Politicians Cause Real Pain With Inflationary Policies
Inflation damages the economy while doing the greatest harm to the most vulnerable.

Gasoline prices just hit new record highs, and that's just the tip of the iceberg, inflation-wise. As consumers know, but federal officials seem slow to admit, everything is becoming more expensive. And while the purchasing power of our money is expected to erode more slowly in the months to come, getting from here to there will be painful. Unless you're a politician looking for a sneaky way to cover the government's bills, there's nothing good about inflation, which damages the economy while doing the greatest harm to the most vulnerable.
The average price for a gallon of regular gasoline across the United States is currently $4.62, according to AAA. That's up from $4.17 a month ago and $3.04 at this time last year. The White House wants to blame Russia's invasion of Ukraine for the soaring cost of driving (at least, when not hailing an "incredible transition" to green energy), which comes just in time to hobble Americans' summer travel plans. But, while that war certainly squeezed energy supplies, prices were rising before troops crossed borders in February, and they climbed for all sorts of goods and services as money lost its purchasing power.
"Housing, transportation and food are the three largest areas of the average household budget," CNBC noted in December of last year. "Inflation is pushing up these costs for consumers at the fastest clip in many years."
The situation hasn't improved in the months since that report. Prices rose across the board by 8.3 percent in April over the same time last year, according to the consumer price index compiled by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. That was a hair below the rate recorded in March, but still at a level not seen in 40 years. That means that even for those rare people whose paychecks keep up with inflation, the money in their wallets and bank accounts loses money as it sits there, buying less with each passing day. The effects are especially brutal for those with lower incomes.
"Price inflation often outstrips growth in wages and transfers, while self-employment income and investment income may be more likely to keep pace with inflation," Indermit Gill and Peter Nagle wrote for the Brookings Institution in March. "As such, inflation can reduce the incomes of poorer households relative to those of the richest."
Worse, this situation is of human cause, largely as the result of a flood of government spending intended to offset pandemic lockdowns, or just to exploit the health crisis to advance preexisting legislative agendas. Economists from a variety of backgrounds, including the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco and the Hoover Institution, lay the blame on trillions of dollars distributed by the federal government. President Joe Biden doesn't quite accept responsibility for fueling price increases, but he concedes the need to rein-in inflation.
"Americans are anxious," admits a Wall Street Journal op-ed published under the president's name this week. "I know that feeling. I grew up in a family where it mattered when the price of gas or groceries rose."
Inflation is pernicious because of the widespread destruction it wreaks. In destroying the value of money, it gnaws at incomes, erases savings, and makes budgeting challenging to the point of impossibility. In so doing, inflation causes chaos and erodes faith in the economic system.
"Lenin is said to have declared that the best way to destroy the Capitalist System was to debauch the currency," John Maynard Keynes wrote in Economic Consequences of the Peace (1919). "By a continuing process of inflation, governments can confiscate, secretly and unobserved, an important part of the wealth of their citizens. By this method they not only confiscate, but they confiscate arbitrarily; and, while the process impoverishes many, it actually enriches some. The sight of this arbitrary rearrangement of riches strikes not only at security, but at confidence in the equity of the existing distribution of wealth."
That inflation actually benefits some people through its uneven effects while hurting many more has been understood by economists at least since Richard Cantillon wrote on the subject in the 18th century. That creates resentment since those suffering see some people growing more prosperous and even advocating for devalued money.
Among the beneficiaries of cheapened money is the government itself. Inflation is often referred to as a "hidden tax" when government pays its bills by creating dollars (or pounds, euros, etc.) and the recipients get devalued currency for their troubles. But inflation involves taxes in another way, too.
"We are automatically shoved into higher brackets by the effect of inflation," observed the economist Milton Friedman in his 1980 Free to Choose TV series. "A neat trick; taxation without representation."
So, politicians and their appointees have plenty of incentive to flood the world with money for the benefit of their political agendas and their friends, but at the expense of the public at large. That temptation ends only when people scream loudly enough about rising prices and squeezed budgets. Unfortunately, the tools available to government officials to undo the damage they've done are blunt instruments that may well kneecap the economy by bringing about a recession.
"It is, of course, bad to lose 8 percent of your purchasing power to inflation," Megan McArdle warns at The Washington Post. "But it's even worse to lose a hundred percent of it to unemployment — and the collective suffering of those who lose their jobs is arguably much greater than the pains of households strained by inflation."
The smart bet is that the Federal Reserve will try to walk a tightrope with interest rate hikes intended to curb inflation without killing jobs and businesses. Observers aren't sure that's possible at this point; Deutsche Bank forecasts a deep recession for next year.
No matter what officials do, it will take time to stabilize the value of our money. The Congressional Budget Office sees the consumer price index coming down but says rising prices will linger into next year. "CBO currently projects higher inflation in 2022 and 2023 than it did last July; prices are increasing more rapidly across many sectors of the economy than CBO anticipated," analysts predicted last week.
That means economic pain at the gas pump, in the supermarket, and every time people sit down to pay their bills. Politicians will try to place the blame on anybody but themselves. But never forget that it was their decisions that placed that hole in your wallet.
