Žižek is a philosopher-clown who I find is more insightful than ridiculous. — 180 Proof

What insights?

Hedges bores me. — 180 Proof

To each his own. I don’t see what’s boring about him beyond superficialities.

Anyway…I’m getting off thread topic. If you want to respond I’ll let you have last word.

Zizek has always existed in the tradition of Chris Hitchens anyway —i.e., entrainment and posturing. Give me Chomsky and Hedges any day of the week.

The question of all questions is: what is?

Or: what is being? So all questions are questions about being/beings.

This according to some thinkers, anyway. And those I happen to agree with.

Do drugs, or can drugs, engender a frame of mind which is conducive to insight, or even enlightenment? — hypericin

Yes. But the insights tend to be a proverb of some kind — cliched; enlightenment is possible in that drugs can allow you to see things slightly (or greatly) askew, but this is temporary.

Honestly, marijuana, MDMA and mushrooms have provided me with moments of clarity and realization, even of wisdom. But so has meditation, being in love, fasting, and walking in the woods.

What matters, in the end, is what you do— not just on special occasions, but over the long run in your daily life. If you can only be nice to people or have fun when taking some kind of substance, for example, then I would find that problematic. If you take a substance in moderation and it provides a needed reminder of what matters in life, great. We can’t always achieve that “naturally.”

Clearly you support Trump's coup attempt. — Jackson

:roll:

Grow up.

important proceeding. — creativesoul

seriousness and the future implications of all that? — creativesoul

How corrupt has our nation become if a violent coup cannot wake them from their slumber. — Jackson

Yes, and what exactly have you two done about it? Beyond being outraged from what you’re reading/seeing?

Sorry— but there are better things for me to do than passively consume the latest media spectacle. Even picking up trash in the neighborhood accomplishes more.

I’d like to see, at bare minimum, a labor party. But this is getting off topic so I’ll leave it at that.

Is that the kind of difference you want to see? — Tate

I really don’t see the relevance.

Because the outcome is predictable and it’s mostly a waste of time and a media production.

Democrats are the same insofar as their existence leads to the same results, not because of hypotheticals that one can take imaginary comfort in apres coup. — Streetlight

I don’t think it’s much of a stretch to say our Supreme Court would look different had Trump not been elected— which is indeed a different and important outcome. But yes, technically I can’t prove it.

Trump attempted a violent coup. — Jackson

Fine. This commission is still a farce.

No, this commission. Another chance for ratings. Like the Mueller report and impeachment trials before it. I wouldn’t get caught up in this stuff. They’re all trying to recapture the supposed glory days of Watergate.

They’re nearly all corporatists.

To argue there are profound differences because of this ridiculous media farce really isn’t serious.

is there a political solution to the problem? — Wayfarer

I would take a look at someone like Jane McAlevey. I think she describes one solution very well. It involves organizing. Not lecturing others, but listening and helping them identify and solve problems. Militant unions, a strong labor movement, etc., are going to be part of any solution. That involves real work. It involves, first and foremost, a genuine care for working people. Not contempt and condescension.



Both parties are corporate parties— but asserting they’re the same isn’t exactly true. There are minor differences which we have to acknowledge, however we dislike them. Those differences matter in a superpower like the US, as you both know.

Look at the Supreme Court, to take the obvious example. If Clinton had been elected, we wouldn’t be seeing the end of Roe — which will have very real effects for years to come. As will the upcoming ruling on guns and on restricting the EPA’s ability to regulate emissions. That’s not nothing. That’s not an endorsement of Clinton, of course, but it’s true nevertheless— I think we can all agree?

Given this alone, if things like abortion rights and the environment matter to you, it would be preferable if we didn’t go backwards. That may not sway your vote, but it’s still a difference.

Then you simply don't look at the big picture. Because the response to covid was done in tandem. Both by the Government and by the Federal Reserve. — ssu

Fiscal and monetary policy are very different things. That has nothing to do with the “big picture.” It’s a matter of being clear. They’re very different in how they function, and when we want to go deeper than speaking in generalities, it happens to matter.

That being said— yes, the Fed and congress happened to act together during COVID. Fiscal and monetary policies are still very different things.

During the Great Recession the target of the QE was financial institutions, not consumers. — ssu

This is exactly why getting our terms correct is important. QE is part of monetary policy, which is what the Fed does. It was and remains targeted towards the financial sector.

