I find it odd that when talking about inflation or moral hazard people bring up money spent given to individuals but not about the trillions spent given to businesses. I think it is immoral for a country as wealthy as the United States to have so many people with medical debt. There should be universal, almost free healthcare. The moral imperative is far more important to me than considerations about inflation.

Reminds me of my joke policy that meets many people's stated goals yet would be universally unpopular: the government should fight inflation by confiscating money from billionaires and then destroying it.

Very nice. That would abrogate the concern that taxing the wealthy is socialist redistribution. Can’t have that accusation if you just burn it!

I dislike adding morals into this discussion. However, there is a real question of whether society in its current state can, in fact, function well. I personally would argue that right now society is very dysfunctional and that dysfunction is primarily benefiting those at the top. And the usual issue with dysfunctional societies is that they tend to fall apart. Now, reasonable person would argue that would not be a good thing even for those on the top of the pile, but clearly no one is scared enough yet.

All I want is balance. That societal balance does not exist now. Hence the tension that seems to be increasing.

I very much agree overall with your observations and points. I do think though that one should always consider moral aspects to policies and decision making since peoples’ lives are affected. Making policy based on economic theory without considering moral aspects seems like a bad idea in general.

Milton Friedman famously said: “Inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon, in the sense that it is and can be produced only by a more rapid increase in the quantity of money than in output.”

Well, he's wrong, given that output has been knocked about by a large number of non-monetary factors such as COVID, supply chain issues, the war with Russia, and (yet again) oil and gas.

The way I see it, even if there’s a war or Covid or whatever, if people don’t have more money to spend, they can’t pay higher prices. Then you get a recession.

If they do have the money (because you printed more) they pay the higher prices. Then you get inflation.

We have a housing crisis and an energy crisis. There's absolutely no need to drag monetary theory in when the outcome is due to failed industrial policy.

Why can't it be all three? I understand that it is easier to sell it as a specific political problem, but I am genuinely tired of arguing partial inflation problem, because discussing it as a whole undermines some political angle.

Two wildly different issues. Medical debt is still generally owed to payers, student loan debt (as considered in debt relief) is largely federal. The impacts of forgiveness of either would seem radically different.

And letting people starve or die would have been better than inflation?

I don't understand that point of view. It seems pretty cold to me.