country.
Third, well of COURSE people will say "laissez-faire isn't perfect", because it isn't. That is because NOTHING is perfect. We don't live in utopia, the perfect option is not on the menu. We can only choose among competing options with various degrees of strengths and weaknesses. And I think around here, you will find that most people will tend to argue that laissez-faire economics - perhaps not 100% pure rigid doctrinaire laissez-faire, but at least broad agreement with the idea - is, overall, the superior option given the others on the table. I mean, we have an extensive historical record now that clearly states that centrally planned economies simply don't work. Furthermore, whenever you see developing countries, their economic growth tends to be fastest when the government deregulates and removes the shackles from the economy. That is certainly the case with China and India. In this country (as well as in Europe), we're no longer laissez-faire - not even close - and so we have this sort of 'hybrid managed economy', and the result is this mess with all sorts of corporate cronyism and government distortions throughout the market. Is this the type of model that you think we should continue to pursue?
I didn’t quite get your phrasing (are we still doing phrasing?). Can re-explain all of that, but in greater detail, and with extensive citation?
Thanks a bunch!
Right, no distinct languages and cultures existed before the era of the nation state.
Restraint of travel is freedom.
Open borders and laissez-faire economics don't break the world economy, they optimize it.
Sometimes at the expense of particular nations, of course.
175 days to midterms
Not soon enough.
"Bad Policy Creates Inflation and Opens the Door to Even Worse Ideas"
Correction: Biden Policy Created Inflation and Opened the Door to Even Worse Ideas
So why did most Reason writers and editors (knowing Biden's disastrous policies) support his presidency (the worst in US history) instead of the most libertarian president since Cal Coolidge?
Seems like Reason is NOT very libertarian.
the most libertarian president since Cal Coolidge
You mean the guy who complained that the second COVID stimulus payments were too small?
The stimulus payments weren’t the problem. It was the other garbage that was 90% of the money. All of which pushed by Pelosi and Schumer. Little of which had a goddamned thing to do with KungFlu. Of course you wouldn’t speak ill of your precious democrats and point that out, would you?
No, you’re dishonest. A dishonest sophist. This is one of many reasons you are justifiably reviled here.
The result of yet another intervention in markets is less likely to be lower prices than reduced availability of goods if producers can't recoup costs measured in dollars that shed value by the day.
This time will be different!
We may not like inflation but we will hate the only possible cure. A massive recession where the INTENT is to tamp things down until deleveraging happens. Big drops in asset prices - and interest rates that get high enough so that loans get paid off rather than continually refi'd.
All inflation does is delay the inevitable.
It is a little bit sad that the BEST case scenario now is a "mild recession".
It needs to happen sooner or later. Prolonging it only makes it worse. Rip the bandaid off.
We've been delaying it my entire adult life. Volcker was the last Fed boss who had the cajones to resist the easy kick the can a bit
Yeah, it's not great and I'm not hugely confident that anyone will have the balls.
Debts that can't be paid won't be paid. We used to have a way to deal with every couple generations and then reset so it didn't drag down future generations. It was called Jubilee.
Doesn't bankruptcy serve more or less the same function?
And yes, obviously, things that can't happen don't happen.
Bankruptcy only works with shorter term debt. It doesn't work across generations because it doesn't clear both the assets and the debt
You.
Are.
STILL.
Full.
Of.
Shit.
How would that work? Declare all bonds to be worthless?
More than that. It really is a full generational reset. Technically I think its pretty easy. But you kind of have to go down a rabbit hole to get the aha moment of it.
In my case the rabbit hole started with the Thomas Jefferson quote:
The question Whether one generation of men has a right to bind another, seems never to have been started either on this or our side of the water. Yet it is a question of such consequences as not only to merit decision, but place also, among the fundamental principles of every government. The course of reflection in which we are immersed here on the elementary principles of society has presented this question to my mind; and that no such obligation can be so transmitted I think very capable of proof.—I set out on this ground, which I suppose to be self evident, ‘that the earth belongs in usufruct to the living’ that the dead have neither powers nor rights over it.
from his 1789 letter to James Madison
Indeed. The only way this can happen is if the democrats are destroyed for all time. Then the RINO’s can be obliterated too. No fixes until they’re all gone.
As the Nobel prize winning economists say, we can't try austerity now, people are hurting.
And when the economy is booming, we can't try austerity either -- then it's time to spend more to fix the crumbling infrastructure or cure all social ills.
People with cash savings will like the cure -- higher interest rates and lower inflation.