To argue that “this time” it was directed towards consumers is just confusing what happened. It’s not true. The stimulus that was directed to consumers was FISCAL POLICY. That means the bills passed in congress — the checks sent out directly to citizens, the child tax credit, expanded unemployment benefits, etc. These actions had nothing to do with QE — nothing. Nor the buying of corporate debt.

At least get your own argument right. You’re arguing that the government gave people too much money. It’s what Summers and Manchin were arguing last year.

To that point, I’ll simply repeat what I’ve been saying: this seems to account for very little of the inflation we see — maybe a few basis points. I already explained the evidence for this in my prior response.

Though it’s a neat story, for sure. Stick to it dogmatically if you wish.

Will the economy slump into stagflation? — Tate

If I could answer that, I’d be wealthy indeed.

The idea that an administration uses fiscal policy and totally separately the central bank uses monetary policy and these would be thinking of totally different issues is not the case. — ssu

Sorry, but fiscal policy and monetary policy are very different things. If you want to talk generally about the economy, fine. But when it comes to claims about inflation, getting these terms right actually matters.

Inflation isn't confined to one country and the US affects very much other countries too. — ssu

The claim was that inflation is due to fiscal stimulus. US did far more than Europe; both have inflation. So your response seems to be: it’s still fiscal stimulus because inflation isn’t confined to one country.

Think about this for a minute.

When you give to the American consumer one trillion dollars, that is going to be a lot going into the real economy. And that does create inflation. — ssu

So again we’re back to the fiscal stimulus claim. Okay — yes, I realize that’s the theory.

We had fiscal stimulus in 09 as well. Not as much, but between that and QE, the money supply increased. Inflation was predicted — and there was none.

economic policy would be better. — ssu

Fine. Sounds good.

And how many YEARS you think those disruptions will last? — ssu

I have no idea.

Yes, Russia and Ukraine do give us raw materials and agricultural products, but these are in the end small compared to the global market. — ssu

Russia is a major exporter of oil and gas. That causes significant supply disruptions.

But it’s not only the war in Ukraine. Those are contributors to supply disruptions already underway due to COVID.

Or take used and new cars. Plenty of inflation there— which also helps drive up the CPI. Is that due to an abundance of money, a shortage of chips, or profiteering? Well, all three of course. But what if you take one factor out — like supply shortage? Well, again look at the CPI data. Control for supply problems: the cost all items, less energy and food, is 6%. But even that is misleading. Why? Because that number is driven up by used and new cars, which is included, and transportation — also affected by both cars and energy (gasoline, oil).

Not including those, and you’re looking at about 4%. “Normal” inflation is around 2%. So theoretically, without supply disruptions, we’re seeing some inflation — but nothing terrible.

Does extra money even explain all of that inflation? No, I don’t think so. You still have issues of corporations (many monopolies, like meat producers) price gouging, passing on extra labor costs (and then some) to consumers, a shift in demand for services over goods after lockdowns, etc.

Inflation due to extra money in the economy is a nice story — and there’s clearly some truth in it — but it’s simply not sufficient to explain what’s happening and, in my view, doesn’t account for more than perhaps a few hundred basis points of the inflation we’re seeing.

Slaveowners were true capitalists. We know you long for those days of true individual freedom. When they agree with you…

In case it’s not crystal clear: I’m not interested in your opinions about anything, and think you’re a repugnant human being. Please stop trolling this thread.

I'm wondering whether or not we can make and unmake governments whenever we see fit. I'm asking can we make any form of government we desire whenever we desire or if our desires are somewhat irrelevant? — Average

I really can’t give a definitive answer, but for me I think we can choose to create a government we want, which is based on all kinds of things — values, beliefs, desires, etc. Doesn’t happen over night, or even whenever we see fit, but it’s possible. The evidence seems everywhere. What’s the alternative?

What reasoning lead you to this conclusion? — Average

Well…

governments are created by people, — Xtrix

They’re not inevitable. We have choices. We can create democracies and plutocracies and tyrannies. To argue these are somehow inevitable is odd indeed— but if you believe it you’re welcome.

:rofl:

Says the (inadvertent?) corporate apologist who has far more in common with Mussolini and Hitler than anyone here.

Apologies for attacking your plutocratic masters. Didn’t mean to hurt your feelings.

