Government
Economics Professor Proposes Price Controls As A Powerful Weapon To Contain Inflation
Economics Professor Proposes Price Controls As A Powerful Weapon To Contain Inflation
Authored by Mike Shedlock via MishTalk.com,
Isabella Weber, an assistant professor of economics at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, trots out prove

Authored by Mike Shedlock via MishTalk.com,
Isabella Weber, an assistant professor of economics at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, trots out proven economic nonsense in a Guardian article.
Please consider her economically illiterate proposal: We Have a Powerful Weapon to Fight Inflation: Price Controls. It’s Time We Use It.
Inflation is near a 40-year high. Central banks around the world just promised to intervene. However, a critical factor that is driving up prices remains largely overlooked: an explosion in profits. In 2021, US non-financial profit margins have reached levels not seen since the aftermath of the second world war. This is no coincidence. The end of the war required a sudden restructuring of production which created bottlenecks similar to those caused by the pandemic. Then and now large corporations with market power have used supply problems as an opportunity to increase prices and scoop windfall profits.
The White House Council of Economic Advisers suggests that the best historical analogy for today’s inflation is the aftermath of the second world war. Then and now there was pent up demand thanks to high household savings.
President Truman was aware of the risks of ending price controls. On 30 October 1945, he warned that after the first world war, the US had “simply pulled off the few controls that had been established, and let nature take its course”. And he urged, “The result should stand as a lesson to all of us. A dizzy upward spiral of wages and the cost of living ended in the crash of 1920 – a crash that spread bankruptcy and foreclosure and unemployment throughout the Nation.” Nevertheless, price controls were pulled in 1946, again triggering inflation and a boom-bust cycle.
Today, there is once more a choice between tolerating the ongoing explosion of profits that drives up prices or tailored controls on carefully selected prices. Price controls would buy time to deal with bottlenecks that will continue as long as the pandemic prevails. Strategic price controls could also contribute to the monetary stability needed to mobilize public investments towards economic resilience, climate change mitigation and carbon-neutrality. The cost of waiting for inflation to go away is high. Senator Manchin’s withdrawal from the Build Back Better Act demonstrates the threat of a shrinking policy space at a time when large scale government action is in order. Austerity would be even worse: it risks manufacturing stagflation. We need a systematic consideration of strategic price controls as a tool in the broader policy response to the enormous macroeconomic challenges instead of pretending there is no alternative beyond wait-and-see or austerity.
Price Controls Never Work
Never. How many times do we have to prove this?
Nixon tried them, so did Venezuela, Argentina, and countless other nations.
There are however, conditions in which price controls might seem to work.
Conditions Under Which Price Controls "Seem" to Work
-
Price controls are set high enough that they weren't needed.
-
The supply constraints or the issue resulting in higher prices was on the verge of being fixed by the market anyway.
Isabella Weber was soundly and repeatedly blasted on Twitter for her nonsense.
The rules of interventionism:
— Daniel Lacalle (@dlacalle_IA) December 30, 2021
1) Say there is no inflation. Print
2) Say it is transitory. Print
3) Blame businesses. Print.
4) Blame consumers. Print
5) Price controls and rationing -> Crisis.
6) Print to combat deflation.
Repeat
https://t.co/WiO3BMAFKh
— Andrew Stuttaford (@AStuttaford) December 29, 2021
Then again, price controls have been such a success in Argentina over the years. ????
Shortages and Black Markets
Does the guardian have any actual economists working for the organisation?
— Louis Le Marquand (@LouLeMarquand) December 30, 2021
Practically, Price controls lead to shortages. Morally speaking they’re a fascistic means of interfering with the producer-consumer relationship. Trade should be voluntary. https://t.co/fGvX1gXseE
If the government sets prices too low there will be shortages. Venezuela provides a huge case in point where the official price of gas is a dime.
Try getting any for a dime.
Not only do price controls lead to shortages, they lead to black markets where people are willing to pay a higher price and do.