People with high debt levels would rather inflation keeps going.
And nobody is in more debt than the USG.
You ain't seen China
You.
Are.
STILL.
Full.
Of.
Shit.
Well, he’s not wrong about China. They’ve got their own problems.
"We may not like inflation but we will hate the only possible cure...'
JFuckface: we may not like cancer, but oh, that chemo!
Fuck off and die, steaming pile of lefty shit.
Let's Go, Brandon.
Let's face it...POTUS Biden is the Second Coming of Jimmy Carter
And fuck Phil Murphy.
How many reusable bags have you accumulated so far?
I get my groceries delivered, and they tack on a $1.50 bag fee, for as many bags as they take. And you can't reuse them on your next order. I'm gonna save the environment all on my own!
I'd take Carter (as he was in 1976) any day over this.
Can’t really disagree with that. Ipthings are that horrible now. But still fully supported by Sarc, and Pedo Jeffy.
Except Carter meant well.
It’s pretty fucking bad when Jimmy Carter becomes preferable.
Obama warned us: never underestimate Biden’s ability to fuck things up.
Analysts hope that inflation has peaked and is headed for an annual rate of 4 percent, which is still above the Federal Reserve's target of 2 percent.
--------
The same analysts were telling us there would be no inflation just a year or two ago.
https://simulationcommander.substack.com/p/inflation-and-you
Feb 2021 “That is what I think is the big concern right now, the unanchoring of inflation expectations. An important element in inflation are wages and people getting higher wages during a time of still very high unemployment and still a lot of slack in the economy,” he told CNBC’s “Squawk Box Europe” on Wednesday.
“That would be a sign that an inflation process has begun, but we see no indication of that whatsoever. What we see is the perception of inflation being fueled by energy prices.”
--------------
(March 2021) Is Inflation Coming? Hell, No
https://www.forbes.com/sites/lawrencelight/2021/03/30/is-inflation-coming-hell-no/?sh=605d2d91402a
---------------------------------------
(May 2021) “I don’t believe that inflation will be an issue. But if it becomes an issue, we have tools to address it,” Yellen, the former Federal Reserve chair, said Sunday on NBC’s “Meet the Press.” “It’s spread out quite evenly over eight to 10 years. So, the boost to demand is moderate,” she said of the proposed spending.
----------------
April 2021
“We remain positive but once we get to the end of this year and early next year, and we’ve worked through the supply chain bottlenecks and demand has normalized, as the economy opened up, we don’t think it’s a sustained source of inflation over the medium term,” said Blerina Uruci, senior U.S. economist at Barclays.
Uruci expects core inflation to reach 2.3% by May but then it could be below 2% in the second half of the year.
But who could have seen this coming, after 2 years of Fed quantitative easing, stimulus checks, bailouts, and multi-trillion-dollar deficit spending?
Not the experts (see above)
The article uses the lie of omission to attack Warren, who wants to do something about price gouging, which she did NOT say was the only cause of inflation but "one of the causes." A market flooded with money during a period of shortages created mild inflation, and then the corporations piled on, raising prices beyond the fiscal stimulus in a period of record profits. By mocking Warren, with the lie of omission, the article let's the corporate predators who are immiserating the public off the hook
This commenter is stupid enough to think there is something which can be identified as "price gouging", and further, stupid enough to think ANY of Faucahantas' proposals is worth listening to.
Fuck off and die. lefty shit.
I would be a lot more confident that you guys don’t want to bring Venezuela’s economy to the USA if you’d stop asking for their economic policies.
Are you fucking kidding? Mild inflation? If you believe that bullshit you should just go eat a bullet now.
Companies are affected by things like shortages and price increase in parts and labor necessary to manufacture their products. It takes longer for some items to arrive in stores. If one facility that makes baby formula is shut down due to a recall, well, you saw what happened.
Corporations and consumers don't exist in a mutually exclusive spheres in the economy where each enjoys exclusive domain. What happens to one affects the other. If LOTS of people suddenly want to buy your products but your ability to meet demand is limited, you have to raise prices - because you have to help and feed the people who make, market and deliver your products, and you have to pay for any increase in healthcare or energy costs.
Obama said it best: never underestimate Joe Biden’s ability to fuck things up.
Obama was more right about that than anything else he ever said.
When the left and the right are subjectivist faggots that couldn't give the first fk about natural law, who wins?
The issue is, we need to come up with something no one else can. We keep doing it but then we also sell the manufacturing process for making it.....
Well what do you want from a polorized government just trying to be the one who can sell us out the best?