Make The American People
Richer
by
James Kroeger
Printer Friendly Format
Most Democratic Party politicians do not
realize it yet, but there is an economic agenda they could offer to
the American people that would enable them to promise---with a
straight face---greater wealth, happiness, and economic security.
The proposal: Optimize the production [and consumption] of Real
Wealth in this country. It's something that the American
people will never experience while being governed by Republican
politicians. It's also something that the Democratic Party
would be able to deliver to the American people if they
understood exactly what they were doing and why they were doing it.
America has not been able to enjoy the
supreme levels of prosperity that have long been possible for one
simple reason: large numbers of rich Americans (mostly members of
the Republican Party) have mistakenly believed that they are
better off when the economy is experiencing a chronic labor surplus.
Why? When there's a labor surplus, market forces put downward pressure on wages. Business owners expect to maximize their profits in such
an environment, since wages are typically one of their largest
costs. Because rich people end up with more disposable income
as a result of Republican economic policies, they all feel as though
they are better off. Unfortunately, quite the opposite is
true.
Business and financial leaders have never quite understood that when
they participate in collectivist schemes to lower the costs of all the members of their group
(another example: tax cuts for the rich), they are actually
guaranteeing that none of them will benefit. They don't
understand that the marketplace will always thwart any and all
attempts by groups to obtain 'easy enrichment.' Why is this
true? Well, let's just imagine what would happen if our representatives
in Washington were to try to solve all of our economic problems by
handing out a million dollars to every household in America.
We'd all be able to share the same great experience of luxury living,
right?
Well, no... Economists know that such an experiment
would simply produce an explosive round of inflation.
Over a fairly short period of time, the price of everything would
skyrocket dramatically. After the hyperinflation had finally
run its course, there would still be the same number of rich and
poor and Middle Class citizens in the country as there were before
the million-dollar gift was distributed. Why? Because the amount
of goods & services available in the country the day after the
million dollar giveaway would be essentially the same as the amount
that had been available the day before. The
scarcest goods & services in the economy do not multiply
magically just because the amount of money being held multiplies
dramatically.
The true reason why there are rich
people is not because they have more money than everyone else.
Forget about the money. They are richer than everyone
else because they have possession of the highest quality goods &
services & experiences that are available in this life.
There are not enough of these experience opportunities available for
everyone. They get to experience
them. That is why they are rich. It's simply not
possible for everyone to become rich because some desirable
experiences are always going to be more scarce than others.
There is only so much beach front property. Rich people
have been a problem for the lower classes not because they are rich, but
because they are incompetent. They have failed to take actions
that would (A) improve the welfare of the non-rich, without (B) imposing
any real material sacrifice on those who are rich.
In a market economy the scarcest 'experience
opportunities' are auctioned off to those who have the most
money. You can only obtain the scarcest of luxury experiences if
you have more money than everyone else. If everyone
is given more money, then the prices of the scarcest 'experiences'
will continue to rise until---once again---only the richest
consumers will be able to afford them. There are ways to improve
the material welfare of all of the citizens in a society, but
giving them all more money is not one of them.
Members of America's Privileged Class
misperceive their true interests primarily because they do not
understand the very important distinction that must be made between
Financial Wealth and Real Wealth. To better understand this
distinction, simply imagine what it would be like if everyone were
to somehow become extremely rich in dollars one day and then we all
decided to retire and live off of our accumulated 'wealth.' What we
would soon discover is that we would actually possess no real
wealth at all, because no one would be producing anything of value
that we could buy.
The only reason why money has any value
to us is because it gives us a claim on the productive efforts of
others. How wealthy you actually are depends more on
what others are doing than it does on your personal
accumulations of paper notes. The Real economy is the productive
behavior of people; it is the actual goods & services that people
are producing and trading and consuming. When we speak of the
"Wealth of Nations", we are not talking about the amount of currency
they have in circulation; we are talking about their productive
output. The only economic question that should ever matter to us,
as a society, is how might we act to increase our production of
real wealth?
First, let us acknowledge that
individual income earners can become wealthier---in real
terms---if they can manage to increase the amount of dollars they
have at their disposal compared to everyone else
within the hierarchy of national money-wealth distribution. If you can do
this---either by working for it or by stealing it or by winning the
lottery---you will enjoy a dramatic increase in your purchasing power
as long as not everyone else also experiences the same
increase in money. We must always remember that it is exceptional
achievement that is rewarded by the marketplace. When one
individual achieves a dramatic gain in dollar wealth, the
economic gain she experiences is at the expense of some other
income earners who used to have a slightly higher ranking in the
economy's overall distribution of disposable income before being
displaced by you.
