The U.K.'s New 'Free Market' Prime Minister Is Fighting Inflation With Price Controls
This fiscal irresponsibility throws gasoline on the country's already raging inflation fire.

Shortly after taking over as the new U.K. prime minister, Liz Truss announced plans to fight inflation by capping household energy prices over the next two years. Blimey! Billed as the most free-market prime minister since Margaret Thatcher, Truss' first major move is a counterproductive scheme that will prolong the United Kingdom's energy woes and increase its budget deficit. What could go wrong?
"Extraordinary challenges call for extraordinary measures, ensuring that the United Kingdom is never in this situation again," Truss declared. When you hear phrases like this, beware of bad policies on the way. Starting in October, the government will limit the energy prices charged to households for two years and businesses for six months. It will make up the difference to utility companies with subsidies paid for with borrowed funds. The cost of this boondoggle is forecasted to be over $120 billion.
Inflation in the U.K. has now reached 10.1 percent. The new policy would suggest that most of the inflation is due to hikes in energy prices. It's not. Before Russia's invasion of Ukraine, the U.K.'s Consumer Prices Index (CPI) was already 6 percent, and the war pushed this up to its current levels. However, the CPI excluding energy cost is still almost 7 percent. Even if energy supply problems were fixed overnight, core inflation would remain more than four times its 2015-19 average.
This is because most of the underlying surge in the U.K.'s inflation is rooted in demand factors triggered by massive fiscal and monetary stimulus in 2020 and 2021—something that should sound familiar to Americans. The U.K. government subsidized the wages of furloughed workers and other income support programs, paid sick leave, made massive expansions of NHS funding, and even covered meals for customers at restaurants. At the same time, the Bank of England monetized much of this additional spending from 2019 levels, flooding the economy with cash and diminishing the value of the pound.
As a reminder, inflation is an increase in all prices (including wages) irrespective of the movement of some individual prices relative to others. It is systemwide. So, capping the price of one kind of good, in this case energy, will do nothing to reduce inflation. It will, however, create all sorts of distortions and bad incentives that will manifest painfully throughout the economy.
A good rule of policy should be "do no harm by refusing to transfer income by distorting prices." Indeed, as Alex Tabarrok reminds us in a great video for Marginal Revolution University, "a price is a signal wrapped up in an incentive." Each market price can reflect a vast amount of information about a given product, aggregated from decisions both large and small made by countless suppliers, their own suppliers, and consumers. By signaling how scarce a product is and incentivizing buyers and sellers to respond, prices propel people to direct their efforts and resources in ways that do the most good.
The scarcity of energy is now signaled in its higher price, which in turn gives an incentive to consumers to use less or find substitutes. But by capping energy prices, the government will cause those prices to lie about just how scarce energy really is. Consumers will not conserve or reduce their demand as much as they should.
On energy's supply side, price controls dampen producers' incentive to provide more energy—a terrible outcome when supplies are unusually tight. The result will almost surely be energy shortages.
The government hopes to avoid blackouts and shortages by subsidizing energy suppliers with borrowed money. While subsidies might help on this front in the short term, the accompanying fiscal irresponsibility throws gasoline on the United Kingdom's already raging inflation fire.
Now, there's no doubt that failing to keep energy prices under control would eventually lead to a severe recession in the U.K. But fueling continued energy demand with price controls and inflation with deficit spending is the opposite of a solution. A better way to go is by encouraging increases in energy supply by removing many of the existing welter of barriers to energy production and distribution that the government already has in place. To her credit, the prime minister is planning to do that too. This takes time, however.
Ultimately, the best idea would have been to avoid this mess in the first place. It's too late to avoid hamstringing energy markets while simultaneously creating so much inflation. But it's not too late to avoid doubling down on the folly that put the Brits in this unhappy position.
COPYRIGHT 2022 CREATORS.COM.
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
Indeed, as Alex Tabarrok reminds us in a great video for Marginal Revolution University
I'll take free markets for $1,000, Alex.
I am creating eighty North American nation greenbacks per-hr. to finish some web services from home. I actually have not ever thought adore it would even realisable but (caf-11) my friend mate got $27k solely in four weeks simply doing this best assignment and conjointly she convinced Maine to avail. Look further details going this web-page.
