Why do politicians think they can get away with such lunatic notions? Well, maybe because so much of the electorate has been schooled to believe that government has the solution to every problem. All we need to cure inflation (or anything else) is the political will to do the right thing! Harris would probably say something like that if asked.
Politicians think they can get away with such lunatic notions because it helps them get re-elected. After Nixon imposed wage-price controls in 1971, he was re-elected by a landslide in 1972. In the long run, the wage-price controls were about as effective as a WIN button. From 1972 to 1974, inflation rose from 3.4% to 12.3% (CPI, Bureau of Labor Statistics). But, they got Nixon re-elected.
See my response above to Scott P. I suspect that part of the logic of CE/BCE is that for quite a long time, historians and biblical scholars have generally placed Christ's birth as somewhere between 4 BC/BCE and 6 BC/BCE. If so, it's a bit odd to say that Christ was born several years before Christ. For this reason, in my view, it offers no disrespect for either Christ or Christianity to use a term that doesn't present this conflict. But, as I told Scott, I tend to go back and forth.
I prefer to date from the invention (or first good statement) of the scientific method. Back in the 1990s I failed to get people to adopt this system, whose zero year is 1620 AD/CE -- the publication of Bacon's Novum Organum.
Six of one\half a dozen of the other. As you pointed out no one knows the "exact" date. Next, let's argue how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Clockwise, Counter Clockwise? Tango or the Twist?
(Apologies. I thought I posted a response to you earlier, but it seems to have vanished.)
Your sentiments on this are stronger than mine. I go back and forth between BC/AD and BCE/CE. I went back and forth several times on this one. I will likely continue to go back and forth, more or less as the mood strikes me on a particular day.
CE is not some woke PC neologism. It dates at least as far back as the early 1600s, when Johannes Kepler used the Latin equivalent and it entered into English a few years later. When I use BCE/CE, it's because of two factors: (1) Biblical and historical authorities generally place Christ's birth between 6 BC/BCE and 4 AD/CE. If so, it seems strange to say that Christ was born 4 to 6 years Before Christ. (2) BCE/CE has been the preferred term for biblical scholars and historians for quite a long time.
When I use BC/AD, it's for the same reason that (as my son observed long ago), I tend to use quite a few older constructions for literary effect. I almost did so here. In the end, I noticed that I had written AD in one place and CE in another, and I just went through and made them consistent.
All that said, I understand and appreciate your view. On some days, it's my view, as well.
Re Senator John Blutarsky: Before seeing this the thought came to mind that Trump and Harris might have one thing in common: Both if one did not otherwise know differently could be grads from Faber College of Animal House fame.
The 1943 “workaround” to wage/price controls for employer provided health insurance led--if not directly--inexorably to OBAMACARE. You can’t quietly take candy from a baby nor even noisily take freebies from the populace once they’re bought off by GOVCO.
Indeed. Just after WWII, my parents opened a small children's clothing shop. For a while, price controls were still in effect. Some guy on the public dole would come around with a clipboard, checking their prices each week. I don't believe my parents ever accepted off-the-books money to exceed the official prices. But they did take choice merchandise and set it aside for their friends, since the price controls generated shortages. Doing so would have earned them the death penalty under Diocletian's edict.
Congress puts price controls on government in the form of a debt ceiling. Then, when they exceed that limit they simply raise the limit. At present, Congress and President Biden are not even pretending to limit government borrowing. Under the Orwellian-named Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023, the debt limit is suspended until January 1st, 2025, after the election. When President Harris decrees price controls on food and rent, will she allow her constituents to flout the price controls as freely as her government flouts the debt "ceiling" or will she apply a tyrannical double standard?
Debt limits aren’t precisely the same as price controls. But the opportunities for shenanigans are similar. And I have no doubt that price controls will not be enforced uniformly. Never are.
Yes but then he wouldn't have retired peacefully. The Senate didn't like it when the Emperors blamed them. Didn't end well for the Emperors. If Trump or Harris does it they get nasty editorials written. If the Roman Emperors did it, things ended differently.