For those who care about the welfare of
all Working Families, this individualistic way to gain
real wealth is of no interest. Why? Because we are really only interested
in policy options that will improve the welfare of all. It's
a given that each of us will do whatever we can to improve our
positions as individuals within the hierarchy of disposable
dollar incomes, but the important thing we need to understand that
it is impossible for all of us to improve our
Purchasing Power Rankings relative to each other. If you, as
an individual, want to become a member of a higher economic class,
then you need to do more than just increase your income; you need to
increase your income more than your peers.
From a Real Economy perspective, it
should be apparent by now that the economic lives of Working
Families can only be improved---in real terms---if (1) Some
of the goods & services that are currently scarce in the economy
become more plentiful (relative to the population), and (2) they are
able to experience an enhanced level of economic security.
Again, those who have dedicated themselves to seeking the optimized welfare
of Working Families need to understand that their Big Goal can never
be simply to put more money into the pockets of the Poor and
Middle-Class. It must be to optimize the amount of Real Wealth
consumed/enjoyed by the Poor and Middle-Class,
which means that we need to optimize the production of Real
Wealth. When it comes to setting economic policy, we can forget
about the dollars. If we can simply get everybody working, the economy
will then function in a way that ideally serves the interests of The Underprivileged.
The Cure
We can optimize the consumption of Real
Wealth by the Poor and Middle Class AND provide them with
enhanced Economic Security if we can elect a Congress that will
create and maintain a Labor Shortage, i.e., a jobs
environment where there are more jobs available than there are
people to fill them. Our legislators can achieve this goal by simply spending
more. If they increase spending sufficiently, at some point all
unemployment will be eliminated and an actual Labor Shortage will
exist. (Please note: if the word inflation popped instantly into
your mind, be patient; all your concerns about inflation will be
addressed presently.)
If this Labor Shortage Economy were
maintained, the Poor and Middle
Class would soon discover that they'd be living in the best of all
possible economic worlds. Yes, people would still lose their jobs
as they do today, but it wouldn’t matter. New jobs would always be
easy to find. Market forces would put constant upward pressure on
wages & benefits packages, obviating the need for government
'band-aid remedies' like minimum wage laws and unemployment
insurance. Many employers in a tight labor market would discover
that they have an incentive to actually treat their employees
with respect. From a Real Economy perspective, the marketplace
would finally be functioning in a way that optimizes the welfare of
the Poor and Working Class by drawing resources to their continuing
sustenance.
When people are working for the
income they are spending, they are actually doing something that
benefits everyone else. This is because those who are not
working do not stop consuming; they just aren't
producing any of the stuff they consume. Somebody else is.
As a society, we all become richer in real terms when
all those who are idle become productive. If part of your
productive output is no longer needed to provide for the basic
consumption needs of the unemployed (because they are now producing
for themselves), then that means more of your output becomes available
for your own consumption. When/if we employ all those
who are able-bodied and able-minded in real wealth producing
activities, everyone else automatically gets a pay raise
IN REAL TERMS.
The simple truth is that there is
nothing that society could do for the underprivileged that would be
more kind, more helpful, or more generous than to maintain a Labor
Shortage for them. It would provide poor and Middle-Class
Americans with both an increase in the amount of real wealth they
consume AND a dramatic improvement in their Economic Security. No,
they wouldn't have specific-job security, but they would have
employment/income security. Instead of just 'doing something' to
help the poor; why not give them the optimum that they could ever
[realistically] hope for?
The best thing about this idea? It
would not cost our richest citizens anything---in real terms---to do
it. The Poor and Middle Class would be providing for
themselves. The greatest tragedy of America's economic history
is the sad fact that the American People have been deprived of an opportunity
to experience an almost idyllic level of wealth consumption by a
Privileged Class that has foolishly maintained a chronic Labor
Surplus through its control of government. Societies can enjoy optimal levels of wealth
consumption only when they make sure that all able-bodied and
able-minded citizens are employed in productive activities. Let us
spend a little time now on the specific ways that the Privileged
Class would benefit from a Labor Shortage.