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
Rig count is up and liberal capitalists like me and Warren Buffett are making more money than ever. The Biden economy is fantastic. Only people who read wingnut.com believe inflation is real.
#TemporarilyFillingInForButtplug
Stay in your lane! No one can match the Plug for pure, unadulterated idiocy.
HAPERINFLATION!!!!!!!!!!
I even have made $30,180 only in 30 days straightforwardly working a few easy tasks through my PC. Just when I have lost my office position, (res-44) I was so perturbed but at last I’ve found this simple on-line employment & this way I could collect thousands simply from home. Any individual can try this best job and get more money online going this article….
.
>>>>>>> https://brilliantfuture01.blogspot.com/
Housing prices are the leader in inflation which of course are propped up by republicans lords of the land who mistreat their tenants like British serfs
Is Buttplug on holiday at Kidfest? Or is he working as a camp counselor at a summer camp for 6-12 year old boys?
But what about the Spittin’ Tobaccy Index (STI)?
Spittin' tobaccy is literally the only item whose price has increased. And even that has only gone up 10 cents per pouch.
With the current trajectory, I expect it to be up by 11-12 cents by year end. That's why I ordered a pallet of it last month.
A recent report I heard said that Biden was 'very angry' that others in the WH were 'walking back' some of his comments.
Have you encountered a 'very angry' person with dementia? They do crazy things - attack their spouses or kids, cause car accidents, start fires. Now imagine a very angry Dopey Joe with his hand on the 'football'. Nuclear holocaust.
The Babylon Bee has been prescient many times. Let's hope this time they are wrong.
https://babylonbee.com/news/guns-should-not-be-in-the-hands-of-the-mentally-unstable-says-senile-man-with-nukes
We can only pray that the Easter Bunny will be there to stop him.
I even have made $30,030 just in five weeks straightforwardly working part-time from my apartment. (res-32) Immediately when I've lost my last business, I was exhausted and luckily I found this top online task & with this I am in a position to obtain thousands directly through my home. Everybody is able to get this best career & can gain more dollars on-line going this article.
.
>>>> https://oldprofits.blogspot.com
But seriously--yes, out-of-control anger is a common symptom of dementia.
Wow, the Babylon Bee and it's supposed "Christian news satire." Christian? No. News? No. Satire? Jonathan Swift doesn't face stiff competition.
And people like Tooshitty campaigned for this
Anybody who campaigned for any major candidate of the last 25 years (or longer) campaigned for this. Debt has been exploding since 2001. Democrats run on increasing spending and Republicans just increase it anyway once in office. But hey, bipartisanship!
"BoTh SiDeS!!!"
Fucking useless
Claiming that both sides haven't been bad on debt is pretty dumb especially when the evidence is so readily available.
https://www.thebalance.com/us-debt-by-president-by-dollar-and-percent-3306296
When debt goes up under a Republican president it was the fault of Congress, or if Congress was controlled by Republicans it was caused by the previous administration. It's never the Republicans fault.
>Criticize only Republicans
"Woke antifa communist antiwestern soyboy! REEE!"
>Criticize Republicans and Democrats but criticize Republicans more
"BOAF SYDES"
>Criticize Republicans and Democrats in equal measure
"We all know one is way worse than the other! Lesser of two evils!"
>Criticize Republicans and Democrats but criticize Democrats more
"Just had to include that snipe at Republicans in there didn't you? Gotta always make sure to never let them off the hook!"
>Criticize only Democrats
"Well said."
Pretty much.
demand is only half the equation
Democrats have also done almost everything in their power to restrict supply, mostly on the quasi-religious theory this will somehow cool the planet down, which they still believe is absolutely necessary for our continued survival despite the fact the satellite-era .13 degree/decade warming trend still shows none of the IPCC's long-predicted acceleration
I mean, you aren't entirely wrong. n00bdragon should take note.
Get covered in $5/gallon gasoline then lit on fire, leo
You want to murder him for stating a simple fact? What is wrong with you?
You're literally cancer, leftist lemming.
Yes, Republicans grow the national debt by 900%, the Democrats grow it by 1324098346508972340982340921834% and are disappointed they weren't able to grow it by 23098470345698734-598732045823094572304567% because of those hateful Republicans who want to starve grandma.
Also while I didn't click on your link, I'm taking the link title at face value, and "by president" is only a very partial analysis of how the debt increased, given that Congress holds the purse strings. So one needs to look and see who's in charge of the presidency AND Congress at the same time, and balance that out.
Agreed with all of this. Going back to Bush 2, the deficit is basically more and more debt, so it's hard to find a silver lining for either party.
I'm not saying that Biden isn't responsible for massive inflation, because he is. I'm saying that the last 4 administrations are responsible for massive inflation, because they are.
You agree that the Democrats are a bigger problem overall. It isn't fair to place equal blame on the Republicans in this regard, despite people like sarcasmic behaving otherwise. People need to understand this.
Leo and Reason have a role to play.
That role is to convince people there is no viable alternative to totalitarian leftist globalism, thus your only option is to submit.
Don't ever consider any other options than inconsequential bitching.
You agree that the Democrats are a bigger problem overall. It isn't fair to place equal blame on the Republicans in this regard, despite people like sarcasmic behaving otherwise. People need to understand this.
