There's a couple of other words that describe what I'm talking about - neoliberalism, lassez-faire capitalism, and in a more general sense, the Chicago school of economics - but I chose market fundamentalism because it seemed to best describe precisely what I'm talking about. I mean the belief that the market is capable of self-regulation and that governmental intervention will cause damage to the economy.

I'm asking this because there's still a lot about economics that I don't know about and so I was hoping someone with a background in the subject who would be able to better answer the question. But I realize it's probably also a political question. I wonder if it's more of an issue of our politicians pressing these views than economists and academics.

Personally, with my life's experience, it seems almost obviously wrong. I've lived through several market downturns and even a crash, and looking through history it seems like every market crash can be attributed to the market failing to correct itself.

Everywhere I turn everything is more expensive.

I'm spending less and less every month on non-necessities, buying more basic foods, never eating out, spending less on entertainment, etc but everything else just keeps going up and up.

Electricity just went up 12%, my gas bill is up 20%, rent has gone up 10% year after year, water is somehow 30% more expensive than it used to be, my groceries are more expensive than ever even though I'm buying in bulk and not buying anything fancy, I've stopped eating luxuries I used to enjoy like steak and fancy cheese because they've just gotten outrageous.

I have a good job that pays decently but my raises have been less than 3% a year and I feel like I'm getting squeezed out of everything I once had. There's no light at the end of the tunnel is there?

I've started to notice this narrative in my news feeds. The argument is high wage growth is contributing to stubborn inflation. So cooling wage growth is seen as positive. It'll help central banks pause the hike cycle sooner.

My knee jerk reaction is if wage growth is contributing to inflation it's minuscule; just enough to print the headline. I can't help but feel this narrative is a way to distract from the earlier price gouging narrative and to help employers scapegoat out of raises.

But I'll admit, I haven't looked into this topic deeply. So I'm happy to be schooled.

inspired by a law my local county council has been debating (local news article, press release from January from the sponsoring councilmember, and actual text of the proposed law)

from the press release:

During and even before the COVID-19 pandemic, many businesses in the Seattle area and beyond began shifting to cashless operation, leaving people who rely on cash with fewer options to purchase goods and services. Research, however, shows that cashless businesses most impact communities of color, seniors, people with disabilities, undocumented residents, refugee and immigrant and communities and low-income communities.

...

At least 2.1% of Washington residents are unbanked, meaning they don’t have bank accounts, credit cards or other typical financial services, according to the 2021 FDIC Household Survey. Five-year estimates put that number even higher – at 3.1%. More than 17% of residents are underbanked, meaning they might have a bank account but often rely on alternative financial services, such as money orders, check-cashing services and payday loans.

...

The legislation would require businesses in unincorporated King County to accept cash for most retail transactions, and to not charge higher prices than for another form of payment. It would allow for retailers to only accept up to $250 in cash payment for single transactions larger than that amount. It would allow for civil actions to be brought by someone whose cash payment was refused.

what do you think about requiring this?

(especially interested in responses from around the world and not just the US, since I think cash vs. card reliance varies considerably by country)

Rate hikes. "COVID mortgages" up for renewal at much higher rates.

Wondering how badly the current rate environment is affecting people IRL. How much of this do you think (or know) is actual bad news vs. just media doom and gloom?

Putting aside specific criticisms of the GOP as it exists today, what do you think of using the debt ceiling as a tool to reel in spending and put the US on a sustainable path with its national debt? People make it out to seem backwards and manipulative, but this whole situation seems like we're driving a hundred miles an hour toward a cliff and the person saying we should slam the breaks is getting flack because it'll damage the car.

I was reading this text from the Washington Post (sorry for the maybe paywall):

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/10/06/xi-jinping-crackdown-china-economy-change/

The opinion asserts that in response to liberalization of Chinese life, driven by capitalistic economic growth, is the reason that Xi Pinjing "cracked down in every sphere imaginable — attacking the private sector, humiliating billionaires, reviving Communist ideology, purging the party of corrupt officials and ramping up nationalism (mostly anti-Western) in both word and deed."

My conspiratorial brain latched on to the humiliating billionaires line, and started thinking about a between the lines message along the lines that billionaires are good and should not be humiliated, a subtle warning-response to the progressive grumblings here in the U.S. that a failure to support capitalism will result in totalitarianism.

Then I started thinking about the questions, are billionaires good for society? I had always held the position that a billionaire is a market failure (in my econ 101 understanding of the term), much like pollution. It is improper hoarding and unfair leveraging of capital into disproportionate and un-earned degree of pesonal privilege.

It is certainly a by-product of euro-american capitalism, whereby the desires and welfare of the many are trodden on by those with the ability to fight and to shape the regulatory machine meant to protect the interests of the common-wealth.

I see a few possibilities. One, is that my understanding of economics is wrong, and producing as many billionaires as possible is the ultimate goal of capitalism and in fact good for everyone, even in theory.

Two, it is indeed as I suspect, a market failure. And the failure here is one of degree, it is not, in fact problematic to have some individuals with significantly greater wealth among us, and is, in fact, beneficial overall, but to have some with so much more than the rest of us (wealth inequaility) is a result of getting in the way of a clean functioning marketplace.

Three, economic theory is working as described, and economic theory/activity is an insufficient foundation for the maintenance and success of a whole society, and we need to find a way to constrain it to its own sphere, so that it provides us with what we need to be healthy and happy, but no more.

I turn to the bright minds of tildes: am I looking at this right?

This question has been going through my head for quite some time. UBI has been talked about quite a bit now, and usually the question is if it should be introduced and if yes, how much should everyone get?

But how would you stop UBI from inflating the economy? If everyone suddenly gets 1000€/month purely because they exist, how do you stop rent from suddenly going up 1000€/month? How do you stop it from going up gradually?