• Tag Archives Biden
  • 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.


  • Ivy League Analysis Destroys Biden’s Entire Argument for Multi-Trillion-Dollar ‘Build Back Better’ Spending Plans

    President Biden continues to fight to pass some version of his multi-trillion-dollar “Build Back Better” spending agenda through Congress. In its various iterations, the plan includes trillions spent on everything from electric vehicle tax credits and green energy subsidies to taxpayer-funded childcare-for-all to housing subsidies and more. The Biden administration claims that the latest version would involve $1.85 trillion in new spending.

    The president has made lofty promises about what we’d get in exchange for such a historic investment. (After all, that price tag is more than the inflation-adjusted cost of FDR’s New Deal!) 

    “[This is] a framework that will create millions of jobs, grow the economy, invest in our nation and our people, turn the climate crisis into an opportunity, and put us on a path not only to compete, but to win the economic competition for the 21st century against China and every other major country in the world,” Biden said in a recent speech. “It’s fiscally responsible. It’s fully paid for.”

    “For much too long, the working people of this nation and the middle class of this country have been dealt out of the American deal, and it’s time to deal them back in,” he continued. “If we make these investments, there will be no stopping the American people or America. We will own the future.” 

    Simply put, Biden argues that his plan to spend trillions will create jobs, grow the economy, and increase wages—all without adding to the $28.9 trillion (and counting) national debt. Yet a new Ivy League economic analysis undercuts every single one of these claims. 

    Analysts at the Wharton School of Business reviewed President Biden’s latest $1.85 trillion framework proposal and ran the numbers to project its likely economic impacts, under two distinct scenarios. One is the rather unrealistic scenario where it actually only costs $1.85 trillion. Yet because the proposal is structured with many budget gimmicks and short-term spending authorizations that would likely be reauthorized if implemented, its real cost could be as much as $4.25 trillion. Wharton also modeled the likely impact of this scenario.

    In the first case, where the president’s plans cost only what he claims, the analysis still finds his promises falling short on nearly all counts. The tax increases included would not, in fact, pay for the entire proposal, and it would lead to a 2 percent increase in government debt over the long run. (That might sound small, but it’s hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars!) And, while Wharton projects that wages would increase slightly, it finds that the overall economy would shrink, not grow, while business investment and hours worked would decline.

    Erm… how’s that revitalizing America? And those dismal results are under Biden’s rosy assumptions. Under the more realistic scenario where spending provisions are accurately accounted for and the real cost is north of $4 trillion, the investment’s return is even more spectacularly awful. 

    Government debt would increase by 25 percent over 30 years—that’s trillions and trillions in new spending that is not, in fact, paid for. The economy would shrink—not grow—nearly 3 percent over this timeline compared to the baseline, while wages would decline 1.5 percent and hours worked would fall 1.3 percent.

    It’s easy to see why government spending could have these meager results. Proponents of big government spending, like Joe Biden, focus solely on the purported benefits of their plans.

    Yet every dollar spent somewhere must ultimately, directly or indirectly, come from somewhere else in the economy. The resources invested by the government in one area are, by definition, resources that would have been invested somewhere else by the private sector. 

    The tax hikes to partially fund the spending discourage work and tax away money that would have otherwise been invested. The debt incurred to partially fund the spending “crowds out” resources available for private sector investment. It’s not just a wash, either. In taking resources that would have been allocated via market signals and instead allocating them based on politics, government redistribution generally leads to net economic losses. 

    As Ludwig von Mises famously put it, “The government and its chiefs do not have the powers of the mythical Santa Claus. They cannot spend except by taking out of the pockets of some people for the benefit of others.”

    It’s with the reality of trade-offs in mind that the Wharton analysis is able to reliably predict the negative impacts of Biden’s plans. 

    This analysis is nothing short of devastating for the president’s plans. Biden wants to confiscate and spend trillions of our taxpayer dollars and is promising us the world in return for this investment. But Ivy League analysts and basic economic principles alike expose how empty those promises really are.


    Brad Polumbo

    Brad Polumbo (@Brad_Polumbo) is a libertarian-conservative journalist and Policy Correspondent at the Foundation for Economic Education.

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


  • Biden Administration’s New ‘Woke’ Corporate Disclosure Rules Will Cost Companies Billions, Experts Warn

    Under the Biden administration’s leadership, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has proposed new “woke” corporate disclosure rules. A new form of social-justice-based financial regulation, the federal agency’s rules would mandate that companies track, report, and disclose a wide array of data on issues such as climate change emissions and diversity.

    This might poll well or look nice at first glance. But like any complex federal regulation, the woke reporting rules will have many unintended consequences—namely, they’ll cost businesses billions.

    Business groups are trying to calculate just how much money public companies might have to shell out to comply with the Securities and Exchange Commission’s planned new ‘woke’ corporate disclosure rules, and initial estimates aren’t pretty,” Fox Business reports.While no exact estimate can be determined, the SEC’s new disclosure mandates involving everything from the environment to board diversity is likely to cost U.S. public companies well into the billions of dollars.”

    The goal of the SEC regulation is to promote environmentalism and racial equality, with regulators likely having good intentions. But they are either unable or unwilling to foresee the adverse consequences that could accompany this virtue-signaling effort.

    Heritage Foundation senior fellow David R. Burton, a specialist in tax and financial regulation, laid out the many ways these rules will likely backfire in a letter to the SEC.

    He agreed that “requiring all public companies to develop climate modeling expertise, the ability to make macroeconomic projections based on these models and then make firm-specific economic assessments based on these climate and economic models will be expensive,” likely costing billions. 

    The result? 

    “These expenses would harm investors by reducing shareholder returns,” Burton explained. This means it’s not just Big Business, but the millions of Americans who invest in the stock market or rely on it for their retirement, who could bear the costs.

    Burton further warns that these woke disclosure rules would result in “the creation of a new compliance eco-system and pro-complexity lobby composed of the economists, accountants, attorneys and compliance officers that live off of [regulatory compliance].” Simply put, they would even further entrap firms into wasting money on red tape compliance costs.

    The Heritage expert also added that the rules would fuel a huge rise in costly litigation.

    Meanwhile, it’s unclear what, if anything, the SEC’s woke disclosure mandates would accomplish—beyond merely virtue-signaling, of course. 

    “This whole ESG thing is just one giant waste of time and money,” said Chris Whalen, chief of Whalen Global Advisors. “It’s just a big show that only benefits the consultants and the lawyers who are making money off of this.”

    Like this story? Click here to sign up for the FEE Daily and get free-market news and analysis like this from Policy Correspondent Brad Polumbo in your inbox every weekday. 

    Brad Polumbo


    Brad Polumbo

    Brad Polumbo (@Brad_Polumbo) is a libertarian-conservative journalist and Policy Correspondent at the Foundation for Economic Education.

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