Biden Says Fighting Inflation Is His Top Economic Priority. His Antitrust Policy Would Make Inflation Worse.
Attacking big firms just for being big could drive up prices.

To hear President Joe Biden tell it, "tackling inflation" is his "top economic priority." In an op-ed for The Wall Street Journal yesterday, Biden outlined a three-point plan to " transition from rapid recovery to stable, steady growth" by "[bringing] inflation down."
Yet as Reason's Eric Boehm noted, Biden's own policies, particularly the $2 trillion partisan spending bill Biden and congressional Democrats pushed through at the start of Biden's presidency, contributed to the current inflationary environment, pumping massive stimulus into the economy in an explicit bid to run the economy "hot"—despite clear warnings, even from left-leaning economists aligned with the Democratic Party, that doing so would produce harmful levels of inflation.
Indeed, even as Biden promises to whip inflation now, his administration is continuing to pursue policies more likely than not to make inflation worse despite cautions from within the Democratic establishment. In particular, his administration is pressing forward with aggressive antitrust enforcement against large companies like Amazon that would drive upward pressure on prices.
On the same day that Biden's inflation op-ed appeared, Bloomberg News reported that the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) had renewed an antitrust investigation into Amazon, focusing specifically on the company's acquisition of movie producer MGM Studios. That investigation is proceeding under an FTC led by Lina Khan, a Biden appointee who in a 2017 paper for the Yale Law Journal made a case for expanded antitrust action against the online retailer, arguing that the standard approach was deficient. Bloomberg News reports that Khan "has taken a personal interest in the probe."
Biden has encouraged Khan's zeal, and his advisers have argued in the past that more aggressive antitrust policy against large corporations can be a tool for fighting inflation. But it's hard to see this as much more than a political crutch for a flailing administration: When the price of gas began to go up, Biden urged the FTC to pursue investigations of supposedly anticompetitive oil and gas companies. When the price of beef rose, Biden urged antitrust probes into the meatpacking industry.
In December, Biden advisers admitted to The New York Times that the administration's antitrust push hadn't initially been devised as an inflation-fighting tool. Biden's initial $2 trillion spending bill, the American Rescue Plan (ARP), was best understood as a grab-bag of preexisting Democratic economic priorities ill-suited to the problems of early 2021. Similarly, Biden's antitrust push is an old partisan agenda item that has nothing to do with the problem at hand, yet has been suspiciously retrofitted into a supposed solution to current issues.
And like the American Rescue Plan, Biden's antitrust push is, if anything, likely to make inflation worse. Some of the most prescient warnings about the size and design of the ARP came from Larry Summers, a Harvard economist and one of former President Barack Obama's top economic advisers.
Summers is now warning that Biden's approach to antitrust will have similar results.
Khan's approach to antitrust is focused on discarding what has long been the legal test for antitrust actions: whether a merger enhances consumer welfare. Instead, progressive antitrust activists in the Khan mold have focused more on scale—or bigness—itself, often under the justification that limiting corporate size promotes competition with smaller firms.
But in a recent Twitter thread, Summers argued that this was exactly backward: "Policies that attack bigness can easily be inflationary if they prevent the exploitation of economies of scale or limit superstar firms," he wrote. "Likewise, policy focused on protecting competitors or communities or limiting layoffs are likely to raise costs & prices." Another way of thinking about this is that antitrust efforts that target bigness alone end up decreasing corporate efficiency since mergers and acquisitions can allow for more streamlined production processes. Reducing efficiency, in turn, drives up prices, contributing to the inflation that Biden says he's determined to fight.
In some ways, this is not surprising: Giving up on the consumer welfare standard in some sense means giving up on the idea that lower prices for consumers should be a focus. But it's telling that the Biden administration has doubled down on its antitrust policy agenda even as prices have climbed. Nothing says "fighting inflation is my top economic priority" like the continued pursuit of policies almost certain to make inflation worse.
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
Who the fuck wanted this geezer to be POTUS?
Koch-funded libertarians, to name just the most relevant example.
But more generally, enough voters preferred Biden that he won a historic landslide victory.
#LibertariansForBiden
Oops! Can't forget billionaires! These days they're an even more important part of the Democratic base than movie stars. 🙂
#OBLsFirstLaw
Not one, but two [2]! responses from OBL! My day is complete!
Eric. Boehm.
About that: https://twitter.com/disclosetv/status/1531764329124663301
Biden is lying.
Is it lying if he actually believes the drivel that issues forth from his pie hole?
Perverse yes, but mendacity requires capacity.
I don’t think he cares about inflation.
I think I figured it out! Money comes from the government, right? So it's government money. Just as the law doesn't apply to people in government, government money has also been given immunity. Not qualified immunity mind you, bot total immunity.
So the laws of economics, things like supply and demand, don't apply to government money!
That means the government can print as much money as it wants and spend as much as it wants, and if prices go up it's because greedy corporations are greedy!
4/10
"Biden Says Fighting Inflation Is His Top Economic Priority."
Evidence not withstanding
You're giving him the benefit of the doubt that he actually knows what he's doing.
He doesn't.