Democrats say they're going to spend $12T and end up spending $6T. Republicans say they're going to spend $3T and end up spending $6T. Practically speaking, it's a distinction without a difference.
Democrats are a bigger problem in that they seem to have an appetite for even more government spending then they end up allowing. But I really don't see the Republicans as any sort of better option when it comes to spending. Recent history proves this out.
You deserve what's coming.
Yep. Democrats promise to spend more, so at least they're honest about it. Republicans put on a good talk about financial responsibility when they're not in power, but when they do have power they spend just as recklessly.
See Diane's response above.
"Anybody who campaigned for any major candidate of the last 25 years (or longer) campaigned for this."
TDSs-addled shit-piles continue to attempt to excuse their idiocy with bullshit like this.
Stuff it up your ass, your head needs company.
Tell me, Sevo, which President in the last 25 years didn't add significantly to the national debt?
https://www.thebalance.com/us-debt-by-president-by-dollar-and-percent-3306296
Bush 2: $5.85T in 8 years ($0.73T / year)
Obama: $8.6T in 8 years ($1.08T / year)
Trump: $6.7T in 4 years ($1.68T / year)
Biden: $3.35T proj in 2 years ($1.68T / year)
Pick them cherries, TDS-addled pile 0f shit.
TDSs-addled
Also... I never mentioned Trump in my original post. Maybe you are the one with TDS?
Innuendo does just fine for TDS-addled shit-piles.
Sevo is infected with a particular type of TDS that causes him to froth at the mouth and scream like a Tourette's sufferer on crack whenever someone dares to insult his God King Trump.
Or apparently never even mentions him at all.
Around here what you don't say matters more than what you do say.
Is it just me, or has Fire Marshall Bill really aged in that photo?
That Biden pic is fucking creepy.
"Let me show you something!"
I had the same thought and you beat me to it....stupid meetings.
I don't know, but Batman better hurry up and put Scarecrow back in Arkham Asylum
Actually, I think that photo begs for some Joker makeup.
I can see it.
Why so... uh... you know, the thing?
Nice catch!
" In destroying the value of money, it gnaws at incomes, erases savings, and makes budgeting challenging to the point of impossibility. In so doing, inflation causes chaos and erodes faith in the economic system."
Even worse, inflation causes malinvestment. This results in shortages and other market dysfunctions that then get blamed on "capitalism". I have mentioned this earlier, but Rivian, the electric truck maker, has burned through nearly $30 Billion in money raised from Ford and their IPO. That's $30 Billion that could have gone towards new chip factories, or building cars that the general public needs (rather than urbanite weekend off roaders in CA).
Rivian was able to get that money precisely because there was so much cash in the system that prudent investments couldn't make enough return to satisfy investors. So instead, all this money floods into risky investments. I have acquaintances at Rivian who say that the company cannot decide to work on one thing. They are building factories, and their own electronics, and thinking about airplanes. This is a company that has produced like 10,000 trucks total in years of business.
If you understand one thing about Markets, it is this: Prices are a language. Much like english abstracts away our different thoughts into common sounds, prices abstract away near limitless variable inputs and outputs into a single signal that every market participant uses to plan their life. Inflation isn't just changing prices- it is changing our language out from under us. Producing, consuming, investing, negotiating- the entire system cannot be sustained when we fuck with that language. Like a tower of Babel, it will crash down around us.
I have acquaintances at Rivian who say that the company cannot decide to work on one thing. They are building factories, and their own electronics, and thinking about airplanes. This is a company that has produced like 10,000 trucks total in years of business.
I too have some inside knowledge of Rivian, and kind of like Tesla, they're run more like a tech company than an automobile company. I knew Rivian was going to be in trouble when instead of just building a solid, utilitarian electric truck, they went all-in on self-driving. Imagine how much diverted investment has to go into shit like this: https://rivian.com/support/article/is-rivian-driver-a-level-3-autonomous-driving-system when you could just... you know, build a better battery and mechanicals making the truck a solid platform? Nope, instead you have to divert x billion of the 30 billion hiring the cast of Silicon Valley to build a "middle out" algorithm with decentralized cell phone storage beamed to the cloud... or something.
Oh, and this is funny:
Um, sorry Rivian, that IS level 3 self-driving. The industry definition of self-driving:
It's not until you get to level 4 that self-driving even becomes interesting. So Rivian can't even get its own definition of 'self-driving' correct.
"Politicians Cause Real Pain With Inflationary Policies"
Correction: Reason Endorsed Joe Biden Caused Real Pain With Inflationary Policies
So why won't Reason apologize (or even acknowledge) their massive misjudgment?
Bullshit Bill - Trump and the GOP was fully onboard with covid stimulus spending and Trump even lobbied for a bigger payout to individuals after leaving office. The GOP spent and cut taxes like there was no tomorrow while Trump continually lobbied for the Fed Reserve to pump it up even while already in a period of growth.
Trump might have been almost as bad on demand
on supply, however, Trump was infinitely better
(ask the Sri Lankans how that works)
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.
That was always Democrat’s big problem with Trump: he spent too much money.
Which governors reopened first?
