William F. Buckley used to say that there is always a presumptive case for order.
Philosopher Joel Feinberg argued that there’s always a presumptive case for freedom.*
This notion of a strong case for or against something prior to specific data can keep philosophers and economists and folks like you and me awake at night.
Here, I’m just going to bring it down to the politics.
Of inflation.
Why are prices — especially fuel prices — rising so?
The Biden Administration has been trying to argue that it’s caused by the war in Ukraine, and Americans’ need to sacrifice to defend that beleaguered country.
But, as with his talk of “food shortages,” the war is almost certainly an exacerbating, not the prime, factor. Both fuel price spikes and bare shelves demonstrated an alarming trend before Putin invaded Ukraine.
The cause seems obvious. Do we really need careful studies to show that both were caused by (a) COVID lockdowns and (b) a blizzard of lockdown bailout checks during Trump’s term in office and eagerly pushed also by the current president?
And Biden’s current kick, of demanding that gas stations (!) freeze or reduce prices to “match the cost of production,” has all the odor of cranky, old-fashioned soapbox socialism.
There is a presumptive case that inflation is caused by monetary policy, just as shortages are usually caused by regulations. Trump and Biden and Congress all contributed to over-spending, financialization, and regulatory hits.** But the stink of the growing mess must also affix especially to Biden. After all, one of his campaign promises was to cut production of oil on all government lands and offshore.
This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.
* Joel Feinberg, Social Philosophy (1972), pp. 20-22. Where Buckley discussed his presumptive case is your guess or mine. Probably a column back in the 1970s or ’80s.
** A few weeks ago an interesting exchange occurred in this website’s comments section, between two friends of this program.
h/t crAIyon
—
See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
2 replies on “Biden’s Peculiar Odor”
The presumptive case is that the laws of economics and markets continue to apply.
Natural economic forces, if unhindered, will result in evolutionary change and spontaneous order. However, when the market is interfered with by other powerful and non-market forces such as governmental interventions affecting supply or monetary policies which debase the currency, the reactions of the market become more severe and accelerate.
This is not unique, surprising and repeats through history. Major and rapid dislocations, commonly labeled as “market failures” are actually market reactions occasioned by politically inspired attempts to create perceived short term “benefits” without consideration for the long-term and real costs.
That is the result of the very short time horizon of the political system which does not extend beyond the next scheduled election or where elections are not determinative, the desire to stay in power.
Campaign promises and the attempt to manipulate markets to keep them will always result in greater than normal dislocations and inefficiencies. All such activities are a form of authoritarian elitism rooted in the belief that the electorate, which so wisely selected the present leadership, really does not know what is good for it.
The politicians claim to believe in the market, but do not have the fortitude to convert that belief a adherence to its laws and teachings. (Such is not unlike the claimed “strong and guiding Catholicism” of some of the national leadership on the abortion issue.)
Pragmatism trumps principle (pun intended) on both sides of the aisle.
Our present economic disarray is not caused by the natural workings of the market, but by the government’s attempts to manipulate it, and the present Administration is responsible for much of the chaos and can rightly be held accountable for its actions.
‘Biden’s Peculiar Odor’ is the stench of corruption.