Politicians don’t “choose” anything about interest rates.
— Xtrix
To believe in the independence of the Fed or the ECB on these matters is a bit naive. — ssu

I didn’t say that. But I also don’t say the board of governors are politicians. If you consider them politicians, fine. I think that’s misleading. If you think they make politically motivated decisions — OK. But not saying much. And has nothing to do with fiscal policy decisions.

is simply an assertion. If it were so cut and dry, then Europe shouldn’t be experiencing inflation — according to your own chart. But they are as well.
— Xtrix
I'm not following you. Or do you think the EU didn't have it's own stimulus packages? — ssu

Take a look at your own chart. Yes, they had stimulus packages — and FAR less than the US. So is their inflation still due to that fiscal stimulus?

We had stimulus and QE in ‘09. No inflation.

Again, I think it’s time to let go of Friedman’s ideas. Things are just not so simple.

It would do well to distinguish fiscal and monetary stimulus for the sake of discussion and clarity from here onward. If by stimulus you refer to both, please say so.

(NY TIMES, Oct 18th 2021) Inflation is likely getting a temporary boost from the $1.9 trillion coronavirus relief package that the Biden administration ushered in early this year, new Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco research released on Monday suggested. — ssu

Again, I agree with economists that say the fiscal stimulus (the CARES bill and AR bill) accounted for perhaps 1% of inflation. The monetary “stimulus” (QE) also accounts for inflation — particularly in the markets I mentioned: stocks, bonds, housing. (And cryptocurrency, incidentally.)

This is reflected in core inflation numbers — high, but not very high.

The majority of inflation is accounted for by COVID and Ukraine supply disruptions. Demand has been there as well — but to focus solely on demand, or claim that it’s demand that accounts for most of the inflation we see, is just not supported by the data. Oil prices aren’t soaring because people have more money to bid them up, for example.

Are we the authors of our fate? — Average

Largely yes.

Are our forms of government, such as monarchy, generated necessarily by forces outside of our control or are we able to write history? — Average

I don’t see what one has to do with the other. But governments are created by people, and history is written by people.

Our current form of government — in the US anyway, but elsewhere too — is an oligarchy. More specifically, plutocracy. Even more specifically, corporatocracy. None of this is inevitable.

When NOS agrees with you, it should immediately elicit the desire to do the opposite.

I really am interested in how plutocracy can be abolished or at least minimized — baker

No, you’re not.

Notice I didn’t even bother asking “Why are they pipe dreams?” Why? Because as I said before, I was expecting this childish response. But secondly, you have no idea about most of what I was referring to anyway. For example, to say the repeal of rule 10b-18 is a “pipe dream”? Really? So you’re aware of that specific rule? You’re knowledgeable enough about it to make the judgment that its repeal is a “pipe dream”?

No. You’re not. Of course you’re not. You just wanted an opportunity to show how absurd it is to claim any solution at all. Which was entirely predictable and, as I said, I made the mistake of giving the benefit of the doubt. Believe me, it won’t happen again.

I don't see any realistic solutions — baker

You see no solutions at all. Because you’re interested only in posturing.

I’ll repeat— again — what I said before: my involvement is in unions and in state/local governing (aka “pipe dreams”). I could get into those solutions too — but I’ll save it for someone interested in something beyond posturing.

And this is how you're actually helping those at the top stay there. — baker

:lol: By engaging with disingenuous questions? Probably true — given it’s a waste of my time.

If only I could very cleverly call all work “pipe dreams” on the Internet. That would show ‘em!

But I have no illusions that any of this will happen any time soon. — Xtrix

Sorry, but your "solutions" sound like pipe dreams. — baker

I’m glad you read carefully.

What’s funny is that I was going to put in “Is this a real question or just an excuse to shit on anything offered?” Figured I’d give the benefit of the doubt. I regret that. Should have known better, given your history.

I guess I’ll just repeat myself: there are plenty of solutions. These are some of the ones off the top of my head. My own personal activity has been directed at the local and state level, and towards unionizing. Not at the federal level, where I have no impact whatsoever.

But since you aren’t really interested in any solutions (all “pipe dreams”) and apparently just want an opportunity to display your very-superior-cynicism, I’ll leave it there. My mistake for engaging.

We could be here all day, but solutions are plentiful. Just off the top of my head — and restricted only to the low-hanging fruit:

Ban stock buybacks (specifically SEC rule 10b-18)
Decouple CEO pay and stocks
Wealth tax
Excess profit tax
Maximum wage
Increase corporate tax rate
Increase capital gains taxes
Close tax havens (Bahamas, Caymans, Ireland)
Close tax loopholes (stepped-up basis, etc)
Fund the IRS
Strengthen labor laws and the NLRB
Require worker representation in boardrooms
Pass the PRO act

And on and on. But I have no illusions that any of this will happen any time soon.