No analysis of why the inflation started up? The attempt to have guns and butter during the Vietnam War? I remember an income tax surcharge at some point in the 1960s. But another great column.
Another great exercise in clarity and imagery. It’ll take a day or two for the modern toga party image to fade. But your main point should be chiseled into the halls of Congress and the Whitehouse.
I believe to paraphrase Madison” the Republic will end when the people find they can vote themselves money”. The politicians know this even when they don’t acknowledge or are aware of it themselves. People today don’t know the pain of fighting inflation to save the Republic. I started a business in 1980. I had to incorporate because the usury laws in my state precluded the banks from lending at the prevailing interest rate. After paying over 22% for a few months I felt the pain of Volcker’s cure. Having once been infected I would rather we don’t suffer that disease for much longer. Sadly I don’t see anyone in DC willing to prevent that train wreck from happening again.
Attacking Trump’s proposed tariffs as ”bad” is fair enough.
But you engage in the cardinal sin of taking Trump literally, but not seriously, when you throw in his offhand remark about credit card interest rates and claim that makes him roughly equivalent to Kamala in terms of attacks on price-gauging [sic], where price controls are a formal campaign plank from her (one of the very few) - even as, as you note, she denies that they are price controls.
Further, while I am no fan of steep tariffs, they would at least have potential benefits in terms of reducing deficits/debt (call it a VAT and leftists would love the idea…😏) in addition to their harms.
By contrast, price-controls have only negative consequences.
He said it, and it's not my responsibility to decide which of his public pronouncements he means and which he doesn't mean. I reject the notion that tariffs have the benefits you suggest. I also reject the idea that eliminating taxes on tips, overtime, and Social Security benefits is beneficial, and he pretty clearly means what he says on that.
Why do politicians think they can get away with such lunatic notions? Well, maybe because so much of the electorate has been schooled to believe that government has the solution to every problem. All we need to cure inflation (or anything else) is the political will to do the right thing! Harris would probably say something like that if asked.
Politicians think they can get away with such lunatic notions because it helps them get re-elected. After Nixon imposed wage-price controls in 1971, he was re-elected by a landslide in 1972. In the long run, the wage-price controls were about as effective as a WIN button. From 1972 to 1974, inflation rose from 3.4% to 12.3% (CPI, Bureau of Labor Statistics). But, they got Nixon re-elected.
I despise the use of CE instead of AD. It's form of historical erasure.
If you're going to use the dating system developed by the Christians, acknowledge it.
I agree. Using CE instead of AD means dating years from the birth of Christ while pretending that you aren't.
See my response above to Scott P. I suspect that part of the logic of CE/BCE is that for quite a long time, historians and biblical scholars have generally placed Christ's birth as somewhere between 4 BC/BCE and 6 BC/BCE. If so, it's a bit odd to say that Christ was born several years before Christ. For this reason, in my view, it offers no disrespect for either Christ or Christianity to use a term that doesn't present this conflict. But, as I told Scott, I tend to go back and forth.
I prefer to date from the invention (or first good statement) of the scientific method. Back in the 1990s I failed to get people to adopt this system, whose zero year is 1620 AD/CE -- the publication of Bacon's Novum Organum.
Six of one\half a dozen of the other. As you pointed out no one knows the "exact" date. Next, let's argue how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Clockwise, Counter Clockwise? Tango or the Twist?
(Apologies. I thought I posted a response to you earlier, but it seems to have vanished.)
Your sentiments on this are stronger than mine. I go back and forth between BC/AD and BCE/CE. I went back and forth several times on this one. I will likely continue to go back and forth, more or less as the mood strikes me on a particular day.
CE is not some woke PC neologism. It dates at least as far back as the early 1600s, when Johannes Kepler used the Latin equivalent and it entered into English a few years later. When I use BCE/CE, it's because of two factors: (1) Biblical and historical authorities generally place Christ's birth between 6 BC/BCE and 4 AD/CE. If so, it seems strange to say that Christ was born 4 to 6 years Before Christ. (2) BCE/CE has been the preferred term for biblical scholars and historians for quite a long time.