Fundamental Issues
-
Interest rates are too low
-
We had three rounds of stimulus overkill
-
Pandemic lockdowns cause labor shortage
-
Productivity going to hell because of boomer retirements
-
More regulations under Biden
Law of Bad Ideas
In 2014 I proposed a Law of Bad Ideas
Law of Bad Ideas: Bad ideas don’t go away until they have been tried and failed multiple times, and generally not even then.
Corollary One: Left alone, bad ideas get worse over time.
Corollary Two: The overwhelming desire to implement bad ideas leads to compromises guaranteed to make things worse.
Corollary Three: Those in positions of political power not only have the worst ideas, they also have the means to see those ideas are implemented.
Corollary Four: The worse the idea, the more likely it is to be embraced by academia and political opportunists.
Corollary Five: No politically acceptable idea is so bad it cannot be made worse.
Today I propose a couple new corollaries
-
For every problem there is at least one economically preposterous idea on how to fix it!
-
For every problem an economically illiterate person attacks the symptoms.
When I first saw the Guardian headline, I thought it was clickbait nonsense to generate reads. Unfortunately, Weber is serious as well as seriously delusional.
She did not mention any of the five fundamental issues. Instead she attacked prices, a symptom of the problem.
Weber is not fit to teach at the University of Massachusetts or anywhere else.
4,000 Years of Price Control
Four Thousand Years of Price Controlhttps://t.co/TAWy5X9pxnhttps://t.co/SSYyZSm7cd https://t.co/eMjE0gzZF8
— Mike "Mish" Shedlock (@MishGEA) December 30, 2021
Every Measure of Real Interest Rates Shows the Fed is Out of Control
If you want to understand the key issue, please see Every Measure of Real Interest Rates Shows the Fed is Out of Control
You might also wish to consider Food! What's in Your Basket and How Much is Inflation Eating?
* * *
Like these reports? If so, please Subscribe to MishTalk Email Alerts.
International
Repeated COVID-19 Vaccination Weakens Immune System: Study
Repeated COVID-19 Vaccination Weakens Immune System: Study
Authored by Zachary Stieber via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),
Repeated COVID-19…

Authored by Zachary Stieber via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),
Repeated COVID-19 vaccination weakens the immune system, potentially making people susceptible to life-threatening conditions such as cancer, according to a new study.
Multiple doses of the Pfizer or Moderna COVID-19 vaccines lead to higher levels of antibodies called IgG4, which can provide a protective effect. But a growing body of evidence indicates that the “abnormally high levels” of the immunoglobulin subclass actually make the immune system more susceptible to the COVID-19 spike protein in the vaccines, researchers said in the paper.
They pointed to experiments performed on mice that found multiple boosters on top of the initial COVID-19 vaccination “significantly decreased” protection against both the Delta and Omicron virus variants and testing that found a spike in IgG4 levels after repeat Pfizer vaccination, suggesting immune exhaustion.
Studies have detected higher levels of IgG4 in people who died with COVID-19 when compared to those who recovered and linked the levels with another known determinant of COVID-19-related mortality, the researchers also noted.
A review of the literature also showed that vaccines against HIV, malaria, and pertussis also induce the production of IgG4.
“In sum, COVID-19 epidemiological studies cited in our work plus the failure of HIV, Malaria, and Pertussis vaccines constitute irrefutable evidence demonstrating that an increase in IgG4 levels impairs immune responses,” Alberto Rubio Casillas, a researcher with the biology laboratory at the University of Guadalajara in Mexico and one of the authors of the new paper, told The Epoch Times via email.
The paper was published by the journal Vaccines in May.
Pfizer and Moderna officials didn’t respond to requests for comment.
Both companies utilize messenger RNA (mRNA) technology in their vaccines.
Dr. Robert Malone, who helped invent the technology, said the paper illustrates why he’s been warning about the negative effects of repeated vaccination.