Uhhh....yeah. They have. — ssu

No, they haven’t. What I was responding to:

And I fear that the politicians can and will choose inflation than higher interest rates. — ssu

Politicians don’t “choose” anything about interest rates.

As far as fiscal policy: yea, they passed stimulus bills. Arguing that

stimulus packages etc. […] got the inflation finally going. — ssu

is simply an assertion. If it were so cut and dry, then Europe shouldn’t be experiencing inflation — according to your own chart. But they are as well.

The effects of stimulus is real, but I agree with economists who say it accounts for about 1% of inflation or so.

does create higher demand, which then creates higher prices. — ssu

Low interest rates create demand too. Cheap borrowed money lead to higher prices.

But this almost completely overlooks supply shocks and corporate choices. This is far more a supply side issue.

True, we can use inflation as an excuse for austerity, for punishing workers and families, etc., which is the most likely outcome. But that’s a political choice.

I don't think so. What this will do is burst the bubbles created by the Fed -- stocks, bonds, and real estate. We're seeing that already.
— Xtrix
How the markets react to the monetary policy of the Fed is a result of monetary policy. Markets going down is a consequence, not the other way around. — ssu

Since the asset bubbles I mentioned were created by the Fed’s monetary policy, it’s no surprise they are bursting now. Stocks have even farther to go to trend, in fact.

So I’m not exactly sure why you’re stating this.

Of course the real issue is political. And I fear that the politicians can and will choose inflation than higher interest rates. And blame everybody else: the war in Ukraine, the pandemic, climate change, foreigners, hoarders... you name it!!! — ssu

Politicians aren’t choosing anything. Monetary policy is in the hands of the Fed — which has become more and more hawkish in terms of money. Interest rates have already been raised 1.5% this year alone and will likely continue.

Inflation is largely due to supply chain disruptions. There’s nothing the Fed can do about that. What the Fed can do — and we see happening — is reverse what it caused: the inflation of three key markets: stocks, bonds, and housing. All are bubbles; some were superbubbles (stocks).

These bubbles bursting will have some effect on overall inflation— but, again, will do nothing whatsoever for semiconductor shortages, wheat supply stocks due to war, or oil/gas supply chains.

So, if this principle is right, then supply chain issues would be the proximate cause of inflation, and it seems likely that if supply cannot meet demand, inflation (perhaps not as significant) would still have resulted even if extra money had not been injected, — Janus

I think this is true. Which is why we see inflation internationally.

At the heart of it all, I think, is capitalism. We could easily control inflation by controlling profits, and taking investments out of the hands of the private sector. We’re not supposed to talk about it, but this is partly why China isn’t seeing the same levels of inflation — even though they too are basically a state-capitalist economy, it’s far more regimented than in the Western world.

What we’ll do instead is increase unemployment and stagnate wages and price people out of buying homes, cripple them with greater credit card/mortgage/loan interest rates, etc., to curb spending/demand. This will do nothing about supply chains and nothing about a privatized, profit-driven economy. But what else is new?

But I'm not willing to absolve governments just because an alternative theory exists, while they continue to break economy 101. — Tzeentch

What I’m suggesting is looking at the available data and trying your best to think through what’s going on, temporarily suspending certain beliefs and assumptions and perhaps leaving them behind altogether if there are alternatives that give a better explanation.

It’s not really a theory I’m offering— it’s just looking at the facts. What facts? Well, the topic is inflation. How is inflation measured? Through the consumer price index and personal consumption index (which is what the Fed uses). These are baskets of goods and services, as you know. And when you look at this in detail, the highest rates of inflation are in commodities and products effected by these conditions. Oil is an obvious example. Wheat is another. Disruptions to supply and steady or greater demand will usually lead to higher prices. Add in to this fact the price gouging factor, and it’s not a shocker that we have inflation right now. But just misleading to attribute it all to monetary policy or fiscal policy in terms of an increased monetary base.

The fact that there’s more money in the economy is true. This will have effects. Milton Friedman wasn’t an idiot. Is his claim that “inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon” true, however? I suppose in the sense that it involves money. But otherwise it’s a matter of changes in supply and demand, belief and confidence, price gouging, and — in my view — the socioeconomic system of capitalism.