.
-------------------->>> https://cashprofit99.netlify.app/
You mean the American free market that has creates such a huge level of poverty in the U.S.?
Doesn't sound like a good system to emulate.
It's why the world is laughing at Clown Car America.
"You mean the American free market that has creates such a huge level of poverty in the U.S.?"
You're full of shit.
Rents unaffordable, housing unaffordable, people seeing rent increases of over 30% in as their contracts come up for renewal,
Companies demanding higher prices for virtually everything. Corporate profits have never been higher indicating that the price increases are largely due to corporate price gouging.
That's Capitalism AmeriKKKan style.
1. The "American free market" doesn't exist.
2. Socialist economies fail, then blame capitalism.
3. Chinese leaders saw the poverty there in the '70s, toured the world looking for ideas, and adopted capitalism, gradually, more of less, and it worked.
1. The "American free market" doesn't exist.
Correct, Free markets are impossible as long as laws exist that regulate the interactions between individuals.
So people who promite the idea of free markets are just fools, promoting a concept that has and can not have any basis in reality.
2. Socialist economies fail, then blame capitalism.
America is a failed nation. Republicans blame socialism.
Meanwhile the rest of the world is a mixed socialist state and is doing fine, and Laughing the failure that is America.
3. Chinese leaders saw the poverty there in the '70s, toured the world looking for ideas, and adopted capitalism, gradually, more of less, and it worked.
China has adopted a form of profit making and monetary exchange under Communist rule.
China is now the principle global power precisely because of it's communist leadership.
Viva China.
No one sees the failed American state as a model of anything but Clown Car Failure.
When the market is less regulated, fewer sacrifices are needed because the market works, regulation doesn't. The justification for regulation is a vague appeal to distrust of anyone who is in business, the solution being, trust those in govt.
History PROVES, over and over, in every age, every country, every society, that a coercive govt. can be trusted to betray that trust.
The Russian people rejected a coercive monarchy a century ago, but didn't replace the coercion, strengthening it.
The stronger the govt. the weaker the people. The more the people obey, submit to controls, the more they suffer, as their rulers grow stronger.
The areas of products or services provided by govt. always fail, always result in suffering.
This is rare in the private sector. Why? The public means dictated by force, threats, fraud. No competition is allowed.
Private means appeal to voluntary consumption, competition for customers by providing satisfaction. When the consumers speak, the private sector listens. The consumer rules without violence. This works. It works so well that the more a country uses the market system, the better off, more prosperous, happier than those "protected" from the free market by violent govt. regulation. Russia suffered under harsh edicts that violated property rights for 74 years, Suffering was only lessoned by the "black market", i.e., the free market forced underground. Russians finally made the back market system more legal, less controlled, and they loved it. So it is with any public product or service. When CA privatizes power, their suffering will end. But that requires a rejection of violence as the primary economic system and instead a reliance on reason, rights, individual choice. It's only logical.
"When the market is less regulated, fewer sacrifices are needed because the market works, regulation doesn't."
If regulation doesn't work then markets should be unregulated. But you didn't say that, you say that markets should be less regulated.
So why are you implying that markets need to be regulated?
When was the last time you purchased a pound of butter that was only half a pound in weight?
Never? You can thank regulation for that.
"History PROVES, over and over, in every age, every country, every society, that a coercive govt. can be trusted to betray that trust."
History proves over and over, in every age, every country, every society, that Corporations and Capitalistts can be trusted.
NEVER.
"The stronger the govt. the weaker the people. The more the people obey, submit to controls, the more they suffer, as their rulers grow stronger."
The larger the population, the greater individual influence over the world the greater the need for regulation to define and police the intractions between individuals.
Without regulation society can not exist. Without regulation there can be only anarchy and chaos.
"The areas of products or services provided by govt. always fail, always result in suffering."
The areas of products and services provided by government, never fail, and never result in suffering, unless the government itself fails as a result of war, or internal treason supported by the people.
"This is rare in the private sector. Why? The public means dictated by force, threats, fraud."