As rich as he is, Bill Gates cannot
personally afford to reduce the traffic congestion he must deal with
on the highways, nor the blight that he often sees from them. He
can afford to keep his primary living environment clean and healthy,
but he can't afford to buy pollution-free air and water wherever he
goes in the U.S. He might feel a certain amount of pride in his
ability to keep up the appearance of his own properties, but he
can't personally afford the cost of beautifying his city, his state,
or his country. The good news for wealthy individuals like Bill
Gates is that they can afford to buy significant improvements
in the quality of their lives through their national government.
One of the wonderful things that
productivity improvements in the private sector have made possible is a continual increase in the amount of
Public Wealth that is produced and consumed. When fewer people are
needed by businesses to produce the things they sell, unneeded human
resources become available for re-employment by the government in
activities that create Public Wealth. In real terms, 'Public
Wealth' normally refers to the valuable services and investments [in
infrastructure, human capital] that are generated by government
spending. These services and investments are defined as Real
Wealth because they ultimately improve the quality of the lives
of citizens in real terms.
The bad news is that many rich
people---perhaps a majority---have historically opposed any and all
political efforts to expand the government's production of Public
Wealth. Their greatest fear has been the extra taxes they know
they'd have to
pay to be able to enjoy that public wealth. It's not that they
wouldn't enjoy the improvements wrought by government spending; it's
just that they haven't wanted to give up any of the purchasing power that
they've always thought they'd have to give up (in taxes).
What they have not understood is that when all citizens pay
taxes on their income in a way that preserves their 'rankings'
within the hierarchy of all disposable income,
each is spared the
decline in purchasing power that she would otherwise have
experienced if only she had paid the tax.
So not only do we not gain in real
terms when we arrange to get all of our disposable incomes increased
'equally', neither do we pay any real penalty when we are all
deprived of disposable income in a way that preserves our rankings
within the hierarchy of national money-wealth distribution (e.g.,
through income taxation). If the money that the government collects
in taxes is used to produce more public wealth, then the bottom-line
reality we are facing is that increasing income tax rates not
only does not hurt us; it almost always enriches us, in
real terms. Yes, that is the opposite of what many rich
people believe to be true, today.
There is one more big reason why many
wealthy citizens oppose the government's use of their tax dollars to
produce public wealth. They've decided that logical rich people
will always prefer the option of private philanthropy over the
option of using their government to express their generosity. They
note that the government option typically deprives them of the
opportunity to personally witness the good that their tax money
might be making possible. Or perhaps what they prefer is the
opportunity to use their money in a way that will ennoble them in
the eyes of others.
It is true that current government
practices do not provide major tax contributors with a feeling of
“ownership” in the wealth-producing activities of government.
One would think that intelligent professionals would be able to
innovate some new practices that would provide that feeling of
ownership. Perhaps taxpayers could be charged a premium above and
beyond their basic tax obligations for the opportunity to obtain
“shares” of the cost of certain federal projects and perhaps also
for the right to dedicate all or most of their tax contributions to
specific government projects. Unlike shares of ownership that are
purchased in stock markets, share-of-contribution documents would
establish in a publicly observable way the magnitude of the
contribution of individual taxpayers.
Those who pay the premium would be able
to keep their personal tax dollar contributions from being 'lost' in
the pool of general tax revenue. Individual taxpayers would be able
to identify themselves with certain government projects,
helping to define their personal 'brands.' In other words, the
government would essentially be selling sponsorship opportunities.
Such practices might complicate things, but perhaps they would be
worth the cost of implementation if rich people end up feeling
better about the contributions they make to the public treasury. But even
without this incentive, there are still compelling reasons why rich people ought to enthusiastically
embrace
the option of public taxation over private giving.
As things stand now, rich Americans
who act on their generous instincts make a real sacrifice
when they choose to give to charities or civic causes. Why?
Because those rich people who choose not to give---or who
give less---end up improving their purchasing power in
real terms---relative to their more generous peers---for no
reason other than because they chose not to be generous (or as
generous). When you give money privately to others, it reduces the
size of your disposable income relative to the disposable incomes
of all rich people who did not give as generously as you.
The bottom line? Individual acts of
charity can re-order the hierarchy of disposable-income distribution
in favor of non-givers. This means that individuals face a
market-based incentive to ignore the needs of others because they
stand to gain a real purchasing power reward if they do so
and others do not. Rich people who believe that economically
privileged citizens ought to help finance the Common Good should be
especially annoyed by this state-of-affairs. It's not that they
aren't willing to make a personal sacrifice if it's needed. They
obviously are. It's just difficult to psychically tolerate the
continued existence of perverse institutional incentives that reward
indifference toward others when it is not necessary that we do so.
