Markets reacted badly last week to Federal Reserve chairman Jerome Powell’s statements outlining the Fed’s initial forecast for the coming year. With inflation clearly no longer being “transitory,” with the Consumer Price Index accelerating to 7 percent in December, Powell has turned increasingly hawkish.
I was surprised to see a tweet from President Joe Biden showing the gross domestic product (GDP) of the United States for 2021 compared to the average GDP growth under other presidents. The tweet stated, “This didn’t happen by accident. Because of the actions we took, last year we achieved the fastest economic growth in nearly four decades.”
It looks increasingly like inflation is here to stay. The Federal Reserve economists admit this one day and deny it the next. In the hallowed halls of monetary orthodoxy – from New York to San Francisco to DC – confusion is setting in.
Until now, orthodox monetary theory has had an easy time of it. Since the articulation of inflation targeting in the 1980s and 1990s, rates have been tending in one direction: down. They fall, fall, fall, then rise a little – only to fall some more.
In response to the argument in favor of closing loopholes, Ludwig von Mises once noted that “capitalism breathes through those loopholes.”
In many ways, special economic zones (SEZs) are the ultimate loophole. But, like all loopholes, they benefit the politically connected few who know how to take advantage of them as opposed to the masses.
Since the beginning of this year, the entire world has seen a rise in prices which caused panic and surprise among people; however, the inflation we are observing these last months is not a surprise to those who have seen the monetary and fiscal policy of the governments around the world since the pandemic started. With the excuse of the virus, States have implemented huge spendings which were financed, at least in part, by printing money and other expansionist policies and the results are clear now.
“What starts here changes the world.”
The University of Texas at Austin’s motto not only applies to the research university’s overall impact on world affairs, but also to the outsized role cultural and political developments within the United States have on the rest of the planet.
CNN touts San Jose as being “poised to take a step closer to first-in-the-nation gun ownership requirements.” At first, I had thought that the poorly worded headline must be mistaken, as there are cities, such as Kennesaw, GA, that have required residents own guns. In San Jose’s case, “gun ownership requirements” means paying an annual tax and being required to purchase insurance to exercise the right (privilege?) to own a firearm.
The answer to the question of Adolf Hitler’s position on private ownership and nationalization appears to be fairly simple. It is generally accepted that Hitler recognized private ownership of the means of production and rejected nationalization. To leave it at that, as is generally done, would mean being superficial because this statement is far too undifferentiated and leaves too many questions unanswered. In my book Hitler’s National Socialism I analyze the dictator’s economic and sociopolitical thinking.
