> The government has been in deficit spending for a long time without much inflation
There was still inflation due to the deficit spending. Just because inflation was low doesnt mean it wouldnt have been lower without the deficit spending
A lot of people predicted it. It's not a novel concept that if you increase the money supply by 25% in one year, you risk seeing a rise in prices. We saw this first on asset prices. During the most uncertain and scariest time of the pandemic where we had no idea if the world was going to end, the stock market rose significantly above pre-covid levels. Later on many, including myself, thought there was a good chance it'll spread to consumer prices. I wrote a whole series about this starting on April 2, 2021
The fed should have predicted this as its pretty textbook economics. But they won't be held to account and working class people will pay the price through higher prices and lower wages. Then the remedy will be higher interest rates and a risk of higher unemployment and economic stagnation,
And economists have predicted 8 of the last 3 recessions. I'm sorry, I've been hearing inflation predictions for 40 years now. You can only cry wolf so many times. Was there anybody who said we wouldn't get inflation in 2008 but would in 2021? If so I'll listen to them.
The Fed has caused many recessions in the last 40 years because they prematurely raised interest rates because they were scared of the inflation boogeyman.
I believe the Fed is doing a fabulous job threading the needle between inflation and recession in a very challenging, no right answer environment.
We optimize for price so you cant align with something that price doesnt capture. Taxes and subsidies allows us to take those factors into consideration
The third way is believing there is practical value to restricting governments from disallowing their citizens to speak freely because a people who cannot speak freely tends to become revolutionary over time as their true desires grow divorced from the government's understanding of them.
That's miles away from thinking paying people to proliferate lies about how vaccines work is cool.
This argument hinges on whether one believes internet access is a right, and if it is, what form that right takes.
Neither is a settled question, though the world community tends to be leaning towards "yes" as the answer to the first and is busying itself with the mucky process of answering the second.
handeave-handwave That document is a good start, but it mostly says human rights that are violated are still violated if they are violated with the Internet. There are a lot of subtle questions of rights collision it doesn't address, to which I was referring (including how freedom of speech and freedom of press interact when the speech is through someone else's service).
... And that's considering only the UN member nations. 70+ nations are not UN members and a statement like this has no bearing on them.
This is a straw man. Something closer would be. You have a blog. You like the content I create. So you form a contract with me to development content and put it on your blog. Part of the contract is that you are the exclusive distributor of my content. You then decide you don’t like the content I’m putting out and cease to distribute my content.