Which governors kept the enhanced unemployment in place the longest?
"Republican" governor Mikey Dewine of Ohio was a leading and resolute enthusiast for Covidiocy.
Joe Friday reminds me of the woke liars at CNN, MSNBC, PBS, NBC, ABC, CBS, NYT, WaPo and other left wing propagandists.
Who says they see it as a misjudgment rather than just an abdication of responsibility for the consequences without any underlying change in opinion.
Faggots like Reason and fluffer Leo exist to make sure you do nothing but complain instead of actually resisting leftist totalitarianism
Bullshit article based on false, but typically libertarian premises:
"Worse, this situation is of human cause, largely as the result of a flood of government spending intended to offset pandemic lockdowns, or just to exploit the health crisis to advance preexisting legislative agendas. ..."
Putting aside whether lockdowns were a reasonable response to a deadly pandemic (killed more Americans than any war we've been in and more than the Spanish flu - estimated to be 675k) studies in real time found more Americans stayed home and away from bars, restaurants, etc not because of lockdowns but out of fear of catching it. That clearly puts the problem's source not on politicians but an event not in their control, and one that has plagued (literally) human existence forever. Politicians - thanks Pres Trump and Biden - took steps to aid producing and distributing an effective vaccine and laid it on too strong on the stimulus and financial aid, but they did not create the situation and arguably did what they thought correct.
That doesn't fit the libertarian simple minded belief - "government bad" - but it's the truth.
arguably did what they thought correct
This doesn't absolve anybody of responsibility. The whole point of "free markets" in the masthead is that centrally planning economic activity never works efficiently, regardless of intent.
Putting aside whether lockdowns were a reasonable response to a deadly pandemic
And to this point, you are dodging the issue. The premise isn't that lockdowns caused inflation (although the reduced economic activity doesn't help), it's that the response of pumping trillions of new dollars into the economy caused inflation. That was most certainly caused by politicians and their central planners over at the Fed. Congress and the Fed can't control people's actions, try as they might, but they can certainly control the spending of the government and the size of the money supply, respectively. It's quite literally their stated purposes for existence.
Leo, pumping money or not by the government causes predictable behavior by individuals and the economy and is how we went from the end of WWII until 2008 without anything approaching the 1929 meltdown. In 2009 there was no other entity with the will or resources to keep the economy afloat other than the government, which kept us from Depression Era (depression is defined as no money available)unemployment and breadlines and saved the upper midwest from complete disaster. Steady sources of government spending also keep a floor/ceiling on the wilder excesses of markets through Social security pay outs and Medicare spending. Republicans deny all this but acknowledge it's truth by spending when in office - and then slamming Democrats for the same when out.
You can't both claim that government intervention is required to keep the economy afloat and then absolve them of any responsibilities when it comes crashing down or they simply inflate individuals money into worthlessness.
If you want to claim that the boom and bust cycles and the inflation that we're seeing now are acceptable side effects of government having so much control on the economy then make that argument. Don't claim, as you did in your OP, that government "but they did not create the situation and arguably did what they thought correct."
Leo, I am fully supportive of criticizing politicians decisions - that's how democracies are supposed to work. Did politicians make mistakes, spend too little, spend too much, spend it too late? have at it. But don't start on the false premise that they did this for no reason or for one of their own making, or that one party did this but is not blame worthy while the one that followed up gets all the blame. If we are going to criticize, let's do it intelligently and that in my mind includes not based on pure ideology or excessive partisan ship. The government is not the cause of all problems nor the cure. It is one tool in the bag that is uniquely powerful and therefore effective. In a democracy, we all own it, and are ultimately responsible for it.
Joe Asshole tries 'both sides' bullshit; Joe asshole lies.
"Leo, pumping money or not by the government causes predictable behavior by individuals and the economy and is how we went from the end of WWII until 2008 without anything approaching the 1929 meltdown. "
This is an incoherent word salad. Notice that Joe has now pivoted to talking about the Financial Crisis, in an article about inflation. Why? Because it is very difficult to claim our financial system was RIGHT ON from " end of WWII until 2008 " when inflation is being discussed.
For the benefit of the thread, let's recall the massive inflation of the 70s that made Carter a one-term president. And the fact that everyone (except Joe and his handlers) understands that the getting out of that predicament meant tightening monetary policy.
Everyone think on that for a moment. We are in the midst of HISTORIC inflation that is devastating the last decades' gains of the lower income quintiles. But because that is inconvenient to Team Blue, Joe will piss on their legs and say its raining. He'll insist that everything was great in the economy up through 2008. He'll deny that his Team had anything to do with the misery being felt by people today.
He should be ashamed of himself, but he is not. As much as he will pretend to care for the lower classes when it is convenient for Team Blue, to Joe they are some abstract talking point to be used for Rhetorical gain- to be memory holed just like the Carter administration as soon as they are inconvenient.
Try to keep up Overrt. Leo went to the principles of government planning and how it was always wrong and I brought up examples of it's usefulness in correcting and balancing the market. This is of course the classic problem with free markets with their bubbles and bursts and monopolistic tendencies, even predicted by Adam Smith.
