This piece on inflation by @BuddyYakov gets it exactly right: the problem we need to be addressing - in both the short term and long term - is not excessive growth in demand, but sluggish growth in supply. noemamag.com/how-to-put-the…
In retrospect it's strange that "supply side economics" has been associated with conservatives - in general, raising the economy's productive capacity is going to require a bigger public sector, not a smaller one. 
The idea that there is a direct link between labor supply and employment needs full debunking elsewhere. But I'm just following textbook economics when I say: Demand determines employment, then labor supply conditions determine the wage at that employment level.
You can imagine a world where businesses post a wage, and then each day wait to see how many people show up to work at that wage. But that is not the world we live in.
To say "the Fed can deal with inflation," as people often do, is to say that the Fed can make us sufficiently poor to buy only what business is currently capable of producing, locking in the disruptions of the pandemic. Yes, it can; do we want it to?
When I say that investments in green energy are a natural way to deal with inflation, people look at me like I'm crazy. But given the central role of fossil fuel prices in almost all recent price accelerations (including this one), isn't it obvious? Jacob is on point here.
Shout out to @pigphilosophy!
The only thing in the piece I disagree with is the implied suggestion that those of us over 40 *don't* face a future full of floods, fires and storms.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