“I warned that more jabs can result in what’s called high zone tolerance, of which the switch to IgG4 is one of the mechanisms. And now we have data that clearly demonstrate that’s occurring in the case of this as well as some other vaccines,” Malone, who wasn’t involved with the study, told The Epoch Times.
“So it’s basically validating that this rush to administer and re-administer without having solid data to back those decisions was highly counterproductive and appears to have resulted in a cohort of people that are actually more susceptible to the disease.”
Possible Problems
The weakened immune systems brought about by repeated vaccination could lead to serious problems, including cancer, the researchers said.
Read more here...
International
Study Falsely Linking Hydroxychloroquine To Increased Deaths Frequently Cited Even After Retraction
Study Falsely Linking Hydroxychloroquine To Increased Deaths Frequently Cited Even After Retraction
Authored by Jessie Zhang via Thje Epoch…

Authored by Jessie Zhang via Thje Epoch Times (emphasis ours),
An Australian and Swedish investigation has found that among the hundreds of COVID-19 research papers that have been withdrawn, a retracted study linking the drug hydroxychloroquine to increased mortality was the most cited paper.
With 1,360 citations at the time of data extraction, researchers in the field were still referring to the paper “Hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine with or without a macrolide for treatment of COVID-19: a multinational registry analysis” long after it was retracted.
Authors of the analysis involving the University of Wollongong, Linköping University, and Western Sydney Local Health District wrote (pdf) that “most researchers who cite retracted research do not identify that the paper is retracted, even when submitting long after the paper has been withdrawn.”
“This has serious implications for the reliability of published research and the academic literature, which need to be addressed,” they said.
“Retraction is the final safeguard against academic error and misconduct, and thus a cornerstone of the entire process of knowledge generation.”
Scientists Question Findings
Over 100 medical professionals wrote an open letter, raising ten major issues with the paper.
These included the fact that there was “no ethics review” and “unusually small reported variances in baseline variables, interventions and outcomes,” as well as “no mention of the countries or hospitals that contributed to the data source and no acknowledgments to their contributions.”

Other concerns were that the average daily doses of hydroxychloroquine were higher than the FDA-recommended amounts, which would present skewed results.
They also found that the data that was reportedly from Australian patients did not seem to match data from the Australian government.
Eventually, the study led the World Health Organization to temporarily suspend the trial of hydroxychloroquine on COVID-19 patients and to the UK regulatory body, MHRA, requesting the temporary pause of recruitment into all hydroxychloroquine trials in the UK.
France also changed its national recommendation of the drug in COVID-19 treatments and halted all trials.
Currently, a total of 337 research papers on COVID-19 have been retracted, according to Retraction Watch.
Further retractions are expected as the investigation of proceeds.
Government
Biden Signs Debt Ceiling Bill, Ending Monthslong Political Battle
Biden Signs Debt Ceiling Bill, Ending Monthslong Political Battle
Authored by Lawrence Wilson via The Epoch Times,
President Joe Biden signed…

Authored by Lawrence Wilson via The Epoch Times,
President Joe Biden signed the Fiscal Responsibility Act on Saturday, suspending the debt ceiling for 19 months and bringing a monthslong political battle to a close.
The compromise legislation negotiated by Biden and House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) passed both houses of Congress with bipartisan support this week, averting a potential default on the nation’s financial obligations.
“Passing this budget agreement was critical. The stakes could not have been higher,” Biden said in a Friday evening address to the nation from the Oval Office.
Congressional leaders in both parties, eager to avoid financial disaster, endorsed the bill.
McCarthy referred to the legislation in historic terms, calling it the biggest spending cut ever enacted by Congress. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said, “We’ve saved the country from the scourge of default,” after the bill passed the Senate on June 1.
House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) both supported the bill.
Biden vs. McCarthy
The president’s signature ends a monthslong cold war with McCarthy over terms for raising the nation’s $31.4 trillion debt ceiling.
