Inflation reduction act

Home Forums Decaffeinated Coffee Inflation reduction act

Viewing 27 posts - 1 through 27 (of 27 total)
  • Author
  • #2113047
    ☕️coffee addict

    I hear republicans complaining that people are going to be taxed up the wazoo with this bill but isn’t that the point?

    Inflation happens because there is too much money in circulation (remember those stimulus checks I said was going to cause inflation) well now the government has to bring that money back into the treasury and one way to do it is by taxation (another way is by raising interest rates so less money goes into circulation)

    What does the republicans want to do to stop inflation?

    (I know, I’m a republican, and I’m championing the democrats but doesn’t this make sense?)


    In this bill, the money is brought in and spent, or, more precise, spent and then possibly brought in. I mean, Pres Manchin made us feel better about this – it is 3x lower than the previous idea, and there is even something for mining and oil, I think. But, still if your main idea of raising funds is by spending more on IRS upfront in a hope they find something, this is somewhat desperate. As it is, they send insane notices to validate $0.02 and similar, what will be next.


    The primary cause of inflation is government spending, so the way to cut inflation is for the government to stop spending money. Appropriating more money is the way to increase inflation. It is like a fireman who feels the way to put out a fire is to give it more fuel and air. The very establishment (un-MAGA like, dull at times) Wall Street Journal said the name of the bill is so dishonest, that it insults used car salesmen (who have a somewhat deserved reputation for mislabeling things).

    Reb Eliezer

    The primary cause of inflation is not enough supply, so we increase supply through government spending.


    The primary cause of misinformation is akuperma.

    ☕️coffee addict

    “The primary cause of inflation is not enough supply, so we increase supply through government spending”

    Supply of what? Money or goods?


    There is one and only one basic cause of inflation: too high a rate of growth in the quantity of money

    Milton Friedman

    Reb Eliezer

    Obviously not money. There is an argument between supply side economics (Milton Friedman) and demand side (Keynesian). There is no incentive to increase supply if the demand is low, so the government must do that.

    Reb Eliezer

    What Milton Friedman says is not exactly true. There is another source of inflation the costs of products which are passed on to consumers who are getting a fixed income.


    RebE, and who is your source so that I could review? Or is this your reading of Milton Friedman?

    Reb Eliezer

    AAQ, I base myself on what you said, which if Milton Friedman said would not be correct as that also causes inflation. I don’t have to read him as I don’t agree with him. Increased demand because of too much money in circulation and lack of goods which are desired to buy including its costs causes inflation. President Bush Sr. called it voodoo economics.


    RebE I don’t have to read him as I don’t agree with him

    I am stunned hearing this from such a tzadik. I hold the same position regarding Einstein, never agreed with him on anything.. Surely MF heard all bala batishe explanations before doing his Nobel prize winning research.. and note that there is way less inflation in the world after his theories got accepted. I would be interested in your opinion after you read MF. Some of his writings are quite accessible. Not saying that he is always right. He has an early paper comparing two similar sized economies, Hong Kong and Israel. His conclusion was that Chinese capitalism worked better than Israeli socialism. Of course, things changed in the long term,

    Reb Eliezer

    AAQ, The Republicans following MF add more to the deficit per year than the Democrats according to online analysis. Tax cuts to the rich does not increase the economy.


    RebE, you can’t study economy as Indian blind men were studying an elephant: each describing the part that he touched. In your personal finance, you can be a college graduate or a home owner with “deficits” due to acquisition of knowledge or assets. That is ok. So, just point that out without analyzing overall impact on economy is silly. And it is not even the country’s deficit you are talking about, but the government.

    R Twersky describing how we are all affected by personal biases, recalls a rich man who had a socialist driver, who went to daily meetings where they railed against the rich, but the two were ok with each other. One night, the driver stayed home. The rich man asked him – why he is not at the meeting. The driver said – today that explained that after the revolution, they’ll divide all assets and everyone will get $4,000! I already accumulated $4,100 from your wages, so I am not interested anymore.


    Theory behind deficits as used by Reagan:
    government programs are hard to eliminate. Every benefit relates to a specific group of people with whom it is popular. At the same time, cost is dispersed. It is just $2 for every citizen. So, every program has a voter block that will defend it, and fighting to close these programs one by one is hard.

    Instead, you reduce the total amount of money available to the government. Here people see substantial savings and support it. This leads to immediate deficits but eventually forces government to live within the means. This is like instead of convincing your teenager that ice cream is bad for him, you simply reduce the allowance if money is not spent well.

    So, your real disagreement with Republicans is not “deficits” but whether we need more or less government involved in economy. Obviously, the right place is somewhere in the middle – we don’t want people without charity help, and we don’t want to live in Communist China. As to American reality, I think there is this place of compromise by having multiple layers of government and private charities. Each state, city, community is capable of doing a lot of things on their own. Then, people can choose where to live. I understand people who want to have political decisions different from my own, whether to the left or right. What I don’t understand when people want to restrict themselves and others from having peaceful choices. Especially those who had hasdei Hashem to escape totalitarian world. Another Hungarian, von Neumann, who witnessed (a little) both Nazi and Commie powers, became very committed helping US Army rather than participating in world socialists dreams as many educated people of his generation did.

