In Biden's first 100 days, he created inflation trouble for himself that he can't easily fix now. The challenge for Democrats will be to climb out of this situation by 2024.
Josh provides a good self-reflection on policies that are ideologically driven without consideration of the basic reality of the impacts in a large energy driven economy. The elite progressive position on rapid decarbonization at all cost without sufficient consideration of energy economics or energy security leads to declining standard of living for the poor and middle class. It is not surprising that the non-elite class is pushing back.
It’s hard for me to understand how it was that there was no push back (at least that I’m aware of) within the Biden administration. How could anyone not understand that trying to reduce fuel consumption so quickly was going to backfire? It impacts just about everything in our economy, and now that truckers are paying at least twice as much for diesel, that is showing up in our supply chains and what we pay for groceries, and pretty much everything else these days.
Explained by, we get to vote for the knuckleheads that the 10% Party Extremes decide represent them best, because in their view they know what's best for everyone.
My view of the political spectrum ....10-35-5-5-35-10.
They campaign to get our votes in the middle 10%, but move quickly to satisfy their own base once elected.
Great post as always Mr. Barro. That said, what austerity measures do you think that Republicans will try to enact if they get control of Congress or the Senate that do not affect entitlements? Where do you see the spending cuts taking place? We know that for both parties raising taxes right now is not politically popular, and the GOP hasn't laid out any policies for what their plans actually are. This is par for the course for them, however all I see happening over the next 2 years is them trying to wait it out until the 2024 election. Thoughts?
I appreciate your perspective and I know that this wasn't a column about climate change, but if you're going to criticize the Democrats for taking (admittedly, politically unpopular) actions to make fossil fuels less available, it would be helpful to explain how you would like them to go about driving a shift away from increased emissions? Because the Republicans will simply let the planet burn - should we have two parties that both treat climate change as a myth rather than a tangible problem that needs to be addressed?
I agree with what you've said in the column, but what about the argument that's been made by a number of people that part of the reason for higher gas prices is the reluctance of companies to increase production both at the well and the refinery level because their investors want to reap the larger profits currently available, and want those profits returned to them rather than invested in more production (which would lower prices and therefore profit)?
We don't need to overthink this. Parties in power almost always take a beating in the midterms. This year is likely to be no different, and the Democrats may do better than average (we'll see). One can argue the longer-term benefits of the Keystone pipeline but in any alternative scenario, its impact on the midterms would always be zilch.
And yes inflation is still too high and clearly the ARP was in hindsight too big. But gas prices have generally fallen and are only moderately above where they were a year ago (https://gasprices.aaa.com/). And I wouldn't be surprised if we see inflation fall to a less politically-sensitive level without a significant recession. It's quite possible that within a year we'll all be wondering what the big fuss was about.
Josh provides a good self-reflection on policies that are ideologically driven without consideration of the basic reality of the impacts in a large energy driven economy. The elite progressive position on rapid decarbonization at all cost without sufficient consideration of energy economics or energy security leads to declining standard of living for the poor and middle class. It is not surprising that the non-elite class is pushing back.
It’s hard for me to understand how it was that there was no push back (at least that I’m aware of) within the Biden administration. How could anyone not understand that trying to reduce fuel consumption so quickly was going to backfire? It impacts just about everything in our economy, and now that truckers are paying at least twice as much for diesel, that is showing up in our supply chains and what we pay for groceries, and pretty much everything else these days.
Great article.
It's too bad we can't get the best of the republican agenda and the best of the democrat's agenda, and be able to vote for the USA.
Instead we get the worst of both!
Explained by, we get to vote for the knuckleheads that the 10% Party Extremes decide represent them best, because in their view they know what's best for everyone.
My view of the political spectrum ....10-35-5-5-35-10.
They campaign to get our votes in the middle 10%, but move quickly to satisfy their own base once elected.
Great post as always Mr. Barro. That said, what austerity measures do you think that Republicans will try to enact if they get control of Congress or the Senate that do not affect entitlements? Where do you see the spending cuts taking place? We know that for both parties raising taxes right now is not politically popular, and the GOP hasn't laid out any policies for what their plans actually are. This is par for the course for them, however all I see happening over the next 2 years is them trying to wait it out until the 2024 election. Thoughts?
I appreciate your perspective and I know that this wasn't a column about climate change, but if you're going to criticize the Democrats for taking (admittedly, politically unpopular) actions to make fossil fuels less available, it would be helpful to explain how you would like them to go about driving a shift away from increased emissions? Because the Republicans will simply let the planet burn - should we have two parties that both treat climate change as a myth rather than a tangible problem that needs to be addressed?
A revival of the nuclear industry would (eventually) mean affordable, clean energy.
I agree with what you've said in the column, but what about the argument that's been made by a number of people that part of the reason for higher gas prices is the reluctance of companies to increase production both at the well and the refinery level because their investors want to reap the larger profits currently available, and want those profits returned to them rather than invested in more production (which would lower prices and therefore profit)?
We don't need to overthink this. Parties in power almost always take a beating in the midterms. This year is likely to be no different, and the Democrats may do better than average (we'll see). One can argue the longer-term benefits of the Keystone pipeline but in any alternative scenario, its impact on the midterms would always be zilch.
And yes inflation is still too high and clearly the ARP was in hindsight too big. But gas prices have generally fallen and are only moderately above where they were a year ago (https://gasprices.aaa.com/). And I wouldn't be surprised if we see inflation fall to a less politically-sensitive level without a significant recession. It's quite possible that within a year we'll all be wondering what the big fuss was about.
Josh, couldn't/shouldn't the strengthening dollar lead to lower gas prices?