this post was submitted on 19 Sep 2023
50 points (96.3% liked)

Canada

7206 readers
338 users here now

What's going on Canada?



Communities


🍁 Meta


🗺️ Provinces / Territories


🏙️ Cities / Local Communities


🏒 SportsHockey

Football (NFL)

  • List of All Teams: unknown

Football (CFL)

  • List of All Teams: unknown

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer


💻 Universities


💵 Finance / Shopping


🗣️ Politics


🍁 Social and Culture


Rules

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage:

https://lemmy.ca/


founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 

August's consumer price index figures mark the second consecutive month inflation has accelerated in Canada, even as grocery prices saw some relief.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 19 points 1 year ago (2 children)

The other classic way to reduce inflation is simply taxing the rich. It’s especially efficient to tax the wealthiest when inequality is high, as it is now. This is macroeconomics 101. Meanwhile, very dubious fringe conservative theories get mentioned instead, like intentionally causing unemployment. All the “solutions” put the burden on the poor.

The fact that taxing the rich never comes up in mainstream discussion as a possibility shows how captured our media and politicians are.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

The other classic way to reduce inflation is simply taxing the rich.

You mean the poor. Inflation is tracked using the CPI, which is measured using a basket of goods modelled around what poor people buy. The activities of the rich tend to not show up here.

The impacts of taxing the rich may eventually "trickle down" to the poor if you hit them hard enough, but that is rather roundabout and slow. Best to go to the source to get it done quickly.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago

Lots of mistakes here.

Do you think central bank rates "go to the source" and take money directly from the poor? No, it's already convoluted. By raising the federal funds rates, it forces banks to raise the money it charges other banks to borrow money. This in turn makes loans and mortgages more expensive, which means businesses stop spending, loans and mortgages are more expensive, etc. This eventually "trickles down" to consumers. The most direct manifestation is a home mortgage or car loan, but that is only a small fraction of the economic effect of the central bank rate.

The basket of goods is NOT modelled around what poor people buy. I'm not sure where you got that from. The basket is modelled around what consumers buy overall, proportional to how much they are spending on that category of good. It is true that the poor spend a greater proportion of their income, which is I guess the grain of truth that you're basing that mistake on?

Traditional views of inflation have been turned upside down by "seller's inflation" (the media calls this "Greedflation"). This is when companies raise prices above increases in input costs. It was dismissed by economists at first, but the academic consensus is now that it accounts for a significant portion of inflation. Hurting the poor will not help with corporations forcing prices up through tacit coordination and lack of competition.