There are two options. One is to set up
our tax code so that all rich people are required to be equally
generous in contributing to the Common Good. If this option is
pursued, no rich person ends up having to make any real
material sacrifice. The other option is to continue to
allow some rich people to contribute to the common good if
that is their desire. This option forces those who are
conscientious to pay a material penalty for having done The
Right Thing. Forcing others to contribute---who
might otherwise
prefer to enrich themselves at your expense---may not sound
like such a bad idea, when you think about it.
Inflation
It ought to be clear by now that
unemployment is the source of all economic evil. Unfortunately,
those who make a living on Wall Street and in the banking industry
disagree. They tend to insist that Inflation is the Great Economic
Nightmare we must avoid at all costs even if we must tolerate
chronic unemployment in order to do so. The Federal Reserve
Board of Governors fully agrees. That is why The Fed consistently
acts to maintain a modest-to-severe Labor Surplus in the economy.
The Fed can always be counted on to "slow the economy down" whenever
it threatens to perform well enough to eliminate all unemployment.
They say they must take this drastic
action because inflation is such a horrible thing. But just how bad
is the nightmare of inflation? Well, not so bad, it turns
out. Actually, many good and wonderful things happen during
times of inflation. Virtually all of our economic growth has
occurred during times of inflation. It's only when economies have
stopped inflating that bad things have happened. Indeed, it
is actually not at all ridiculous to refer to inflation as Our
Friend. Think about it. When economies are experiencing
moderately-high inflation (say, 10%-25%), people are never more
wealthy, in real terms. Wealth production/consumption is
optimized. People are working, and producing, and enjoying the
wealth they are producing.
Generally speaking, economic
participants do not get hurt by inflation. Yes, there
may be some exceptions to this rule, but those
exceptions are incredibly easy to fix. Subsidies would
provide---with minimum bother---those on fixed incomes with
sufficient income to keep up inflation. Everyone gets
to continue to enjoy economic security and an optimal level of real
wealth consumption. True, it is difficult to make these adjustments
with precision because inflation measurement methodologies are
seriously flawed and poorly applied. They can, however, be improved
substantially. Besides, the problems we're talking about exist
right now, in our 3.5% inflation Labor Surplus economy.
Increasing our inflation rate to a level that will eliminate
unemployment will not give us any new 'adjustment' problems that we
don't already have.
No matter how grave the warnings sound
when finance people speak of the “Evils of Inflation”, the ultimate
truth is that inflation is always and everywhere harmless
when it comes to the purchasing power of consumers. Yes,
prices go up, but wages must also be going up, enough to cover the
higher costs. This must be true, or we would not be
able to logically blame the
price increases on inflation. People may not gain in
real terms from increases in disposable income that are due to
inflation, but neither do they
lose in real terms from inflation. From our
understanding of market dynamics, we can know with certainty that if
the disposable incomes of consumers were ever to fail to keep up
with the higher prices being charged, then the higher prices would
not hold.
So where is the great suffering that inflation
is supposed to inflict on society? In real terms, it just ain’t
there. Yes, people may worry that they aren’t keeping up with price
increases, but this is a psychological anxiety that is not
really justified by the facts. This anxiety could be
substantially ameliorated if monetary authorities would make an
effort to reassure all
parties that they are not being hurt by a higher inflation rate.
The simple truth is that, as long as investments in economic
efficiencies continue to be made in a 'high inflation' economy, then
real gains in purchasing power are going to occur in that
high inflation economy. (Also keep in mind that investment
levels are always at cyclical highs when an economy is
experiencing 'robust' inflation.)
Feel reassured? Don't be, say
the Inflation Fear Mongers on Wall Street. They want very much for
you to believe that if the official inflation rate were ever go
beyond single digits, the economy would take off like a runaway
freight train, speeding ahead, out-of-control, destined to
eventually plunge into a pit of hyperinflation if drastic
action (another Fed-induced recession) isn't taken. Is
there any evidence to support this assertion? No, but that will not
stop banking and financial industry professionals from continuing to promote the idea.
