I met Chase Oliver, the presidential nominee of the Libertarian Party, a few months ago here in San Antonio. My one question for him was how would he tamp down inflation. He responded by saying he’d cut government spending and pare down the debt/deficits.
That was the right answer to a different question.
His campaign website offers a little more clarity. He would stop “printing money from thin air” to “significantly reduce the money supply.” Closer, but not quite there. This is more or less how the rest of his economic platform is.
Strictly speaking, inflation is caused by currency devaluation. By definition, the greater the quantity of a particular item, the less valuable each individual item is. In that context, he’s onto something. But dollars are a different animal. They’re simply a measurement.
If I have a growing number of quart-size Pyrex containers, that doesn’t mean the cups or liters marked within change in size. Same thing with the dollar.
History has proven well for presidents (JFK, Reagan, Clinton) who come out explicitly for a strong, or at least stable dollar. It would be ideal if he did same. As it is, he arguably ties inflation too closely to fiscal policy, which itself is missing a big chunk on his website.
Not once are “income taxes” mentioned. Not to cut them, not to streamline them, much less to repeal the 16th amendment and abolish the IRS altogether. No one is under the illusion that the latter could be done tomorrow, but it’s at least the ultimate goal.
Now, former President Donald Trump has floated the idea of completely replacing the income tax with his favorite political weapon; tariffs. To his credit, one bright spot of Mr. Oliver’s campaign is his call to “immediately end all tariffs.”
I will always advocate for same, and to leverage specialization around the world for the benefit of Americans. But tariffs are a consumption tax, and If I’m pressed to choose between them or a tax on work, I’ll go with them.
In an otherwise solid appearance on CSPAN, he elaborated on his stance on taxes and the other side of the fiscal ledger; spending.
“To reduce taxes as much as we can” he said, “we have to reduce the size and scope of government. Otherwise, we’ll create the hidden tax of inflation where government will print money to cover the cost.”
First of all, Uncle Sam doesn’t cover his bills by printing money; he does it by borrowing.
As undesirable as that is, it takes a backseat to the sheer volume of earnings and savings that the government takes from citizens in taxes. Those should be reduced as much and as soon as possible with no preconditions.
Moreover, he appears to subscribe to the belief that lower taxes necessarily mean lower tax revenues. Adherents to this view can look to history again, and see that the opposite generally happens. At that point the bonus opportunity arises to slash taxes even further.
Beyond that, his spending cut proposals are vague and insufficient. He wants to “reduce spending to prepandemic levels to balance the budget.” Some of that would likely result from his goal of reining in foreign intervention by the Pentagon.
However, though he has addressed it on the stump, there’s no mention on his website about the biggest driver of federal spending: entitlements.
Also missing is a stout defense of the supply side. The only time it makes an appearance is as yet another weapon to fight inflation.
We could split hairs on “demand exceeding supply” causing inflation, as he asserts. I grew up in the late 1970s hearing the phrase “too many dollars chasing too few goods.” But then as now, as pointed out earlier, sustained inflation is caused by one thing; currency devaluation.
The supply issues that contributed to higher prices in recent years were most assuredly caused by the destructive lockdowns. They will heal when supply chains are put back together, whether globally, domestically, or a hybrid. Production costs will come down. Subsequently, so will consumer prices.
One could be forgiven for getting the two causes of high prices jumbled together. But when he says “increased productivity and more efficient supply” can ease inflation on the one hand, but “supply-side policies don’t curb inflation” on the other, one is left wondering which is it?
I shouldn’t be left scratching my head this much.
When I first voted for a libertarian (Harry Browne for president in 2000), I did so because his stance on various issues was clear, and his proposals were ambitious. I don’t think I even knew he was a libertarian.
At least on economic policy, I’m not getting the same vibe here in 2024.
That was the right answer to a different question.
His campaign website offers a little more clarity. He would stop “printing money from thin air” to “significantly reduce the money supply.” Closer, but not quite there. This is more or less how the rest of his economic platform is.
Strictly speaking, inflation is caused by currency devaluation. By definition, the greater the quantity of a particular item, the less valuable each individual item is. In that context, he’s onto something. But dollars are a different animal. They’re simply a measurement.
If I have a growing number of quart-size Pyrex containers, that doesn’t mean the cups or liters marked within change in size. Same thing with the dollar.
History has proven well for presidents (JFK, Reagan, Clinton) who come out explicitly for a strong, or at least stable dollar. It would be ideal if he did same. As it is, he arguably ties inflation too closely to fiscal policy, which itself is missing a big chunk on his website.
Not once are “income taxes” mentioned. Not to cut them, not to streamline them, much less to repeal the 16th amendment and abolish the IRS altogether. No one is under the illusion that the latter could be done tomorrow, but it’s at least the ultimate goal.
Now, former President Donald Trump has floated the idea of completely replacing the income tax with his favorite political weapon; tariffs. To his credit, one bright spot of Mr. Oliver’s campaign is his call to “immediately end all tariffs.”
I will always advocate for same, and to leverage specialization around the world for the benefit of Americans. But tariffs are a consumption tax, and If I’m pressed to choose between them or a tax on work, I’ll go with them.
In an otherwise solid appearance on CSPAN, he elaborated on his stance on taxes and the other side of the fiscal ledger; spending.
“To reduce taxes as much as we can” he said, “we have to reduce the size and scope of government. Otherwise, we’ll create the hidden tax of inflation where government will print money to cover the cost.”
First of all, Uncle Sam doesn’t cover his bills by printing money; he does it by borrowing.
As undesirable as that is, it takes a backseat to the sheer volume of earnings and savings that the government takes from citizens in taxes. Those should be reduced as much and as soon as possible with no preconditions.
Moreover, he appears to subscribe to the belief that lower taxes necessarily mean lower tax revenues. Adherents to this view can look to history again, and see that the opposite generally happens. At that point the bonus opportunity arises to slash taxes even further.
Beyond that, his spending cut proposals are vague and insufficient. He wants to “reduce spending to prepandemic levels to balance the budget.” Some of that would likely result from his goal of reining in foreign intervention by the Pentagon.
However, though he has addressed it on the stump, there’s no mention on his website about the biggest driver of federal spending: entitlements.
Also missing is a stout defense of the supply side. The only time it makes an appearance is as yet another weapon to fight inflation.
We could split hairs on “demand exceeding supply” causing inflation, as he asserts. I grew up in the late 1970s hearing the phrase “too many dollars chasing too few goods.” But then as now, as pointed out earlier, sustained inflation is caused by one thing; currency devaluation.
The supply issues that contributed to higher prices in recent years were most assuredly caused by the destructive lockdowns. They will heal when supply chains are put back together, whether globally, domestically, or a hybrid. Production costs will come down. Subsequently, so will consumer prices.
One could be forgiven for getting the two causes of high prices jumbled together. But when he says “increased productivity and more efficient supply” can ease inflation on the one hand, but “supply-side policies don’t curb inflation” on the other, one is left wondering which is it?
I shouldn’t be left scratching my head this much.
When I first voted for a libertarian (Harry Browne for president in 2000), I did so because his stance on various issues was clear, and his proposals were ambitious. I don’t think I even knew he was a libertarian.
At least on economic policy, I’m not getting the same vibe here in 2024.
RSS Feed