I agree with the economics. Steady inflation is not much of an economic problem. You can genuinely reduce consumer costs with better policy. But better policy would entail higher taxes for health care and education. Everything nets out fine economically--real consumer income would increase despite higher taxes--but the politics is a problem. Voters don't like taxes. They would rather pay more of their income if you don't call the extra cost a "tax." The most powerful voters--the funders--*really* don't like taxes.
Me, I'm a weirdo. I like being taxed. I think my taxes are too low. But that is a minority taste.
I imagine that it's not so much that you like being taxed. Rather it's that you are (more than) willing to pay to live in a society that both has a low level of economic inequality and delivers many high quality public goods. Taxes, properly designed, enable both. If it's just that you like being taxed, the standard libertarian response is "Well then, send more money to the government (and leave me out of it)".
Agreed. However, isn't it interesting that while people complain about the decreased value of fiat money, the guy who DOGE'd the institutions that provide the dollar with its value is now the first individual worth more than 1-trillion dollars.
1. First of all, as someone like you that lived through the 70s, since 2022 my head has been spinning from the way people -- experts and Jill on the street alike -- have discussed inflation and it's effects. Most miss the more important distributive effects of, say, inflationary supply shocks and wars or excessive fiscal stimulus. For example, nobody seems to mention the loss of real wealth suffered by those with defined pension benefit income that is not shielded completely from inflation.
2. I couldn't agree with your take on housing more, I read the linked article and found it spot on. Nothing reveals the hypocritic myopia of the Homeowner Dream folks (of which most of us our happy members) than NIMBYism. And it's something that will never change.
3. Higher Education is something I have lots to say about, but probably need to think about first. But I think the original sin was to grant Universities the determination of who got what aid and when. Then it became (an algorithmic) chase to (as Clopper Almon used to say) scoop out the consumer surplus. I'm all for "reforming" college aid, but more of it should go directly to the student and the colleges don't need to know.
BTW: For example, nobody seems to mention the loss of real wealth suffered by those with defined pension benefit income that is not shielded completely from inflation.
I agree with the economics. Steady inflation is not much of an economic problem. You can genuinely reduce consumer costs with better policy. But better policy would entail higher taxes for health care and education. Everything nets out fine economically--real consumer income would increase despite higher taxes--but the politics is a problem. Voters don't like taxes. They would rather pay more of their income if you don't call the extra cost a "tax." The most powerful voters--the funders--*really* don't like taxes.
Me, I'm a weirdo. I like being taxed. I think my taxes are too low. But that is a minority taste.
I imagine that it's not so much that you like being taxed. Rather it's that you are (more than) willing to pay to live in a society that both has a low level of economic inequality and delivers many high quality public goods. Taxes, properly designed, enable both. If it's just that you like being taxed, the standard libertarian response is "Well then, send more money to the government (and leave me out of it)".
They don't want to be left out of it when it comes to the benefit side.
I had meant to mention that this is not original to me but IIRC was Mark Kleiman’s response to Megan McArdle
Agreed. However, isn't it interesting that while people complain about the decreased value of fiat money, the guy who DOGE'd the institutions that provide the dollar with its value is now the first individual worth more than 1-trillion dollars.
Hey Max I have a handful of comments.
1. First of all, as someone like you that lived through the 70s, since 2022 my head has been spinning from the way people -- experts and Jill on the street alike -- have discussed inflation and it's effects. Most miss the more important distributive effects of, say, inflationary supply shocks and wars or excessive fiscal stimulus. For example, nobody seems to mention the loss of real wealth suffered by those with defined pension benefit income that is not shielded completely from inflation.
2. I couldn't agree with your take on housing more, I read the linked article and found it spot on. Nothing reveals the hypocritic myopia of the Homeowner Dream folks (of which most of us our happy members) than NIMBYism. And it's something that will never change.
3. Higher Education is something I have lots to say about, but probably need to think about first. But I think the original sin was to grant Universities the determination of who got what aid and when. Then it became (an algorithmic) chase to (as Clopper Almon used to say) scoop out the consumer surplus. I'm all for "reforming" college aid, but more of it should go directly to the student and the colleges don't need to know.
BTW: For example, nobody seems to mention the loss of real wealth suffered by those with defined pension benefit income that is not shielded completely from inflation.
That seems fair to me.