Carter did not cause 70s infaltion - usually laid at the feet of the cost of the VN war and OPEC, but Overt is an apparently historically ignorant and partisan poster who may not know any better. That he insists on painting me as he imagines me demonstrates his other preference for straw dogs.
More lies from Joe Asshole.
"Try to keep up Overrt (SIC). Leo went to the principles of government planning and how it was always wrong and I brought up examples of it's usefulness in correcting and balancing the market"
Ooh, you are getting upset Joe, I like that. It makes you insist that massive inflation, gas shortages, and "malaise" of the 70s was "government planning...usefulness in correcting and balancing the market".
" This is of course the classic problem with free markets with their bubbles and bursts and monopolistic tendencies,"
This is of course a bunch of drivel that Joe is trying to throw out there in an attempt to distract from the embarrassment he must feel at insisting that Government ran our economy so well in the 70s.
"Carter did not cause 70s infaltion - usually laid at the feet of the cost of the VN war and OPEC, but Overt is an apparently historically ignorant and partisan poster who may not know any better."
Let's just look at this spectacular flailing from Joe for a moment. I'm not even going to argue his nonsense about war causing inflation. That's the sort of silly propaganda that only Joe and his fellow shills can stomach.
No, let's back up to his original hypothesis. Joe insisted to us that it was Good ol' Government that kept our economies so perfect from the "end of wwii to 2008". When one points out that 70s Inflation wasn't that great of an economy, his response is "Government didn't cause that- it was caused by the government's war in Vietnam and the Government controlled OPEC messing with our Government imposed trade policy."
Not only has he failed to address the fact that his premise of great economic effects isn't true, his excuse is a bunch of government caused harms.
This is what Joe has been reduced to, "Look over there, no at that that that!!!"
Overt, you're not worth the effort, and no I'm not upset. If twits like you could upset me I wouldn't be here. I like placing facts and counterarguments in the face of true believers like you.
I said above that government spending - among other financial tools - helped keep us from facing another 1929 meltdown. The 1970s weren't close to that disaster, much as your apparently pampered ass thinks otherwise. No, Carter did not cause the 70's inflation - these things take time and President don't have that much power - and again, most sane economists place the reasons on VN war spending and OPEC.
More lies from the son of a bitch Joe Asshole.
"Overt, you're not worth the effort, and no I'm not upset. '
And once again, when people won't let Joe get away with baseless assertions, he declares that he is done trying. That is what happens when reality intervenes.
"most sane economists place the reasons on VN war spending and OPEC."
No, only shills like yourself. The Fed says it in their own words:
"The origins of the Great Inflation were policies that allowed for an excessive growth in the supply of money"
https://www.federalreservehistory.org/essays/great-inflation
That is the consensus position and the idea that OPEC caused inflation is absurd. Money doesn't work that way. If the amount of money in circulation is relatively constant, then rising prices of gas would mean less money to be spent elsewhere. Prices for fuel would go up, but prices for something else would go down as people shifted resources.
But this is all too difficult for you to figure out, because it is "not worth the effort". It isn't worth the effort to you because you have no interest in the truth, only defending your Team Blue while they debase the savings and wages of millions of poor and middle class workers.
Sure Overt, if your job is working for the Fed reserve, every problem looks like a monetary policy problem. Here's an author on the Fed Reserve lists the VN war and OPEC while putting down the idea that it's all just a supply of money problem:
From the vantage point of policymakers in the Federal Reserve, the 1973-74 oil crisis served to further complicate the macroeconomic environment, particularly in regard to inflation. Fed Chairman Burns argued in 1979 that the inflation appeared to be the result of a plethora of forces: “the loose financing of the war in Vietnam. . .the devaluations of the dollar in 1971 and 1973, the worldwide economic boom of 1972-73, the crop failures and resulting surge in world food prices in 1974-75, and the extraordinary increases in oil prices and the sharp deceleration of productivity” (Burns 1979). The intellectual consensus among policymakers at the time was that cost-push inflation (the type of inflation arising from an increase in the prices of inputs to the economy, i.e., worker wages) was outside the influence of monetary policy (Romer and Romer 2012). In the words of an economist who presented to the Federal Open Market Committee in May of 1971, “the question is whether monetary policy could or should do anything to combat a persisting residual rate of inflation ... The answer, I think, is negative. ... It seems to me that we should regard continuing cost increases as a structural problem not amenable to macro-economic measures” (Romer and Romer 2012).
https://www.federalreservehistory.org/essays/oil-shock-of-1973-74
Inflation and the VN war:
chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://digitalcommons.lasalle.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1003&context=vietnamgeneration
Inflation went from +1.9% in 1965 to 6.1% in 1969.
From Forbes:
"The energy shocks of the 1970s, prompted by the 1973 Arab oil embargo and the 1979 Iranian revolution, factored heavily in the inflationary forces of that decade. This period was also marked by ramped-up government spending on social programs and the war in Vietnam. Increased government spending fueled high consumer demand. There were no offsetting tax hikes or spending cuts in other programs to offset the spending. Consequently, demand exceeded supply in the economy for several years, and inflation moved up..."
You claimed Overt wasn't worth the effort, yet here you are, still talking to him. You haven't made any effort to live up to your word.
Would've been nice had he continued to refute you, but oh well.