When I use BC/AD, it's for the same reason that (as my son observed long ago), I tend to use quite a few older constructions for literary effect. I almost did so here. In the end, I noticed that I had written AD in one place and CE in another, and I just went through and made them consistent.
All that said, I understand and appreciate your view. On some days, it's my view, as well.
Mister, we could use a man like Milton Friedman again...
First to publicly recognize the obscure quote.
Re Senator John Blutarsky: Before seeing this the thought came to mind that Trump and Harris might have one thing in common: Both if one did not otherwise know differently could be grads from Faber College of Animal House fame.
Excellent post!
"Knowledge is Good."
The 1943 “workaround” to wage/price controls for employer provided health insurance led--if not directly--inexorably to OBAMACARE. You can’t quietly take candy from a baby nor even noisily take freebies from the populace once they’re bought off by GOVCO.
Indeed. Just after WWII, my parents opened a small children's clothing shop. For a while, price controls were still in effect. Some guy on the public dole would come around with a clipboard, checking their prices each week. I don't believe my parents ever accepted off-the-books money to exceed the official prices. But they did take choice merchandise and set it aside for their friends, since the price controls generated shortages. Doing so would have earned them the death penalty under Diocletian's edict.
Congress puts price controls on government in the form of a debt ceiling. Then, when they exceed that limit they simply raise the limit. At present, Congress and President Biden are not even pretending to limit government borrowing. Under the Orwellian-named Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023, the debt limit is suspended until January 1st, 2025, after the election. When President Harris decrees price controls on food and rent, will she allow her constituents to flout the price controls as freely as her government flouts the debt "ceiling" or will she apply a tyrannical double standard?
Debt limits aren’t precisely the same as price controls. But the opportunities for shenanigans are similar. And I have no doubt that price controls will not be enforced uniformly. Never are.
It was thanks to Milton Friedman that I knew about Diocletian decades ago. Good job in adding further illumination on what he did.
The advantage that Harris and Trump have over the Roman Emperor is that they can always blame someone else if things don't work out.
I suspect Diocletian could find plenty of people to blame. He was ruling as part of the Tetrarchy--a foursome of emperors and vice-emperors.
Yes but then he wouldn't have retired peacefully. The Senate didn't like it when the Emperors blamed them. Didn't end well for the Emperors. If Trump or Harris does it they get nasty editorials written. If the Roman Emperors did it, things ended differently.
No analysis of why the inflation started up? The attempt to have guns and butter during the Vietnam War? I remember an income tax surcharge at some point in the 1960s. But another great column.
Another great exercise in clarity and imagery. It’ll take a day or two for the modern toga party image to fade. But your main point should be chiseled into the halls of Congress and the Whitehouse.
Chisel away!
I believe to paraphrase Madison” the Republic will end when the people find they can vote themselves money”. The politicians know this even when they don’t acknowledge or are aware of it themselves. People today don’t know the pain of fighting inflation to save the Republic. I started a business in 1980. I had to incorporate because the usury laws in my state precluded the banks from lending at the prevailing interest rate. After paying over 22% for a few months I felt the pain of Volcker’s cure. Having once been infected I would rather we don’t suffer that disease for much longer. Sadly I don’t see anyone in DC willing to prevent that train wreck from happening again.
Great one Mr. Graboyes
😕
Attacking Trump’s proposed tariffs as ”bad” is fair enough.
But you engage in the cardinal sin of taking Trump literally, but not seriously, when you throw in his offhand remark about credit card interest rates and claim that makes him roughly equivalent to Kamala in terms of attacks on price-gauging [sic], where price controls are a formal campaign plank from her (one of the very few) - even as, as you note, she denies that they are price controls.
Further, while I am no fan of steep tariffs, they would at least have potential benefits in terms of reducing deficits/debt (call it a VAT and leftists would love the idea…😏) in addition to their harms.
By contrast, price-controls have only negative consequences.
He said it, and it's not my responsibility to decide which of his public pronouncements he means and which he doesn't mean. I reject the notion that tariffs have the benefits you suggest. I also reject the idea that eliminating taxes on tips, overtime, and Social Security benefits is beneficial, and he pretty clearly means what he says on that.