Creating, then 'fighting' inflation, there is, however abundant evidence for.
Oil, General; don't forget oil.
In December, Biden advisers admitted to The New York Times that the administration's antitrust push hadn't initially been devised as an inflation-fighting tool. Biden's initial $2 trillion spending bill, the American Rescue Plan (ARP)
Perhaps the FTC should investigate the FedGov's monopoly on being able to print and spend $2T out of thin air.
so we're back to Clinton fucking with Microsoft
Was that the intern's name? I seem to remember it differently.
No, it was the name of the part of Bill doing the fucking.
Biden’s top priority is to try not shitting his pants in front of important people.
Suderman, It would be nice if someone at Reason wrote a nice investigative piece on divestment from fossil fuels before RUSSIA invaded Ukraine and connect little grade school dots to the absolute inflation fuckery that is going on around the world. Perhaps mass starvation will promote some sort of investigation.
https://time.com/6175734/reliance-on-fossil-fuels/
This ain’t the National Review, Washington Examiner, The Church of Christ or the Texas oilman association, it’s TIME.
But, AOC, Bernie, and Fauxcahontas told me we don't need fossil fuel. They're really smart, so Time Magazine is wrong.
most of the inflationary is the result of regulatory pressure on producers
we didn't have to bury Russia in sanctions in response to what is fairly typical post-Cold War Russian behavior
but Team Blue still wants to avenge the $342 in Facebook ads and secret Alfa Bank decoder ring that stole the 2016 election for Trump so no more Tic Tac Toe, it's on to Global Thermonuclear War
Team Blue wants to keep laundering money, along with team red, through Ukraine.
Meeeh dude I don't know if you can classify a full scale invasion as being typical post-cold war fare without appropriate contrasts
I'm an inflation-hawk and a rabid opponent of hipster antitrust, but this is an incredibly far fetched argument. First, antitrust enforcement policy has a miniscule impact on macroeconomic trends. Second, merger review is incredibly lax. When there are demonstrable economies of scale mergers go through. (In most industries, consolidation continues far beyond what's necessary for economies of scale.) Third, most contemplated enforcement against the largest firms is for allegedly anticompetitive unilateral conduct.
And here I thought reason liked the free market and such. They here are arguing AGAINST such a thing to protect hegemons.
I mean, you can just come out and say you're anti-democrat. It'd at least be honest because it's clear you have zero principles.
Wut?
Copied from the wrong page of his emails.
LOL... "particularly the $2 trillion partisan spending bill Biden and congressional Democrats pushed through"...
Oh no... Can't round-up that 1.9999T to $2T!! That'll make it just as bad as Trumps (Democratically Pitched and Democrat Thwarted Vote) CARES Act.... And then leftards can't run their mouths about their own pitched bill that Trump supported!!!
Trump was go great to start with and throughout most his administration but boy did he botch it right at the very end. Republican voters aren't FOR-SALE by *FREE* Gov-Gun STOLEN goods of others --- That's Democrats racket.
I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. Because this is totally incoherent. Please expound.
Democrats love to blame Trump for their OWN (87%-Democrat) written 'largest' stimulus spending bill the C.A.R.E.S. Act...
Humorously; the CARES Act was only a couple million greater than Biden's ARP-Stimulus bill.. (rather insignificant amount in context)
It's the same game they pulled with Bush Jr. TARP bill; while entirely ignoring the 3x-greater Obama ARRA bill...
Sigh.
Inflation, once again, is a monetary phenomenon. However wrong-headed Biden antitrust policies might be, they do not substantively affect the money supply, and therefore will do nothing, good or bad, to inflation.
"Inflation is bad and so my goal is to bring down inflation because inflation is bad. I understand how bad inflation is because inflation is bad. So we are going to do something about inflation because we have inflation and inflation is bad for American families. Inflation is inflation and that's why I'm going to take care of all inflation because I am president"
— Joseph R. Biden
When one reads the OpEd in the WSJ, Biden's three ideas start out sort of ok, but then when you stop to think what is involved, it's either more spending or more regulation (or both). Getting out of the way and letting the economy's "invisible hand" work is just not in his playbook (no surprise there).
But there is good news! At least presented as an OpEd, one doesn't have to waste 20 minutes listening to him mangle a speech.
"Biden says..."? Politicians, bureaucrats, officials, rule us, run our lives, without accountability, success, or a right to do so. They have the vote, and the permission of some, which amounts to a political blank check, the so-called 'checks/balances' experiment having failed.
Voting is NOT choosing. It is forfeiting choice to an elite who are granted the power to make law. Law is rule by the initiation of force, threats, backed by the ultimate power to kill. It's legalized tyranny.
While a reasoned argument may disguise a specific threat (law), if all arguments are refuted, exposing no justification, the sham is dropped with "the law is the law", meaning, "do it or die".
When individual sovereignty, expressed by one's conscience, one's value judgements, one's life choices, is not allowed on political principle, as expressed in the rule of law, then right to life, liberty, property, happiness, is denied. That is the worldwide political paradigm, justified as benefiting the "common good". But, is the sacrifice of reason, rights, personal choice, to violence ever good?