He should be ashamed of himself, but he is not.
Politician means never having to say you're sorry.
"Bullshit article based on false, but typically libertarian premises:"
Hey look, Joe is mistaking his emotions for facts again. But let's just be clear here: Inflation isn't some mysterious thing worshipped by cultist libertarians in the shadows. It, and its causes, have been well known for over a century. It is only because reality-denying hacks like Joe carry the water of terrible politicians that he can make these terrible statements without cringing in shame.
"That clearly puts the problem's source not on politicians but an event not in their control, and one that has plagued (literally) human existence forever. "
"studies in real time found more Americans stayed home and away from bars, restaurants, etc not because of lockdowns but out of fear of catching it."
There are ZERO studies showing that Americans would have stayed home for over a year. Joe knows this, and so he is trying to imply it using studies that showed SOME people were staying home at the beginning of the pandemic. While this would have been a severe blow to the economy, it pales in comparison to the effects of millions of people being shut out of their businesses by (mostly democrat) politicians for 12 - 18 months. Joe ignores this, because he is a hack.
"That clearly puts the problem's source not on politicians but an event not in their control, and one that has plagued (literally) human existence forever."
Joe next decides that he is going to steal a base. See, the businesses were shut down, so politicians were FORCED to mail checks to everyone in the country while they sat unproductive. Notice that Joe doesn't actually DISAGREE with the premise (printing a bunch of money caused inflation). No, it is "bullshit" because "libertarians" won't let him spin a fiction that these checks were spread by the virus rather than the craven actions of his preferred candidates.
I sure hope you are being paid well here, Joe. The embarrassment you must feel every time you write this agitprop must be unbearable.
Typically Overt's personal attacks weaken his already lame argument.
I didn't say there studies showing Americans staying home for 3 years and in fact none did this.
"...Indiana University economists Sumedha Gupta, Kosali Simon and Coady Wing reviewed more than 60 pandemic and social-distancing studies for a review article forthcoming in the Brookings Papers on Economic Activity. With the input of those economists and other experts, we’ve reviewed the basic data and some of the strongest research. Four facts emerged from the spring shutdowns.
Employment and activity declined before shutdowns hit
If stay-at-home orders poisoned an otherwise healthy economy, business should have crumpled the moment they kicked in. But cellphone activity data analyzed by Gupta, Simon and Wing show a different trend: People started to stay home well before states imposed shutdowns.
In the chaotic early days of the pandemic, most people didn’t wait for official stay-at-home orders, Simon said. In every state, they stopped going to work around the weekend of March 14, as uncertainty soared, stock markets collapsed and the World Health Organization officially declared the coronavirus outbreak to be a pandemic.
Research shows the virus itself caused an enormous drop in activity and shutdowns caused a small additional decline
Business collapsed so quickly in mid-March that it’s tough to disentangle correlation and causation. But several high-profile teams of economists, armed with that high-frequency data and sophisticated statistical methods, arrived at similar conclusions.
In one such study, economists Chad Syverson and Austan Goolsbee of the University of Chicago Booth School of Business used anonymized cellphone tracking data to compare traffic at businesses in shutdown areas with similar businesses in the same metro area (really, commuting zone) that weren’t shut down.
Business fell by more than half (53 percent) regardless of whether a place shut down, as people everywhere were trying not to leave their homes. In shutdown areas, activity fell another 7 percent, meaning shutdowns caused less than an eighth of the drop in business.
“If pandemic concern or fear leads both to people staying home and policymakers imposing lockdowns, then the fear is the true driving force,” Syverson said. “Economic declines and lockdowns happen to be correlated because they’re pushed by the same thing, even though one isn’t necessarily causing the other.”
Goolsbee and Syverson found that business activity declined even more in areas with more covid-19 deaths, which emphasizes the role that the fear of the virus played in keeping people at home.
One other piece of supporting evidence? The economists found that businesses that drew the largest crowds before the pandemic were the same ones that saw the sharpest declines, relative to their size. That indicates consumers were spooked by the virus and sought out stores they knew were likely to have few customers. That trend was especially pronounced in areas with worse coronavirus outbreaks.
When shutdowns lifted, activity didn’t spring back
If the shutdowns had been the major obstacle to business activity, consumer spending built up during the shutdown period would have been unleashed in a torrent of pent-up demand when the shutdown was lifted.
Instead, Goolsbee and Syverson found, economic activity returned about 5 percent faster in places that lifted their shutdowns compared with those areas not shut down.
When business didn’t return appreciably faster in areas that lifted their shutdowns, it was clear that shutdowns couldn’t be the primary reason people were staying away from businesses, Goolsbee said.
Jobs data doesn’t show a wide red-blue divide
The Washington Post often hears from readers who blame job losses on Democratic governors who have often imposed shutdowns when coronavirus cases surge. If Democrats are really responsible for job losses, we would expect to see employment fall off the cliff in blue states while employment in red states sail on untouched. But even the simplest analysis shows job losses don’t depend solely on the governor’s party. Some red states struggled; some blue states thrived.
Gupta notes that readers are oversimplifying when they equate “Democrat” and “shut down.” A large majority of Republican-led states also shut down. But a trend emerges in the chart below. Red states, on average, have recovered slightly faster than blue states.
