- Dec 29, 2004
- Basic Beliefs
- Dogs rule
[/quote] There is no evidence to support the notion that fiscal and monetary policy provided most of the inflationary pressure. None.It's not even about what does most cutting. It's about acknowledging that this part does substantial cutting. People like Porter cannot admit that, because then why was she supporting additional wanton fiscal stimulus? So they must pretend that government spending is not a major cause of THIS inflation. Because their pet spending bills (like the $3,500,000,000,000.00 B3) depend on it.Essentially you are arguing which part of the scissor does the most cutting.
Read with comprehension any principles of economics textbook on monopoly, oligopoly and monopolistic competition. It is a well-known outcome that firms that are "price-makers" can pass on increases in costs and increase profits.The economy is the sum of all the economic actors and the actions they take. As such, you can think of it as a natural force of sorts. It can be steered, as a raging stream can be, but it is not easy.Inflation is not some natural force - producers with some market power make deliberate choices about the prices they charge.
When US last had large inflation in the 70s, there was no easy fix for it. Even forcing companies to charge less would not have worked as price controls merely cause shortages (see Venezuela).
Almost all economists - distinguished or not - agree that firms with market power can exacerbate inflationary pressures.
Taking the opinion of someone from the Hoover Institution on economics is akin to believing Trump on election results.
Irrelevant. Policy stimulus in different countries at different levels would not cause inflation in each of those countries to jump so quickly at the same time. Discounting supply "shocks" as a major influence on this inflation is either incredibly ignorant or ideological madness.