Worth remembering too that inflation is widespread right now. As you would expect from shocks to oil and wheat supply. Even if printing money was the only (or main) culprit here — what about everywhere else?

Is it more complicated than that? Undoubtedly. — Tzeentch

Agreed.

the cause is obvious. — Tzeentch

Disagreed.

Moronic libertarians, etc. :up:

Though I would abolish those who claim such rights. — NOS4A2

So the plutocrats who own and run the government? Great — agreed.

It's monetary policy of printing billions of dollars causes inflation.

It adopts this monetary policy to accomodate a general fiscal policy of spending too much.

I don't know why you would be asking me for the specifics of that fiscal policy, since it's completely besides the point and you've yet to acknowledge the elephant I just described. — Tzeentch

I have done nothing but discuss that “elephant.” I went over monetary and fiscal policy.

Again, this idea is mostly Friedman’s — and it’s obsolete. Why? One reason is that the Fed increased the money supply in 2009 as well— injecting huge sums into the financial sector, and even buying mortgage backed securities. Did inflation follow? No.

A second reason is because, when you look at inflation in detail — whether the CPI or PCI — a major factor is the ripple effect of supply disruptions from COVID and Ukraine, particularly in energy. That has little to do with the money supply. Inflation is 6% outside of food and energy, and even that is mostly inflated because of the prices of used and new cars — itself a result of lack of supply.

So here we have a few industries, and a handful of companies within these industries, raising prices due to the supposed rising costs of production and labor and/or shortages of commodities like oil/gas and semiconductor components (for computer chips in cars). That’s a choice, as I mentioned before— not an inevitability.

It’s not only profiteering, though. With cars and housing, there’s a supply issue — but also the fact that people are willing to pay up the nose for a house or car. Where did they get this money? From higher wages, stimulus programs, and borrowing (incentived by low interest rates). The government COVID stimulus has now stopped, and the Fed is raising interest rates and decreasing the money supply.

But while it will effect borrowing and spending, it won’t effect profiteering nor supply chain disruptions to commodities, nor the next pandemic, nor the war in Ukraine, nor climate change. And all of these things effect inflation— not just expansionary monetary policy. It will effect what it helped create — stock, bond, and housing bubbles. We already see all three crashing. That’s no surprise. So why has inflation persisted? It’s claimed that they have to go farther, and it takes some time because of lag. I don’t buy this completely.

So, again, this isn’t ignoring the money supply— but as a theory that explains inflation, “everywhere and always,” it’s just no longer true. It assumes things which aren’t true now — but which may have been true in the 70s. It’s at best an incomplete, narrow view. No where near as obvious and simple as you seem to believe.

Lastly, your sense of how the government finances spending is simply wrong. It’s not that they’re financing things by “printing money.” Again, the Fed owns about 15% of debt. That fact should give you pause.

Care to elaborate?
— Xtrix

I'm not going to play this game where you ask for details while ignoring the elephant in the room. — Tzeentch

You said inflation was due to monetary policy. Then you said it’s fiscal policy. Now I ask: what specific fiscal policies are you talking about?

I don’t see how this is ignoring anything.

If you can’t (or don’t want to) support your argument, that’s fine. No need to make things up though.

fiscal policy and monetary policy are connected, and intimately so — Tzeentch

Everything is “connected” in one way or another.

Fiscal and monetary policy are very different animals. You can have one without the other, as was the case after the 2010 midterms.

How did the United States finance decades of endless war and military projects such as the $800 billion you referred to?

Why, by printing money, of course. — Tzeentch

It finances expenditures through revenue. To spend beyond revenue, the government borrows money by issuing treasuries. Treasuries can be bought by anyone, including corporations and foreign countries — and the central bank. The Fed currently holds around 15% of the US debt, which it purchases by printing money.

So again, it’s just not so simple.

We could balance the budget by cutting spending on wars and the military, yes. But the debt isn’t that important.

I’ll tell you where Friedman’s theory holds up fairly well: with major asset classes, like stocks. Since this is where the money flows, you see “inflation” within these classes. Another word for it is “bubbles.” But even here it’s not so cut and dry, because the outcome is largely a matter of corporate choices — buyback choices, CEO remuneration choices, dividend choices, general resource allocation, etc.

Also, even if your generalization were true, it doesn’t explain inflation.

