Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The 'Inflation Reduction Act' Reduces Inflation by One-Third of a Point — Over 10 Years
PJ Media ^ | August 2, 2022 | RICK MORAN

Posted on 08/02/2022 1:09:12 PM PDT by lowbridge

It should come as no surprise that the $739 billion “Inflation Reduction Act” doesn’t reduce inflation much at all. Moody’s Analytics chief economist Mark Zandi says that, over a ten-year period, the bill would reduce inflation by all of one-third of a percentage point.

“Through the middle of this decade the impact of the legislation on inflation is marginal, but it becomes more meaningful later in the decade,” Zandi wrote.

As Politico reports, “That assessment lands on the heels of another report from the Penn Wharton Budget Model — whose research is said to be favored by Manchin (D-W.Va.) — which characterized the bill’s long-term inflationary impact as being ‘statistically indistinguishable from zero.’”

(Excerpt) Read more at pjmedia.com ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: bidenvoters; inflation; inflationreduction; ira
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-38 next last

1 posted on 08/02/2022 1:09:12 PM PDT by lowbridge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: lowbridge

That is what the model says. Reality?


2 posted on 08/02/2022 1:10:38 PM PDT by PeterPrinciple (Thinking Caps are no longer being issued but there must be a warehouse full of them somewhere.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lowbridge

Liberals will be liberals. Let me know when they vote NOT to senselessly spend money that they don’t have, and it will be news. Otherwise, they are just acting normally-which is to say, they are fucxting the taxpayers at every opportunity.


3 posted on 08/02/2022 1:12:52 PM PDT by NicoDon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NicoDon

Thanks WVA. for sticking with phony Manchin
and making the rest of us pay for your stupidity.
This guy laughs at Y’all every time he self deals
while lying to you folks.


4 posted on 08/02/2022 1:16:13 PM PDT by Zenjitsuman (f)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: lowbridge

Money into pockets, out of thin air. Great gig, if you’re on the inside.


5 posted on 08/02/2022 1:16:50 PM PDT by lurk (u)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lowbridge

Liberal remedies consists of continue to do what didn’t work, only more of it.


6 posted on 08/02/2022 1:17:43 PM PDT by BitWielder1 (I'd rather have Unequal Wealth than Equal Poverty.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lowbridge

Once again, another clusterbuck solution do they can all say that they addressed the problem, while kicking the can down the street.


7 posted on 08/02/2022 1:19:37 PM PDT by Terry L Smith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lowbridge

It doesn’t do a d*** thing to reduce inflation. More spending does not do a thing to reduce inflation, especially when inflation is caused by shortages. Shortages caused by…. Gee, let me guess.


8 posted on 08/02/2022 1:21:45 PM PDT by GrumpyOldGuy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PeterPrinciple

That is what the model says.

I’m sure the economic model is just as reliable as the global warming models.

People have a bad habit of believing computer models because computers somehow have the aura of being coldly analytical. They forget that every line of code and every algorithm was produced by a human and putting it into a computer does not make the model “better”.

In fact, every model, no matter how encompassing, can never include all the variables that drive reality. A perfect example are the housing default models used back before the GFC. On paper, everything looked great; “safe as houses”. One of the items left out of the housing default model was the physiology involved when one property gets foreclosed in a neighborhood, there is a “contagion” effect that causes surrounding property values to crater, setting off more foreclosures, etc.

“...build into models an assumption that all market participants — bankers, lenders, borrowers and consumers — behave rationally at all times, as if they were economists making the most financially favorable choices. Clearly, he says, rational behavior is not that dependable, or else people would not do self-destructive things like taking out mortgages they could not afford, a key factor in the financial crisis. Nor would completely rational executives at financial firms invest in securities backed by those risky mortgages, which they did.”

https://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article/why-economists-failed-to-predict-the-financial-crisis/


9 posted on 08/02/2022 1:24:10 PM PDT by Flick Lives
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: lowbridge

Why do supposed “conservative” commentators play their game? First by even using the propaganda nomenclature the dems put on the bill and second, by citing an economic model that is pure fiction.

Anyone anywhere knows that if you pump $400 billion more dollars into the economy, you’re going to make inflation worse. Still more, the government is going to take billions out of productive enterprises and redistribute it to green fairy dust projects. What could possibly go wrong?


10 posted on 08/02/2022 1:26:35 PM PDT by con-surf-ative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GrumpyOldGuy

If reduces inflation by increasing taxation on every one not just those making 400K. If you follow that ‘logic’.

Its mostly how to hollow out the US economy while turning the US energy grid over to the CCP under the guise of renewable energy with windmills and solar panels made in China.


11 posted on 08/02/2022 1:29:16 PM PDT by PIF (They came for me and mine ... now its your turn)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: lowbridge

Must be CRT math....


12 posted on 08/02/2022 1:33:02 PM PDT by G Larry (Anybody notice that Satan is hard at work?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lowbridge

How f*ing stupid is this. It includes tax increases on the rich and businesses...the usual bogeyman for the Democrats. Ok, so if business taxes go up, they will try to pass that onto consumers. However, since price goes up, demand goes down and that’s supposed to lower prices? What it does is raises prices consumers face, resulting in less being bought, which also means less demand for labor and other inputs.

Increase taxes on the rich sounds so good, until you realize it is the rich who create new businesses and expand existing ones using their capital for real investment in plant and equipment. So, let’s kick them in the teeth because most people vilify the rich and love the poor. Never mind that they can’t create growing employment opportunities. Why do we glorify the poor? How many of you were hired by a poor person?

The Fed isn’t helping, either. The Equation of Exchange says MV = PQ, where M is the money supply, V is the velocity of money (i.e., the rate it turns over in the system—pretty much unchanged for decades), P is the price index, and Q is real output of goods and services. Because V is virtually constant and we want P to be constant (no inflation), if real output grows by X percent, then the money supply needs to increase by a similar percent. It takes a steady hand on M to keep things balanced. Now, go look at the data on M2 (the near-money measure of M) and you’ll see the Fed looks like it has palsy.

Finally, study a President who has no clue on any of this or, indeed, even where he is. All this bodes badly for the US.


13 posted on 08/02/2022 1:34:06 PM PDT by econjack (I'm not bossy. I just know what you should be doing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lowbridge

It doesn’t even do that.


14 posted on 08/02/2022 1:34:23 PM PDT by DarrellZero
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Flick Lives

I wonder what the model error is?
This great reduction might even not be outside the calculated error.


15 posted on 08/02/2022 1:34:54 PM PDT by Reily
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: lowbridge
The proper way to read these government calculated expectations from a bill are to assume that it will be 50x in the opposite direction in a quarter of the time. So 1/3 of a point reduced over 10 years really means 17% increase over the next 30 months.

Seems about what I'd expect.

16 posted on 08/02/2022 1:42:54 PM PDT by pepsi_junkie (Often wrong, but never in doubt!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lowbridge

17 posted on 08/02/2022 1:44:23 PM PDT by MtnClimber (For photos of Colorado scenery and wildlife, click on my screen name for my FR home page.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lowbridge

Deficit spending to reduce inflation?

Talk about bass ackward!


18 posted on 08/02/2022 1:45:01 PM PDT by BenLurkin (The above is not a statement of fact. It is either opinion, or satire, or both.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lowbridge

It’s a spending hike paid for by a tax increase on corporations and some imaginary savings from heathcare.


19 posted on 08/02/2022 1:45:28 PM PDT by DannyTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lowbridge

The bill will have zero effect on inflation. Inflation over the long term is a monetary phomenoa.


20 posted on 08/02/2022 1:47:11 PM PDT by C19fan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-38 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson