- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
Key Points
- Commerce Department indexes that the Fed relies on heavily for inflation signals showed prices continuing to climb at a rate still considerably higher than the 2% annual goal.
- The stubborn inflation data raised several ominous specters, namely that the Fed may have to keep rates elevated for longer or even have to hike at some point.
- Thus far, the economy has managed to avoid broader damage from the inflation problem, though there are some notable cracks.
You originally made the argument about spending and inflation. It implies money is limited resource to a central bank.
How does it imply that? The cause of inflation would be the same regardless of whether central banks can print as much as they choose (of course they can?). What do you think causes inflation if not money going into the economy?
What caused receny inflation? That is easy. It’s caused by many things including supply chain disruptions, lack of competition, war, and non-existent government oversight.
Whatever the reason, they are making more money and workers are producing more than any time in history. So back to your point, companies need an excuse for their price gouging. The money supply is their biggest scapegoat. They also blame theft and high wages. But none of those arguments hold up to scrutiny.
What scrutiny? Your only criticism of the widely accepted, evidence backed idea that putting money into the economy is a cause of inflation seems to be that companies you don’t trust are supposedly saying it, but that isn’t scrutiny of the idea itself.
If you accept that markets are real, and that supply and demand works roughly the way it is understood to work by the field of economics, it should be very straightforward why adding money causes inflation; in dollar terms, it increases demand, while supply stays the same, moving the equation towards higher prices. There is disagreement about whether all forms of adding money cause inflation; I’ve heard reasonable arguments that the money supply itself is not important but rather the velocity of money and whether people who will spend it are getting it is what matters, which I’m not sure I fully agree with, but since we’re talking about government spending, that is well known to be one of the most direct forms of economic stimulus and those arguments don’t apply.
There is not much evidence that a rich country growing deficits* causes inflation. Russia and Japan are recent examples.
*growing deficits = throwing money into the economy
Markets are real as in they exists and the free market was a historic idea used by capitalists to explain why the 19th governments shouldn’t interfere with them. But as a consumer living in the 21st century, the free market might as well be a fairytale. But if you still believe, who am I to bring you down.
I’m not really making an argument about what should be done
Not sure that’s really equivalent since deficit growth could also be contributed to by other factors, like reduced revenue. It’s also not a fair expectation that government spending should always be followed by a rise in inflation, because that spending is likely to be an intentional stimulus effort made to counteract expected forces going in the other direction.
Could you say more about why you think Russia and Japan’s recent history represents evidence (I’m assuming you meant this instead of absence of evidence which would be confusing) that spending does not cause inflation? I haven’t been following it much, but I heard Japan’s currency is devaluing hard against other currencies atm.
Google Japan’s inflation and gdp vs debt ration since the 90s. Why are they more afraid of deflation than inflation.
Russia is under sanctions and is waging a costly war. They managed to drop their inflation and grow their economy with higher government spending.
Countries will all face economic issues at times, but inflation due to government spending is not something leaders of rich countries actually worry about.