I notice too that you have avoided substantiating anything:

What "fiscal policy" are you referring to, exactly?

And who is "everyone"? Everyone predicted this for "decades"? Since when, the 80s? — Xtrix

Care to elaborate?

Everyone knew it was coming, and everyone knows it's failed government fiscal policy at the root of it. — Tzeentch

Like the $800 billion spent on defense contracts every year? That spending? What "fiscal policy" are you referring to, exactly?

And who is "everyone"? Everyone predicted this for "decades"? Since when, the 80s?

It's helpful to give some substance to generalities. Otherwise I have no idea what you're talking about. Maybe some trope about the national debt?

Milton Friedman's theories are now obsolete. [...] Too simple, and assumes rational actors and efficient markets -- neither of which we have.
— Xtrix

Indeed, we have markets that are to a great degree controlled by governments, which turn them neither rational nor efficient. — Tzeentch

No, we have markets that have been deregulated for the last 40 years, largely using the ideas of Friedman as justification. This is the neoliberal era. To turn around and still blame the government is rich, when they were acting in accordance with the bogus ideas of "free markets."

(1) "Government is the problem" -- slogan of the 80s.
(2) Government deregulates for 40 years. Housing crash, recession, real wages decreases, skyrocketing wealth inequality ensue.
(3) "See, we told you government was the problem!"

Very nice, circular story.

Likely they use the same line of argument as you do, arguing that theories that put the blame on government are "now obsolete and things are more complicated". Please. — Tzeentch

I didn't say the blame on government is obsolete, I said Friedman's theories are now obsolete. Specifically the one you echoed:

Inflation is nothing other than an increase in the total amount of currency, thereby reducing the value of each individual unit of currency.
— Tzeentch

Milton Friedman's theories are now obsolete. — Xtrix

That "inflation is nothing other than an increase in the total amount of currency" is obsolete. Your claim -- and his -- is not about fiscal policy, it's about monetary policy. The Fed is in charge of monetary policy. The legislature -- the US Congress -- is in charge of fiscal policy.

Let's at least be clear. As I said earlier, if you want to argue that fiscal policy is the true culprit -- as you now seem to be doing -- then that's a different discussion.

So far you've given no convincing support for this claim either.

Right, you're asking for systemic change then, because companies are no social organisations but specifically set up to make profit. — ChatteringMonkey

Make profit for whom? According to the US Chamber of Commerce and the Business Roundtable, it's no longer only the shareholders. True, that's just empty rhetoric to appease the angry rabble while they take actions that are the complete opposite of what's stated. But the point stands. The belief that corporations exist to make profit, and profit for shareholders, is a belief.

In fact, corporations can exist for any kind of reason. There are non-profit corporations. There are co-op corporations. There are corporations that distribute profits in ways that were more akin to the 1950s and 60s when real wages kept up with productivity.

Is changing that belief "systemic change"? Maybe; changing the policies that have been implemented on the basis of this belief certainly would be systemic. Can be done in a heartbeat. Other nations have, and so can we. But since the plutocracy/corporate sector owns "our" government, the chances are slim indeed.

In the current set-up one would expect corporations to try and keep their profit margin, right? I mean, I certainly would be surprised if corporations all of a sudden would collectively and voluntarily decide to absorb the cost themselves. — ChatteringMonkey

The fact that we assume or expect this is partly the problem. It means we, the population, have subscribed to the bullshit ideas of corporate America as well. In reality, there's no justifiable reason for this behavior beyond pure, unadulterated greed -- and, of course, class warfare. The rest is a useful story to tell oneself and others.

And I will say, I doubt all corporations could absorb the increase in cost all by themselves. Some, the bigger ones probably could, other ones I'm not so sure. — ChatteringMonkey

This only makes sense if the costs were so great that they were no longer profitable. But even in that case, you can borrow and cut other costs -- like the huge salaries of executives or expansion plans. Once all that has been tried, yes perhaps you need to shut down factories/stores or let some of your people go. But that's a long way to travel.

Mostly what I see is record profits. For those without record profits, the usual happens: they enrich themselves to the bitter end, then file for bankruptcy while giving themselves huge bonuses.

The owners will always come out on top. Bet the house on it.

I think you have in the options many important issues as options lacking in the OP. — ssu

I really don't know what this means.