As recently as the mid-1990's, Chinese
monetary authorities were able to successfully 'slow down' their
economy's 24% inflation rate until it again reached single-digit
levels without bringing their economy's annual growth rate down below
7.2%. Intelligently designed credit controls can
put an absolute limit on the growth of the money supply. If banks
are only allowed to lend a fixed quantity of money in particular
loan categories, then---all else equal---hyperinflation becomes an
absolute impossibility. We can take comfort in our knowledge that
Inflation is never uncontrollable. Our monetary authorities
should be able to easily maintain an inflation rate in the 5%-25%
range, with occasional spikes occurring due to various
'shocks.'
As a society, the question of whether or
not we should embrace a Labor Shortage Economy (i.e., a higher
inflation economy) should be approached as a rather simple Costs
vs. Benefits decision. We need to take an honest look at the
costs that a Labor Shortage would impose on us and then weigh those
costs against the benefits we can honestly expect to reap from a
Labor Shortage Economy. If the real benefits exceed the real costs,
then we should fully embrace the goal of having Congress create a
Labor Shortage for us.
So once again, what are the benefits
of creating a Labor shortage? Well, they are at the top of the
chart. If we focus our attention on what is happening to the Real
Economy during a Labor Shortage, it soon becomes clear that we would
be enjoying an outcome that is true economic perfection. All
those who are able-bodied & able-minded would be producing something
of value. In such an economy, the production & consumption of
wealth would be optimized. Investment would be optimized.
When production & consumption & investment are all at optimal
levels, society gets to experience an ideal economic achievement.
We would likely see an end to the
phenomenon that we have always called Poverty. If all
able-bodied and able-minded poor people are working, producing more
real wealth, then much more money is going to be spent on poor
people by poor people. Increased sales would prompt
firms to increase the supply of goods and services available
to the poor. Yes, the poorest people in the economy would
still be the poorest people in the economy, but in real, material
terms, the poor would experience an enhancement of both their
standard of living and their economic security. Social pressure would mount on those who are idle.
With fewer idle teens and young adults, crime would drop. All
in all, poor people wouldn't have to worry as much.
(Note: In a Labor Shortage Economy,
those who like to talk about Personal Responsibility would no longer
have anyone to argue with.
Even the most sympathetic souls in our society would agree
that those who (A) are unemployed, (B) are in need of income, and
(C) appear quite capable of performing useful work should be looked
upon with skeptical disapproval. Of course, we would all also
be in agreement that there are exceptions that deserve our sympathy.
It would become extremely difficult to find a person who is
'inexcusably lazy' because peer pressure would become all dominant.)
That's quite a list of mind-boggling
benefits to stack up against the few "headache costs" that are so
often mentioned by Inflation Worriers. What kind of costs do they
bring up? How about the tremendous burden of having to change menu
prices more often? How about the unthinkable cost of having to go
to banks more frequently? These thoroughly laughable 'costs' are
actually mentioned quite often by Inflation Worriers with a
straight face. The truth is that these various 'costs' are quite miniscule when compared to the horrible cost of
unemployment. Indeed, in the net, it would cost society
nothing to eliminate unemployment through a Labor Shortage
because all of the costs of higher inflation would be
overwhelmingly dwarfed by the cost-savings that would be
reaped from the Labor Shortage.
There is empirical evidence that
supports the assertion that Inflation is essentially a benign
economic phenomenon. University of Massachusetts economist
Gerald Epstein, from a paper he wrote in 2003: "As reported in Bruno
and Easterly (1996) and Epstein (2000, 2002) there is a great deal
of evidence that moderate rates of inflation, inflation up to 20% or
more, has no predictable negative consequences on the real economy:
it is not associated with slower growth, reduced investment, less
foreign direct investment, or any other important real variable that
one can find."
(Epstein, 2003). The [net] "Costs of Inflation" you have heard
about are basically the stuff of imagination, and little else.
There is not even a 'difficult
trade-off' involved here. Creating and maintaining a Labor Shortage
would provide a pure gain to society. Think about it. The
gain is not just the elimination of the pain suffered by the
unemployed. It is bringing an end to blighted neighborhoods. It's
fixing the problem of Poverty. It's having a vastly improved &
modernized infrastructure. It's achieving true economic security.
It's having an economy that would be the envy of the world.
We're talking about a wonderful, wonderful accomplishment for the
American people. That is what we have been giving up in
order to make the calculations of finance people slightly less
complicated.
