• Tag Archives economics
  • Economists Are Roasting Biden’s ‘Incoherent’ Inflation Tweet—and for Good Reason

    President Joe Biden’s approval rating is tanking, and he’s now trailing former President Donald Trump in national polls, as well as in some key swing states .

    Vox blames the economy for Biden’s plunging popularity — or at least voters’ perception of the economy. A new Gallup poll shows that just 32% of people approve of Biden’s handling of the economy.

    To combat the narrative that Biden’s policies are to blame, the White House has gone on the offensive, attacking billionaires and blaming corporations for the economic pain the public is experiencing.

    “Let me be clear to any corporation that hasn’t brought their prices back down even as inflation has come down: It’s time to stop the price gouging,” Biden tweeted . “Give American consumers a break.”

    It’s a strange line of attack for several reasons, but the most glaring one is that it’s entirely devoid of economic sense, something University of Michigan economics professor Justin Wolfers observed on X.

    “This is not only incoherent; it’s unhelpful,” Wolfers, a senior fellow at the left-leaning Brookings Institution, said of Biden’s tweet. “It’s incoherent because lower inflation is cause for firms to moderate their price hikes, rather than cut prices. It’s unhelpful because the only path back to earlier price levels is deflation, which comes with massive economic pain.”

    Melissa S. Kearney, an economics professor at the University of Maryland, responded with a face-palm emoji.

    “I’m guessing the economists weren’t consulted on this one,” Kearney deadpanned.

    The obvious fact the Biden White House missed is that while inflation might be slowing, it’s still positive, which means prices are still increasing — and at a clip much faster than the Federal Reserve’s target of 2%. That companies would cut prices amid a general rise in consumer prices defies economic sense.

    A second problem with Biden’s tweet is that he points the finger at companies for inflation that stems from the government’s policies. In one of his most famous lectures, the Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises pointed out that inflation is just that: a policy .

    And if we look at recent U.S. monetary policy, it’s clear why people are suffering from inflation.

    Over a four-year period, the Fed increased the M2 money supply from $14 trillion to $22 trillion at its height in the summer of 2022, an increase of more than 50% in just four years.

    The M2 money supply has fallen slightly, to $21 trillion, due to tighter Fed policy, but it is still significantly above pre-pandemic levels.

    This is the cause of price inflation, and one need only look at the Fed’s description of what causes inflation to confirm this.

    “Inflation is caused when the money supply in an economy grows at a faster rate than the economy’s ability to produce goods and services,” the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis states on its “ Money and Inflation ” resource page.

    The obvious question is: If printing money causes inflation, why are we doing it?

    The Fed has long claimed that inflation is just the price we must pay to keep unemployment low, but using monetary policy to fight unemployment has always been problematic. It’s true that there is, generally, an inverse relationship between unemployment and inflation, as demonstrated by the Phillips curve . When inflation rises, unemployment falls and vice versa — at first.

    This relationship weakens over time , however, which is why some astute economists, including the Nobel Prize-winner F. A. Hayek , believed that using monetary policy to curb unemployment would inevitably result in higher and higher inflation, as central banks would have to print more and more money to maintain low unemployment.

    We’ve seen this phenomenon play out in numerous countries in recent history, including Argentina , where inflation is above 140%. Despite Argentina’s high inflation, its unemployment rate has averaged about 8.5% over the last decade. In other words, Argentina has high inflation and high unemployment, just as the United States did in the 1970s.

    Managing unemployment might be the stated reason for inflationary policy, but the actual reason seems to be something else: It facilitates government spending. As the Nobel Prize-winning economist Milton Friedman and others have pointed out, inflation is a tax.

    Taxes are what facilitate government spending, and once one grasps that inflation is a tax, the inflation picture becomes clear. Inflation is caused by expanding the money supply, but the impetus behind the money printing is government spending.

    Politicians can’t admit this, of course. So they concoct ridiculous economic arguments that blame companies for the very inflation their policies cause.

    This article originally appeared on The Washington Examiner.


    Jon Miltimore

    Jonathan Miltimore is the Editor at Large of FEE.org at FEE.