Higher interest rates isn't quantitative tightening, Quantitative easing was double talk for money printing. — ssu

I don't know what this means either. Quantitative tightening is the opposite of easing. That means the Fed is beginning to lower mortgage-backed securities and debt on their balance sheet. That was indeed increasing the money supply. The opposite (QT) will decrease the money supply.

And the way to handle this, would be higher interest rates. The Paul Volcker response. — ssu

I don't think so. What this will do is burst the bubbles created by the Fed -- stocks, bonds, and real estate. We're seeing that already. That's obvious. And there's a ways to go -- stocks, for example, are still not at trend. The S&P 500's trend line is about 2500, and it's currently at 3688. Still overpriced even after dropping 20% from it's high of 4600 in December.

What's not obvious -- and what the Fed cannot control -- is what corporations choose to do. As I said earlier, we're in a time of record profits. Major energy and food companies could choose to keep costs lower, but they aren't. Why?

It's a choice. And that choice has nothing whatsoever to do with what the Fed does, and so it will not have the effect they want. All it will do, again, is burst the stock/bond/housing bubble they helped create.

Corporate profits will remain intact for a while, because any cost will be passed on to consumers and labor through increased prices and major layoffs. That's the choice of the private sector. So inflation will continue. But that can only go on so long. Once that stops, either because of a backlash from consumers/labor or, less probable, government intervention (due to mass public pressure to act), we'll see prices stabilize. But they'll be a lot of pain in the meantime, and that pain will be felt disproportionately on the middle and working classes -- as always.

COVID supply disruptions, the "great resignation"/union organizing/wage increases, and the Ukraine war are all important. But again, the CHOICE by corporate boardrooms to have others pay for the greater costs is just that, a choice. This is the heart of the problem. It's hard to take pity on companies when they're posting record profits and engaging in record levels of share repurchases all while crying about increased production costs.

At what point do we hold the corporate sector accountable?

Energy crisis, making basically everything more expensive globally as it is at the base of the entire economy. — ChatteringMonkey

Sure, but when profits are so high it's worth asking whether or not these corporations can absorb the cost. Turns out they could -- I see no reason why they can't, or no good reason. Rather, they raise prices -- which is passing the extra cost onto others. Why should this be ignored? It's glaringly obvious this is just rampant greed. But it's just taken as the way of the world, as if a natural law. It isn't and never has been. It's a choice.

It could be regulated, as it was in the past. But we're still in the neoliberal era, alas.

Inflation is nothing other than an increase in the total amount of currency, thereby reducing the value of each individual unit of currency. — Tzeentch

Milton Friedman's theories are now obsolete. Even the Fed acknowledges this. It's not totally irrelevant, but just doesn't have the explanatory power it was once believed to have. Too simple, and assumes rational actors and efficient markets -- neither of which we have. This is demonstrated by what I said above about the corporate-level decision to absorb labor/production costs (meaning subtracting the extra costs from the record profits) or pass the cost on to consumers by raising product prices. That decision, made by shareholder-elected board members and the CEO (whose compensation largely consists of shares), has nothing whatever to do with the money supply.

When there is out-of-control inflation, it is because central banks are printing too much money. — Tzeentch

They were printing a massive amount in 2008/2009 as well, even instituting QE for the first time. We didn't have inflation after that -- unless you count stock prices, of course (seen in the longest bull market ever).

Because it's an easy, short-term way for governments to get more money to spend on all its hobby projects, and it makes the public carry the cost (inflation is literally a hidden tax). — Tzeentch

This is more parroting of Milton Friedman, unfortunately. It just isn't supported by evidence.

QE, the buying of corporate debt, and lowing the FFR all benefit the banks and the corporations that were failing and threatening to bring down the economy. So monetary policy is now generally a safety net for the financial sector. That has little to do with government spending, which is fiscal policy. If you're arguing that fiscal policy is what accounts for inflation, that's a different line.

Besides this, the public needs to understand that there is no such thing as free money, and they need to stop demanding it from their governments through the voting process, because this is part of what incentivizes governments to make unaffordable, unrealistic promises that can only be fulfilled through printing money. — Tzeentch

Except that this is nonsense. There's plenty of money, plenty of resources. The problem is that it goes to fewer and fewer hands. Making the sweeping statement of "government spending" being the issue reflects a favorite political narrative, but nothing more. Certainly not the data.

But I agree, in part -- there should be less government spending in some areas. For example, the $800 billion dollars we spend annually on weapons manufacturers. Good place to cut spending.