Bankers and Financial Investors worry
about inflation because they worry about all of the variables
that affect the rates of return they make on various financial
investments. They find inflation disappointing because
it makes impressive-looking nominal yields look much smaller once
inflation is taken into account. Their big fear is that inflation
could develop so rapidly, they might only end up breaking even on
some loans or even ending up with a negative [real] return. This is
a prospect that they find so horrifying, they would not hesitate to
throw millions of people out of work in order to minimize some of
their Uncertainty Of Return.
In real terms, they would
actually lose nothing if they simply accepted the challenge of
dealing with higher inflation rates that fluctuate in a range of
maybe 5%--25%. This is because all other investors have to deal with
the same uncertainty and face the same risks. All will try to
maximize their returns, period. Even if their Return-on-Equity
drops to a much smaller---though still positive---level, in real
terms they will be enjoying the absolute zenith of wealth
consumption, because their economy will be at an absolute zenith of
wealth production.
The worst that could happen to them is
that they would end up with a 'normal profit' (consult an
introductory Microeconomics textbook).
Economies-with-labor-shortages always produce more Real
Wealth for rich people [in the form of Public Wealth] than
economies-with-labor-surpluses. When your country's poor
people are well taken care of, when they are far better off than the
poor of other countries, it's far more enjoyable to be rich
(especially when you know that you didn't need to give up
anything to make things better for them).
If America were to create and maintain a
Labor Shortage, we would naturally expect at first that this would
inspire the unemployed masses of other nations to want to flock to
the U.S. But if we were to insist that our trading partners
eliminate unemployment in their own countries and make themselves
wealthier like we have, then the net outcome would be the vast
enrichment of the human race as unemployed people everywhere in the
world finally become productive. With America leading the
way on this initiative, the rest of the world would quickly jump on
board. Is there any doubt that most Mexicans would prefer stay in
Mexico close to their families if only it was not so difficult for
them to get a job? The pressure on America to “do something” to
help the poorer nations of the world would diminish, because other
countries would be largely providing for their own people through
their own efforts.
Economic Justice
Focusing on the Real Economy is the path
to true economic justice. The Market Economy will function in a way
that best serves the interests of the Poor and the Middle Class [and
ultimately even the Upper Class] if we do one little thing: make
sure that enough spending is taking place so that everyone who is
able to produce something of value is doing so. We're not talking
about an initiative that distorts the functioning of The
Marketplace in a way that might end up denying us our Ultimate
Economic Goals. Indeed, it is the only way we can achieve
our goals through the marketplace. Do we not want optimum wealth
consumption? Do we not want optimal investment? Do we not want to
end the divisiveness that exists between the lower classes and the
Privileged Elite?
If the Rich would simply "take care of
their poor people", then their poor people would not begrudge them
their privileged status. It's not a sin to be rich.
After all, somebody's going to be
experiencing the scarcest experience opportunities in this life.
We can accept the fact that we may never be rich like you (or
instead of you) but what we do insist on is that
you use the
resources at your disposal to 'take care of' us.' We agree to not take
your money and/or possessions away from you as long as you agree to
use your freedoms and resources to make sure that our needs are
optimally served. That's The Contract. Like it or not,
with privilege comes obligation. If you are able to organize the functioning of
society in a way that optimizes our material welfare, then you not
only get to continue to be rich and privileged, but you will also
have earned our sincere gratitude. Any group of people who can do
that for us deserves such rewards.
The American People should elect a
Congress that will give it a maintained Labor Shortage at the
[mostly illusory] 'cost' of moderately high inflation. An
education campaign will be needed in order to pull this off.
It is hoped that this education campaign would be enough to persuade
the big shots on Wall Street and at The Fed to hop on the band wagon
and make American wealthier, but if they do not, Congress can still
make it happen. The 'Federal Reserve' is a privately-owned
entity that Congress once gave the power to control the nation's
money supply. Congress can take that control away from the Fed
and give it to the US Treasury if the Fed does not cooperate in
allowing Congress to create and maintain a Labor Shortage at higher
inflation rates. Direct regulation of lending practices would
put a lid on inflation without ending the benefits of the Labor
Shortage.
It's achievable...
______________________________________
Related Economic Analysis:
MEASURING SAVINGS AND
INFLATION
THE MISUNDERSTOOD RELATIONSHIP
BETWEEN SAVINGS & INVESTMENT
HOW MARKETS FOIL COLLECTIVIST
SCHEMES
UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE
DO TAX CUTS STIMULATE THE ECONOMY?
TRADE
POLICY & JOBS