Fraud is the arena in which Corporations and Capitalists create and work. Their goal is to maximize profit at the expense of all else.
Examples of Capitalist corruption are ubiquitous, from the manufacture of childrens jewlery from waste cadmium to the inclusion of poisonous melamine in baby formula, dog food and grain, to raise the apparent protein content of the product being sold.
The U.S. has been saved from significant engineering disasters like this weeks high rise fire in China as a result of America's generally good regulatory environment which in the case of fire and engineering has been created through the thoughtful efforts of engineers and other experts.
Capitalists are constantly employing force and fraud on others. But unlike Thomas Edison who sent goon squads to smash the film projectors of those who didn't pay their Edison tax, Corporatoins rely on the existing regulatory machinery of government to employ the force.
Drug dealers in Mexico - who are just free market businessmen - don't generally use government machinery to employ force. They just behead anyone who gets in their way.
"Private means appeal to voluntary consumption"
There is no voluntary consumption of a product unless the consumer is perfectly advised as to the nature of the product.
Consumers will not willingly purchase products that are ineffective or will cause them harm, and yet consumers - even in the current regulatory environment - often do just that.
The reasons for this are varied but the typical reason is because the Capitalist has withheld important product information that keeps the consumer in the dark regarding the products effectiveness or safety.
Tobacco producers spent decades actively producing propaganda to convince consumers that their products were not addictive or harmful costing the lives of tens of millions of Americans, and hundreds of millions of people world wide.
Convincing someone to injest poison is still murder even when the person is duped into doing so.
If you are looking for hot girls ready for casuala contacts visit our web platform Mamie Sexe
No, sorry, on this page we're mostly into sexbots and farm animals.
Now I just need to perfect my sexy farmbots, and I'll be rich!
I mean does every world leader do the wrong thing on purpose? What she should be doing is going on TV every day and screaming for Biden to turn on the spigot. The US could easily supply Europe at a reasonable price.
This is a short term solution to a short term problem and is the correct decision for this moment.
Or is it your opinion that millions of Brits should lose thier homes because they won't be able to afford their energy bills this winter?
If only the Libertarians and Conservatives had not lied about the Climate Science being a hoax. Then steps would have already been taken to get off fossil fuels, and the need for Russian natural gas wouldn't be so large.
But Libertarians lied through their teeth, and have made the current crisis much worse than it should have been.
"This is a short term solution to a short term problem and is the correct decision for this moment."
You're full of shit and an econ ignoramus.
Well it looks like I agree with British Economists.
You are just a loser from a nation of losers, who is pissing into the wind.
Yes,that's all that's in their tool box. It's like a plumber showing up with just a hammer and duct tape.
"Yes,that's all that's in their tool box"
If the market were absolutely free from regulation, they would have no tools at all.
So the plumber would show up with smiles and best wishes.
It might be possible to be less intelligent than asshole here, but it'd be tough.
Ah, Sevo thinks he can regulate markets without having any tools to regulate markets.
You can't get dumber than a Libertarian.
Sevo.. How do you manage to lift the spoon to your mouth? You must have someone around with enough brain cells to do it for you.
Today "conservative" basically means big government.
Today "conservative" basically means big government.
Ya, they too have come to realize that Libertarianism is poisonous garbage.
You're an econ ignoramus, and full of shit besides.
There hasn't been a single Libertarian economic policy that has produced any benefits for any society. It's all been 100% poison.
I got a big laugh when Libertaran Greenspan admitted that his Libertarian ideology at the FED proved to be faulty and almost drove the U.S. into a second great depression.
LOL!
I don't think either you or Greenspan have any slightest idea what "libertarian" means.
I recently read that a majority of Tory voters are in favor of nationalizing energy companies. When the supposedly "Conservative" party is calling for actual socialism, things have clearly gone off the rails.
"Borrowing a trillion dollars plus was the greatest thing we ever did." David Scokman - Budget DIrector under Ronald Reagan.
To the surprise of no one who's been paying attention since before Brexit, the Tories are still the "manage the decline" party.
Brexit continues to be a disaster for England. Brought to you by Conservative Libertarian politicians with considerable assistance from Russia.
They are almost as stupid as Americans.
