Jim, I think there is another point worth mentioning. Nobody wants runaway inflation, but a moderate rate of inflation works as a wealth transfer from creditors (rich people, China, etc) to debtors (ordinary people with mortgages, the USA, etc). The Fed has been targeting a long term inflation target of 2%. We have been below that for several years, exacerbating our wealth inequality problem. Borrowing to improve our National infrastructure, and paying it back with cheaper dollars, is not necessarily a bad thing.
Thanks Jim for this article. I've been pointing this out to friends I know for the last few weeks: the idea that "lowest unemployment rolls since Nixon was President" is marginalized in the news, whereas "highest price spike in 40 years" gets headlines every day. Even though gasoline prices make up the lion's share of the inflation. And of course this gets blamed on Biden ("let's go Brandon"). Even though the price increases are global and not limited to US territory. I agree with the prior comment that this is a sad result of today's media where the emphasis is on highlighting anything negative
There is a very simple reason, of course, for the greater emphasis on inflation than on unemployment: bad news sells; good news doesn't. And in this 21st century economic dystopia of profit-over-all-other-considerations, the news that sells wins every time.
I have to admit to being spoiled: I grew up in the age of Walter Cronkite & the Huntley-Brinkley Report, when TV news was guided by the simple presentation of events of the day ("And that's the way it was, ...") with the occasional, very well defined editorial content tossed in. Newspapers have always been biased to some extent, but the overriding mantra of all media at the time was the integrity of the content. Of course a strong argument can be made against the implicit bias of that era toward the official government lines, but even within this parameter objectivity and factual accuracy were paramount considerations. Profit was important, of course, but financial considerations seldom superseded journalistic integrity.
All that went out the window in the '80's with the rise of Limbaugh and his "stupid liberals" dog & pony show - and expanded in the '90's, when Fox took that concept to the next level and built a very profitable "infotainment" model around outrage. Since then Americans have been fed a nonstop diet of outrage and the profits of media organizations have skyrocketed. I've said many times that "righteous indignation" is a drug, and we are a nation of addicts.
Sadly, this is why we can't have nice things - like sensible immigration policies, universal health care, prison reform, free college, livable wages & reasonable real estate pricing, and of course a balanced representation of the lowest unemployment rates in a half century.
Jim, I think there is another point worth mentioning. Nobody wants runaway inflation, but a moderate rate of inflation works as a wealth transfer from creditors (rich people, China, etc) to debtors (ordinary people with mortgages, the USA, etc). The Fed has been targeting a long term inflation target of 2%. We have been below that for several years, exacerbating our wealth inequality problem. Borrowing to improve our National infrastructure, and paying it back with cheaper dollars, is not necessarily a bad thing.
Thanks Jim for this article. I've been pointing this out to friends I know for the last few weeks: the idea that "lowest unemployment rolls since Nixon was President" is marginalized in the news, whereas "highest price spike in 40 years" gets headlines every day. Even though gasoline prices make up the lion's share of the inflation. And of course this gets blamed on Biden ("let's go Brandon"). Even though the price increases are global and not limited to US territory. I agree with the prior comment that this is a sad result of today's media where the emphasis is on highlighting anything negative
There is a very simple reason, of course, for the greater emphasis on inflation than on unemployment: bad news sells; good news doesn't. And in this 21st century economic dystopia of profit-over-all-other-considerations, the news that sells wins every time.
I have to admit to being spoiled: I grew up in the age of Walter Cronkite & the Huntley-Brinkley Report, when TV news was guided by the simple presentation of events of the day ("And that's the way it was, ...") with the occasional, very well defined editorial content tossed in. Newspapers have always been biased to some extent, but the overriding mantra of all media at the time was the integrity of the content. Of course a strong argument can be made against the implicit bias of that era toward the official government lines, but even within this parameter objectivity and factual accuracy were paramount considerations. Profit was important, of course, but financial considerations seldom superseded journalistic integrity.
All that went out the window in the '80's with the rise of Limbaugh and his "stupid liberals" dog & pony show - and expanded in the '90's, when Fox took that concept to the next level and built a very profitable "infotainment" model around outrage. Since then Americans have been fed a nonstop diet of outrage and the profits of media organizations have skyrocketed. I've said many times that "righteous indignation" is a drug, and we are a nation of addicts.
Sadly, this is why we can't have nice things - like sensible immigration policies, universal health care, prison reform, free college, livable wages & reasonable real estate pricing, and of course a balanced representation of the lowest unemployment rates in a half century.