The Financial Responsibility Act suspends the debt ceiling until Jan. 1, 2025, cuts non-defense discretionary spending slightly in 2024, and limits discretionary spending growth to 1 percent in 2025.
The agreement also contains permitting reforms for oil and gas drilling, changes to work requirements for some social welfare programs, and clawbacks of $20 billion in IRS funding and $30 billion in unspent COVID-19 relief funds, among other provisions.
President Joe Biden hosts debt limit talks with House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) and other congressional leaders in the Oval Office at the White House on May 9, 2023. (Kevin Lamarque/Reuters)
In the absence of congressional action to allow additional borrowing, the United States would have lacked the ready cash to pay all of its bills on June 5, according to Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen.
Yellen announced in January that the country was in danger of reaching its limit.
McCarthy then said Congress would not increase the limit without an agreement from the White House to cut spending. Biden said he would not negotiate over lifting the limit because that would put the full faith and credit of the United States at risk.
The impasse was broken in late April when the House passed the Limit, Save, Grow Act, authorizing a $1.5 trillion increase in borrowing along with spending cuts and other measures favored by Republicans.
Biden then agreed to negotiate with McCarthy, resulting in the Fiscal Responsibility Act.
Opposition
A vocal minority of lawmakers in both parties opposed the bill.
Some Republicans believed the agreement conceded too much to Democrats. Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas) nearly blocked the bill in committee, but it cleared by a single vote.
Some Democrats opposed the agreement because it cuts discretionary spending and changes work requirements for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). They said those provisions would hurt working Americans and those in need.
House Rules Committee member Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas) speaks at the Capitol on Jan. 30. (Win McNamee/Getty Images)
A group of Senate Republicans led by Lindsey Graham (R-N.C.) and Susan Collins (R-Maine) initially opposed the bill due to concerns about the level of defense spending. They were brought on board by assurances from Schumer and McConnell that emergency defense appropriations could be added later if needed.
The bill passed the House by a vote of 314 to 117 on May 31. Forty-six Democrats and 71 Republicans voted no.
The Senate passed the measure 63 to 36 the next day. Four Democrats, one Independent, and 41 Republicans voted no.
Mixed Reactions
Outside the Capitol, some observers applauded the bipartisan effort while others echoed the complaints of congressional dissenters.
“This kind of compromise is exactly how divided government should work,” Kelly Veney Darnell, interim CEO of the Bipartisan Policy Center, said in a June 2 statement.
EJ Antoni, a research fellow at The Heritage Institute, said “conservatives have little to celebrate with this deal, and much about which to complain.” According to Antoni, the bill doesn’t actually cut spending. He called it “left-wing legislation” in a statement published June 1.
Navin Nayak, counselor at the Center for American Progress, endorsed the legislation unenthusiastically, saying it was imperfect but necessary in a May 31 statement. Nayak said the Mountain Valley Pipeline, green-lighted by the bill, puts the safety of thousands at risk and the added work requirements will increase hunger in America.
Congress must now work the provisions of the Fiscal Responsibility Act into a federal budget and the dozen appropriations bills required to fund the government in the coming year.
The 2024 fiscal year begins on Oct. 1.
-
Spread & Containment5 hours ago
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Banned By Major Social Media Site, Campaign Pages Blocked
-
International7 hours ago
Study Falsely Linking Hydroxychloroquine To Increased Deaths Frequently Cited Even After Retraction
-
Spread & Containment15 hours ago
Mark Zuckerberg Moves to Kill a Pandemic Habit
-
Government11 hours ago
Biden Signs Debt Ceiling Bill, Ending Monthslong Political Battle
-
Uncategorized8 hours ago
Warren Buffett’s Advice on Stocks vs. Bonds
-
International15 hours ago
Complying, Not Defying: Twitter And The EU Censorship Code
-
Spread & Containment12 hours ago
Mark Zuckerberg Makes a Bold Move
-
International4 hours ago
Repeated COVID-19 Vaccination Weakens Immune System: Study