People are stupid.
People are stupid.
Americans are dumber than their own excrement.
You're full of shit.
Sevo has the most brilliant intellectual response to everything.
Earlier he expressed his view that without tools to regulate markets, governments can regulate markets.
He is a genius beyond his own comprehension.
Liz Truss has plenty of prior experience at lacking the qualifications for the job, glad to see she's using it here.
You know, millions of Brits are not going to lose their homes this winter due to their inability to pay for high energy costs.
If a Libertarian were in charge that wouldn't be the case.
You're an econ ignoramus, and full of shit besides.
Sevo seems to think that the Brits can afford to pay $20,000 this winter to heat their homes.
Just stay where you are Sevo, the men with the special jacket will be right by to take you to the room with the padded walls.
Well, Reason's infatuation with her did not last long at all.
The idea that Truss had any libertarian tendencies . . .
Reason exists to produce pro-corporate, anti-democracy, pro-fascist propaganda.
That is the only purpose of any Libertarian organization.
That they do not have consistent opinions illustrates their corruption quite nicely.
It might be possible to be less intelligent than asshole here, but it'd be tough.
I think Sevo has been smoking his own poo.
He has that "I've been smoking my own poo" vibe to him.
While price controls are a bad idea, it is still better than Biden's plan to fight inflation by printing more money.
Mighty low bar there, L L
"While price controls..."
Why is that, Rickey Retardo?
You're full of shit and an econ ignoramus.
Sevo. I asked a question.
You failed to answer it.
Are you even capable of understanding it?
Probably not.
It's pretty much the same thing by different names. They seem to be planning to prop up their price controls by printing money to pay for subsidies.
Why is that?
So far, if you're keeping score, she's good on a small thing — getting rid of mostly symbolic conditions on food marketing, which were easy to comply with and surmount, hence no more than a nuisance — and bad on this big thing — energy controls and subsidies, which will pretty much affect everybody head on. Maybe in the world she operates in, the politically acceptable alternatives on energy policy were a lot worse, so I don't know if I'm scoring realistically against the handicap. A lot depends on one's judgment of what the voters will stand for; if she's saved them from re-nationalization, that's a win.
"getting rid of conditions on food marketing".
Ah, so you want to eat rat shit sold as rice.
Very good. You are brilliant.
You're full of shit and an econ ignoramus.
I was once told by a Libertarian that he would have no problem selling rat droppings as rice.
He said that if people like Sevo were so stupid to buy it, they deserved to eat it.
Such is the Libertairn view of the unregulated free market.
Yeah, because the free market never came up with a mechanism for improving food quality. Why, back before the FDA, every single person died of food poisoning by the time they were five!
Does it hurt to be this stupid? 'cause it really should.
- - - - - Because this has worked So Well when it's been tried in the past.
Better learn how to spell S T A G F L A T I O N Liz, cause it's gonna be happenin' to your economy.
So why do you think that limiting corporate profits results in Stagflation?
It's never done so in the past.
Perhaps you are just delusional.
You're full of shit and an econ ignoramus.
You see Sevo, this is where you are supposed to state where staglfation has ever resulted from price controls at any time in the history of humanity.
Once again you proved youself to be a failure.
Yeah, that could never happen. Except, you know, that time Nixon tried to fight inflation with price controls, managing to create economic stagnation while doing nothing to reduce inflation. You apparently don't know any more about history than you do about economics.
Wizard thinks that if corporations are not allowed to change the price they sell for a product then they will cause inflation by increasing the price they charge for a product.
LOL. He is living in Libertarian Retardo Land, and can't even complete a single coherent thought on this matter.
No, price controls don't cause inflation, they cause shortages (no change in the incentive to purchase, and a disincentive for producers to produce). This leads to a black markets where prices rise to where they should be anyway. Economics is very easy at this level, you should try it!
Britain's Truss, the new PM sounds like she is going to be just fine employing the Margret Thatcher method of governing which is called the Freedom of Captitalism.....O'Biden and his leftwing political cabal of thugs are going to turn away from this and go for the pure political control by one party rule here in the US and we can have our own America Hate festival watching the military parades in our streets.....