A simple formula helps to explain why steeply rising prices are baked into our current economy:
M = G
where
M is the totality of money, and
G is the totality of goods.
Many factors affect the price of goods, but it is easy to see how changes in the relation of money to goods must produce inevitable outcomes. To illustrate, let M = $10.00 and let G = 10 apples. In that case, $1.00 would be the price of 1 apple. Now let M = $20.00 and let G = 10 apples. In that case, $2.00 would be the price of 1 apple.
Something similar to this has happened in our economy. As the source notes, we have increased M by $5 trillion in just the last two years, but there has been no corresponding increase in G. It is therefore inevitable that prices will continue to rise for the foreseeable future.
“Printing” money is the problem. The solution has two parts. First, stop printing money. Second, produce more goods. Unfortunately, neither part of the solution is politically feasible at present. Wall Street wants more money printing and the current government wants fewer goods.
Tidewater News and Opinion Forum 
Right. When Trump got stimulus passed it had zero effect.
Be honest and tell the full story, not just the parts you like.
LikeLiked by 1 person
My comments are based on the source article. What more do you want?
LikeLike
Then your source article is disingenuous.
LikeLiked by 1 person
How so?
LikeLike
It only includes work CONTINUED under Biden that started under Trump. Similar to the way Trump was given credit for economic growth that started under Obama.
Your guys can only get it right, the others are ALWAYS the villains.
LikeLiked by 1 person
RE: “Your guys can only get it right, the others are ALWAYS the villains.”
Don’t be ridiculous. The source story is a response to the CPI report that just came out. If I had wanted to write about the entire history of monetary inflation in the U.S., I would have done so. I chose, instead, to explain why the current inflation is going to take a long time to clear.
Biden could do something about it, but isn’t.
LikeLike
“If I had wanted to write about the entire history of monetary inflation in the U.S., ”
Your focus (and that of your source) is strictly based on ONE part of this entire economic situation. Cheery picking is still cherry picking.
Trump inherited an growing vibrant economy, yet no one on the Right took the time to see WHEN that growth actually started. Mises is doing the same thing.
LikeLiked by 1 person
RE: “Cheery picking is still cherry picking.”
It is not cherry picking to discuss a government report that was just published. Maybe you want everyone on Earth to share your obsession with Trump, but your expectations and impulses are unreasonable in this instance.
LikeLike
There is a difference, economically, between expenditures made to offset the losses from a Balck Swan event and continuing expenditures after the economy is already in recovery made to buy votes.
LikeLike
Right. When a Republican does it, its ok. When a Democrat does it he/she is buying votes.
Same old tripe, different day.
LikeLike
Do you understand the concept of time?
Before the economy is recovering and after are different times. Different parties don’t matter, different times do.
LikeLike
Do you?
Different times when it makes the side you agree with look good and disagree with when it makes them look bad.
Two sides of the same coin.
LikeLike
Exactly. Biden and Democrats are on a “Buy the vote” campaign hoping to target and convince blacks and young people that money is free, who cares, nothing to worry about, nothing to see here. Sad part is some people buy into this trash and then make excuses for the inevitable outcomes like soaring inflation.
LikeLike
“Biden and Democrats are on a “Buy the vote” campaign “…
If you think the Republican don’t do the same kind of “buying” ( or being bought is more likely), then you are very naïve.
The difference is YOU are the buyer.
LikeLike
“There is a difference . . .”
Okay, now explain away the effects of multi-trillion dollar tax cuts benefiting only the wealthy when there is already a full employment economy. Go for it. I am sure you can.
Funny how these “black swan events” only seem to happen when the GOP is in charge.
LikeLiked by 1 person
There have been no such tax cuts.
LikeLike
“There have been no such tax cuts.”
Except for the one the Republicans forced through Congress with parliamentary maneuvers in 2001 and 2017.
LikeLiked by 1 person
That tax cut benefitted the middle class more than the very rich.
Unless you see the guy with an HVAC company or a cabinet shop as the rich.
LikeLike
“That tax cut benefitted the middle class more than the very rich.”
The corporate cuts were made permanent, the “middle class” ones are set to expire in 2025, as the act was written.
The VERY rich and corporations got over 90% of the benefit.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Just not so.
“A careful analysis of the IRS tax data, one that includes the effects of tax credits and other reforms to the tax code, shows that filers with an adjusted gross income (AGI) of $15,000 to $50,000 enjoyed an average tax cut of 16 percent to 26 percent in 2018, the first year Republicans’ Tax Cuts and Jobs Act went into effect and the most recent year for which data is available.
Filers who earned $50,000 to $100,000 received a tax break of about 15 percent to 17 percent, and those earning $100,000 to $500,000 in adjusted gross income saw their personal income taxes cut by around 11 percent to 13 percent.”
https://news.yahoo.com/irs-data-prove-trump-tax-130007569.html
Those 100 to 500K earners are typically owners of small businesses who have been building that business for decades.
The typical American millionaire is first generation wealthy and drives a pickup truck to work. You cut his taxes and he buys another truck and hires another crew.
LikeLike
“That tax cut benefitted the middle class more than the very rich.”
That is total bullshit.
Per the Congressional Research Service the economic benefits predicted for the Trump tax cuts did not materialize because “the economy was at full employment and most of the tax cut went to businesses and higher income individuals who are less likely to spend the increases, a small demand-side effect would be expected.”
https://tinyurl.com/43k7hamj
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/oct/09/trump-tax-cuts-helped-billionaires-pay-less
https://www.americanprogress.org/article/tcja-2-years-later-corporations-not-workers-big-winners/
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Just not so”
For someone who seems to think he knows quite a lot you seem to not understand basic math. Nothing you cite refutes the point that 90% of the benefits went to the richest people and corporations. No matter the benefit that some slice of Mom and Pop businesses received, it is dwarfed by the BILLIONS that people at the top got.
LikeLike
Duh
The very rich pay nearly all the income tax, so itis impossible to structure a tax cut that does not reduce their taxes too, and even if the percentage cut for them is much smaller, they pay so much that the total change favors them.
But as a share of profit, the guy in the pickup truck got the greatest benefit.
If you really want to target the rich, tax spending instead of income.
LikeLike
“Duh”
Just cannot admit when you are wrong. Adam stated a fact. You said it was “just not so.” You were wrong. So now you change the definitions.
The real point is that Trump – the new champion of the working class according to you – forced through a huge tax cut with almost nothing in it for the working class. That was a feature, not a bug.
LikeLike
Clearly you did not read the Yahoo news article I provided, and instead google three outdated articles based on assumptions and not results.
Here is the article the Yahoo article was based on, which is based on the results.
Analysis of Tax cut effects
LikeLike