Ohio State University economist Bruce Weinberg warns that charts like this can obscure an obvious truth: “The states that have Democratic governors differ in many ways from the states that have Republican governors.”
For example, Republican states tend to have lower population density, and states with lower population density have added jobs more rapidly. To tease apart that correlation, compare the jobs recovery in counties of similar population density within red and blue states...."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2021/01/25/lockdowns-job-losses/
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.
Eat shit and die, asshole.
This pathetic twit can't engage.
But hey, if you guys want a circle jerk, who am I to turn on the light?
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.
Eat shit and die, asshole.
Notice that Joe posts a word wall that says exactly what I stated:
"There are ZERO studies showing that Americans would have stayed home for over a year. Joe knows this, and so he is trying to imply it using studies that showed SOME people were staying home at the beginning of the pandemic."
Joe thinks posting a WaPo article is evidence, when the WaPo article is doing the same sorts of slight-of-hand he wants to engage in. They first start talking about how lockdowns weren't so bad and they would have happened anyway (again, this is not shown in the studies they post), and then pivot to Red vs Blue states when they talk about how those states have performed.
I know it is obvious to the entire thread, but for the benefit of Joe, while the decision to lockdown was made almost entirely by Democrat governors, not all "blue states" locked down. Talking about red vs blue states is changing the population data in order to hide the effects of lockdowns.
https://fee.org/articles/free-states-faring-far-better-than-lockdown-states-in-one-huge-way-new-data-show/
As noted above (and in about a billion other places), Blue states like New Hampshire and Vermont that did NOT lock down tended to do better than states like California and New York that remained forcibly shut down for over a year. Same with Texas (a Red state that was nevertheless shut down for longer than normal).
These data show exactly the opposite of what Joe claims. They show that while people panicked at first, the states that allowed life to return to normal (like Florida, Georgia and Colorado) were quick to recover (because people didn't STAY home). And further, we know that when you correct for obesity rates, the "free" states fared just as well as the "prison" states in regards to covid.
But see, this is all a distraction. Joe wants to talk about Lockdowns, because he knows that inflation wasn't caused by lockdowns- but by the massive injection of money into the system. He wants to post walls of text declaring SCIENCE! victory because he is unwilling to stand by the actions of his preferred politicians.
His politicians are causing inflation, and he wants to deny these truths because of politics. If that costs the poor their savings and livelihood, well that is a sacrifice he is willing to make so that Pelosi can stay the Speaker. It would be despicable if it weren't so sad.
Joe Asshole lies; it's what Joe Asshole does.
Nice try overt, but the article cites research demonstrating the falseness of your claim and your "rebuttal" just ignores it for the crap you pull out of your butt or the crap fed to you by the same people who claimed the vaccines were not necessary and bad - thus sending about 300k Americans to an unnecessary death.
Want more?
"By comparing counties with and without restrictions, the researchers conclude that only 7 percentage points of the 60 percentage point overall decline in business activity can be attributed to legal restrictions. Most of the decline resulted from consumers voluntarily choosing to avoid stores and restaurants. The results were similar regardless of whether differences in restrictions arose because neighboring counties within a commuter zone shut down at different times or because some counties shut down while their neighbors did not. Consumer traffic began to decline before legal restrictions were imposed and was closely correlated with the number of local COVID-19 deaths..."
https://www.nber.org/digest/aug20/consumers-fear-virus-
outweighs-lockdowns-impact-business
"The Pew Research Center asked the question directly in a nearly 5,000-person survey conducted from April 7 to 12 (2020): Are you more worried about your state government lifting its restrictions on public activities too quickly or not quickly enough? By a 2-to-1 margin, Americans said that they were more worried about rapidly ramping down social distancing....
...Another piece of the puzzle may come from Gallup, which released its own polling on Thursday with a related finding: More Americans said they were worried about getting sick from Covid-19 than were worried about severe financial hardship because of the economic slowdown..."
https://www.vox.com/coronavirus-covid19/2020/4/16/21224074/coronavirus-us-polls-lockdown-social-distancing-end
Inflation is simple math.
When you've got the same money supply chasing the same bucket of goods and services, the value of the money is stable. When that supply of money suddenly increases thanks to the government creating dollars out of thin air, then you've got more money chasing the same goods and services. As a result the money is now worth less, and it takes more to buy what it took before all the new money was created from thin air.
It's not complicated, and it doesn't give a shit about intentions or party affiliation.
It's just math.
In this case, thanks to the government shutting down businesses and creating money from thin air, we've got more dollars chasing fewer goods and services. So it's double-whammy inflation.
https://reason.com/2022/06/01/politicians-cause-real-pain-with-inflationary-policies/?comments=true#comment-9521308
PS this ias not even addressing a 2nd fallacy of libertarian types and supposed believers in free markets. Suppliers cut their own production in anticipation of no buyers. As a builder, I recall thinking we might just shutdown as who would want to build anything. We were wrong and the local governments made it work for us by doing quarantined inspections and after a month or two, continuing to process permits. As a result - and this is a national phenomenon - we are all crazy busy in construction and dealing with supply chain shortages and high prices for things like lumber and long waits for things like windows and appliances. Roof trusses? Forget about it.