    This article was originally published on FEE.org. Read the original article.


  • Why Justin Trudeau Is Blaming Grocers for Surging Food Prices in Canada

    New government data emerged this week showing that food prices in Canada continue to climb.

    Though year-over-year inflation of consumer prices overall cooled to 3.8% in September, food prices increased 5.8% from a year ago, driven by surging prices of bakery products (up 8%), fresh vegetables (7.6%), pasta products (10.8%), and poultry (6.5%).

    Food prices have long been a sore spot for Canadians. Even prior to 2023, statistics showed that some 7 million Canadians, including 1.8 million children, were in households struggling to put food on the table.

    As inflation continued to drive food prices upward in 2023, consumer outrage quickly mounted.

    “If I’m paying that much, I hope there’s gold in that chicken,” one user responded to a viral tweet in January showing a $37 price tag on a package of chicken breasts.

    The episode prompted accusations of price gouging and a high-profile story in the New York Times — but the paper reported that outrage at grocers was misplaced.

    “While it’s easy to get angry at the grocer, there’s very little evidence that the grocers are actually taking advantage of the situation,” said Mike von Massow, a food economics professor at the University of Guelph in Ontario.

    Food prices have only gotten worse since then, and Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, apparently not a reader of the New York Times, has found the same scapegoat as many others unversed in basic economics: grocers.

    Last month, Trudeau threatened to slap grocery stores with new taxes if they don’t find a way to lower food prices.

    “Large grocery chains are making record profits. Those profits should not be made on the backs of people who are struggling to feed their families,” Trudeau told an Ontario crowd.

    By taking aim at grocers and “record profits,” Trudeau is parroting the rhetoric of some U.S. politicians, including Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), who has argued that inflation is being driven by “corporate greed.”

    The idea that corporations suddenly became greedy in the aftermath of the pandemic never passed the economic smell test, and it was recently rebutted in a Federal Reserve paper.

    “Corporate profit margins were not abnormally high in the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic, once fiscal and monetary interventions are accounted for,” noted Dino Palazzo, senior economist at the Federal Reserve Board.

    Yet politicians such as Trudeau, who less than a year ago criticized the idea of using a windfall tax on grocery companies to lower food prices, have repeated the claim over and over again that greedy corporations are the root cause of inflation. Why?

    The answer is simple: the true blame for inflation lies with them.

    Pierre Poilievre, leader of Canada’s Conservative Party, hit the nail on the head in a recent interview when he pointed out that the Canadian government’s policies are to blame for inflation — as are those who lead it.

    “[Trudeau] prints $600 billion, grows our money supply by 32% in three years,” Poilievre said. “That’s growing the money eight times faster than the economy. No wonder we have the worst inflation in four decades.”

    This is the mystery of inflation. (It’s not really a mystery.) Politicians and central banks flooded the economy with money, which devalued the currency.

    Basic economics teaches that increasing the money supply faster than an economy can provide new goods and services will result in price inflation, and that is precisely what we’ve witnessed. Indeed, for much of modern history, inflation was defined as expansion of the money supply, not an increase in prices (which is the consequence of expanding the money supply). Henry Hazlitt famously explained the difference in Economics in One Lesson.

    “Inflation is an increase in the quantity of money and credit. Its chief consequence is soaring prices,” Hazlitt explained. “Therefore inflation — if we misuse the term to mean the rising prices themselves — is caused solely by printing more money.”

    Politicians such as Trudeau cannot, of course, admit it’s their own policies and money printing that are to blame for high food prices. So they hold speeches blaming grocery stores and food producers for the inflation they caused and threaten them with new taxes.

    Whether Canadians will see through Trudeau’s crude charade is unclear. What is clear is that Canadian grocers are not responsible for the skyrocketing price of food in Canada. Justin Trudeau and the Bank of Canada are.

    This article originally appeared on The Washington Examiner


    Jon Miltimore

    Jonathan Miltimore is the Editor at Large of FEE.org at the Foundation for Economic Education.

    This article was originally published on FEE.org. Read the original article.