    Reb Eliezer

    AAQ, we need to give a springboard to people by having job training to gain the necessary skills which was eliminated by Reagan. I don’t believe that government will make them reliant on it as we know that people don’t like to eat nehame dekesufa, bread of shame. This is the reason we are born in the first place. So the government should help to make people be able to stand on their feet and not like the republicans who believe in ‘sink or swim’. I never took welfare in my lifetime but I did exhaust my unemployment. The logic, let someone else help will have the person end up with nothing as the saying one mother can support ten children but ten children cannot support one mother.

    ☕️coffee addict

    “This is the reason we are born in the first place. So the government should help to make people be able to stand on their feet and not like the republicans who believe in ‘sink or swim’.“

    1) I guess you’ve never heard of מופס, Medicare welfare, food stamps, and section 8, and spoken to people that don’t mind government assistance as opposed to working

    2) if republicans were “sink or swim” then no one should be on government assistance in republican states


    RebE, as I mentioned shooting strawmen is not useful. Obviously you need some compromise between gevurah and chesed. And this compromise depends on the community it is applied to. For example, feds might provide minimal assistance to unemployed and illegals, CA may decide they will help unemployed more, San Francisco may decide to help illegals more, Jewish community may want to help parents and learners more. We can apply additional favorable assumptions about people within the community that will not be true for the country as a whole, such as half payment for animal damages that gemora brings in Roman analysis of Jewish law

    Reb Eliezer

    Why should the rich and corporations not pay their fair share when they use government facilities more?


    RebE, I feel you are going to next ask me when did I stop beating my wives!

    Of course, rich are already paying more than others – even if everyone pays 10% of their income, a rich person is paying more. Gemora, I think, in Bava Basra considers several cases of how to access taxes, viewed somewhat as user fees.

    In addition to tzedokah and paying for people who perform communal duties (Leviim) – all together ~ 20% , we have some services that apply to everyone, such as protecting city walls (border patrol, Dept of Defense). How would you pay? I guess both by person and by income – everyone needs their life to be protected equally, but property protection is protected proportionally to income.

    All in all, it seems that taxes should be a little less than proportional – many services are proportional to property, and some are per person, with some exemptions, such as Talmidei Chachamim. I do not see any suggestions of “progressive” taxation – asking richer people to routinely submit larger and larger share of their income.

    At the end, Bava Basra offers another approach – that a community (such a professional guild) – can create their own rules (in a case they do not have a chacham to ask). So, whatever a community agrees to, should be OK, however progressive it is. And as I mentioned above, the implications seems to be that such agreements should be done by smallest community possible. So, do your community, your town, your county, your state before you try to impose your views on the whole country. I am sure you agree to this approach – after all, you are not asking for a world-wide federal tax imposed by UN with Chinese and Russian vetoes, you agree to limit yourself to one country that has some common culture and a chance to come to an agreement. Why not devolve this lower so that we fight less? Rodef shalom …

    Reb Eliezer

    The Chasam Sofer says that Rodef Shalom means to be against peace because one who is ohev shalom will pursue peace. Sometimes peace is an enemy as with the yetzer hara and the reform movement, so we must be against it.


    Ok, RebE, a simple question – why are you not excited about pursuing your policies in the state or city of your choice? Wherever you are, in NY-Northeast area, I presume. NY currently has an un-indicted governor and NYC – mayor for a chance, both at the same time, so this could be a great time to show the world how great policies work. Or, you can point us to specific policies that you want other states to emulate, like Obama pointed to Romneycare: the latter as so popular in MA that Obama had no problems making it work in IL, or, wait, that is not how it happened, never mind.

    Reb Eliezer

    If not for the Democrats there would be no Medicare or Social Security. Currently, luckily, there is no taxes for Social Security under $25,000.


    I am not sure why you refuse to acknowledge my arguments, but that’s OK. I would like to mention that we just read in the last parsha that we should behave such that the nations should acknowledge how wise we, and our laws, are. This seems like exactly an approach I am proposing – build something small and let people emulate rather than force them. This even applies not towards other nations, but within also. As R Salanter said – one should always argue for Yiddishkeit, sometimes even with words.

    (at least) two major religions emulated us, but both made a similar mistake: they try to force the world to follow their religion. A lot of wars and inquisitors came out of this.


    RebE, incidently, social security seems to be a ripoff for most people. You would be better off investing that money (not just stocks, real estate, education, grandchildren). A rational government would have a safety net for poor, but the wisdom of social security was to make the program “respectable” by keeping everyone in. I am not arguing for or against, just explaining how this works.

    Reb Eliezer

    AAQ. who will support the seniors if they lose their money with their investment in their youth? I am happy that my Social Security is safe and kept in a lock box and I am against private investment.


    Their state, town, kahal. Last time I checked American constitution, it said that whatever is not mentioned there is reserved for States and people.

Viewing 27 posts - 1 through 27 (of 27 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.