More lies from Joe Asshole.
Point them out fuck face.
Joe Asshole lies; it's what Joe Asshole does.
Do not engage Joe Asshole; insult the son of a bitch. It's what Joe Asshole deserves.
Didn't think so, you limp moron.
ask the Sri Lankans why they cut food production
Business cycles aren't inflation.
Inflation is caused by an increased money supply relative to available goods and services.
The people who try to make it more complicated than that are blowing smoke up your ass.
Money follows the law of supply and demand just like everything else.
Inflation is also caused by fewer goods available with the same money supply or higher demand - see lumber prices. There are more than 2 variables and nothing is as simple as ideologues think and that is the source of much of their confusion.
Joe Asshole lies; it's what Joe Asshole does.
Do not engage Joe Asshole; insult the son of a bitch. It's what Joe Asshole deserves.
Eat shit and die, Asshole.
When the price of everything goes up, that's inflation.
No sarcasmic, when the average price of everything goes up, that's inflation and contributing to that during covid was suppliers cutting production and then demand staying high.
https://reason.com/2022/06/01/politicians-cause-real-pain-with-inflationary-policies/?comments=true#comment-9521338
Suppliers cutting production with demand remaining high causes inflation. And when that happens the Fed is supposed to shrink the money supply, not grow it.
Gas prices going up is not inflation.
Rising lumber prices are not inflation.
Rising food prices are not inflation.
But when all of the above is happening and then some, that's inflation. And it's caused by increased money supply relative to everything else.
The people who make it more complicated than that are just people with faith in their god government run by human angels who refuse to accept that fact that those angels really fucked it up this time.
^ This pretty much sums it up
That's wrong sarcsamic and you need to read this:
"What is inflation?
Inflation is an overall increase in the prices of goods or services in an economy. Over time, currency loses value and it doesn’t have as much purchasing power as it once did. In other words, whatever a dollar can buy is reduced over time. Inflation can occur for a variety of reasons, like higher wages, lower interest rates, supply chain issues, or broader issues in the global economy.
For example, assume a certain item cost $1.50 in 1920. After accounting for inflation, that same item would cost $10.50 in 1970 and $20.50 in 2021.
How is inflation measured?
There are many ways of measuring inflation, but one of the most common measures is the Consumer Price Index for Urban Consumers (CPI-U), which is produced by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The CPI-U shows changes in the prices paid by urban consumers for a “representative basket of goods and services.” or the most common goods and services purchased on an average month based on detailed surveys of what Americans spend their money on. The urban consumer group represents about 93% of the total US population..."
https://www.forbes.com/sites/daneberhart/2021/10/19/energy-crisis-threatens-return-of-1970s-inflation/?sh=175fdf647e20
yep supply and demand
the vaccine mandates along are probably worth a percent or two
Putting aside whether lockdowns were a reasonable response to a deadly pandemic (killed more Americans than any war we've been in and more than the Spanish flu
This is such fucking horseshit. The Spanish Flu, in most cases was the sole cause of death as it affected primarily young, healthy people. COVID death counts are based entirely on number-fudging where old, infirm people with half a dozen comorbidities died WITH COVID.
I mean, when you can't even agree on the accounting methods...
You're the jerk who constantly slammed vaccines and thus contributed to the 300k dead Americans who croaked for no good reason because they wouldn't get one. Why would anyone listen to you?
Do you really think that Paul had any impact on the lives of 300k Americans? Talk about a stupid response.
Also, those people are free to make their own decisions on whether to vaccinate or not and then get to live (or die) with the consequences. Of course I shouldn't have to explain that to a libertarian should I?
Joe Biden looks like Fire Marshall Bill.
it's much worse than people realize yet
inflation isn't just driven by spending -- ask Sri Lanka how regulation can affect prices too
but central banks have to offset every kind of inflation the same way, by tightening monetary policy
so now in the US we're going to get a deep recession to pay for not just the crazy fiscal spending, but also eco-supremacist climate change hysteria and Biden's ever-escalating intervention in interminable Russian border conflicts that have been going for millennia
Seems "Roundup" (AKA "links") has gotten a treatment usually reserved for Stalin's enemies: Erased from history.
Try searching; none to be found.
If you search by the tag "Reason Roundup" you get them all.
https://reason.com/tag/reason-roundup/
"What do you mean? The money was *free*???", stupid Democrats.
If they really want to help out the most sorely impacted poor, they should establish temporary holds on all sales taxes, all gasoline taxes, and property taxes on any home valued at $100,000 or less. These holds should have a three-year sunset period built in. That should help out the poorest quite a bit.
"Cut Taxes!!!!!!!!! OMG! How will the budget balance", stupid Democrats.
Politicians claim to fight inflation but they in fact love it because it boosts tax revenues and thus gives them more dollars to use to buy constituencies to keep them in power.
seems like inflation spikes when oil prices spike
why did oil prices spike recently? umh...let me think.....anybody??
https://www.macrotrends.net/1369/crude-oil-price-history-chart
"Politicians cause real pain..." because our political paradigm is based on violence, not reason, rights, choice.
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?