  • Minimum Wage Laws Increase Homelessness, New Study Finds

    One thing Lang Martinez said he learned after living on the streets of Ventura County, California , was that being homeless was worse than being in prison.

    “It’s a different lifestyle. You think prison is bad? No. Prison’s got structure,” Martinez, a former Los Angeles gang member-turned-advocate against homelessness, recently told California Insider. “The streets got what they call rules of engagement.”

    Though Martinez agrees with the conventional wisdom that mental illness and drug abuse are the primary catalysts for homelessness, new academic research suggests the picture is more complicated.

    A fresh study out of University of California, San Francisco suggests that losing income is the single biggest driver of homelessness — ahead of mental illness, drug addiction, and other causes — the study authors say.

    “I think it’s really important to note how [desperate] poor people are, and how much it is their poverty and the high housing costs that are leading to this crisis,” said Margot Kushel, a physician and leader of the UCSF Benioff Homelessness and Housing Initiative, which conducted the study.

    California is home to approximately 30% of the entire U.S. homeless population (115,491 people as of 2022 ), and some advocates expressed hope that the new research would “inform a statewide strategy” to combat the problem.

    Separate research, however, suggests California’s own policies have exacerbated its homelessness epidemic, including a new paper written by University of California economist Seth J. Hill titled “ Minimum Wages and Homelessness ” published last month.

    Utilizing data from the Department of Housing and Urban Development and other sources, Hill examined 100 cities from 2006-2019 to determine the relationship between wage floors and homelessness. The findings are bleak.

    “Merging administrative data from HUD to state and local minimum wage laws suggests that minimum wages induce increases in homeless counts,” Hill writes. “When cities raise their minimum wage by 10%, relative homeless counts increase by three to four percent.”

    Hill’s paper will not be the last word on the relationship between minimum wage laws and homelessness, but it provides yet more evidence of a stubborn reality minimum wage proponents often overlook: Minimum wage laws often harm the very people they are designed to help.

    For decades, it was an all but universally accepted economic gospel that increases in the minimum wage came with adverse trade-offs. Many economists often pointed out these adverse consequences, including job losses, often fell on workers with the least skills and those who were the least valued.

    “Among the effects of a minimum wage law, when it is effective, is that many unskilled and inexperienced workers are priced out of a job, when employers do not find them worth what the law specifies,” the economist Thomas Sowell once observed.

    This is why even left-leaning publications such as the New York Times, until relatively recently, conceded that using minimum wage laws to combat poverty was an “old, honorable — and fundamentally flawed” idea because it would “price working poor people out of the job market.”

    That minimum wage hikes increase unemployment was once hardly a debatable subject among economists, and even today a scouring of the literature shows that a “clear preponderance” of the scientific research shows a job-killing impact.

    So in light of this evidence and the more recent UCSF findings, Hill’s conclusion should not surprise us.

    “To the extent minimum wages cause disemployment of low skill-workers, the lost job can exacerbate existing economic insecurity and lessen ability to pay for housing,” he writes.

    This finding is not just tragic but ironic. Politicians and wage-justice fundamentalists, who take pride in the idea they are fighting poverty by advocating for higher minimum wage laws, are not just costing countless lower-skilled workers jobs. They are actually pushing many of them into homelessness.

    Again, this should not be a surprise. Decades ago, the economist Murray Rothbard famously observed the absurdity in the idea that banning jobs was a path to prosperity.

    “Remember that the minimum wage law provides no jobs,” Rothbard wrote , “it only outlaws them; and outlawed jobs are the inevitable result.”

    This is not to say wage floors are the sole cause of homelessness, which is a subject as complicated as human beings. Lang Martinez is no doubt correct when he says substance abuse and mental illness play a significant role.

    But these realities should not overshadow another truth: For many struggling people, a lower-paying job is not “exploitation.” It’s a lifeline.

    This article originally appeared on The Washington Examiner


    Jon Miltimore

    Jonathan Miltimore is the Editor at Large of FEE.org at the Foundation for Economic Education.

    This article was originally published on FEE.org. Read the original article.