Do the American mass media report that printing dollars is the cause of inflation?

[Linkey]

As far as I understand, Trump blames the Dems for causing high inflation in the US, but does not explain why this is happening; according to Trump, dollar inflation is some kind of evil spirit that he will exorcise. My question is, do any US media outlets (maybe CNN or Fox News) say that inflation is caused by printing money, and the only way to overcome inflation is to raise the taxes?

Edited October 24 by Linkey

[CharonY]

52 minutes ago, Linkey said:

My question is, do any US media outlets (maybe CNN or Fox News) say that inflation is caused by printing money, and the only way to overcome inflation is to raise the taxes?

I hope not, because that would be a silly claim.

[iNow]

25 minutes ago, CharonY said:

I hope not, because that would be a silly claim.

It's a half truth. Inflation from quantitative easing and "printing money" could lead to inflationary effects. It's just not the root cause of the inflation most people are bitching and moaning about right now. That was due to supply chain shocks globally at the same time that families received rapid unexpected injections of cash to prevent collapse of the system. 

1 hour ago, Linkey said:

the only way to overcome inflation is to raise the taxes?

This would potentially help with inflation since it would remove liquidity from the system (i.e. poor people stop spending money and the reduction in spending would lead to lowering of costs vendors and manufacturers charge), but a far superior weapon is increasing interest rates since it's not regressive and has the benefit of impacting everyone all at once. 

[CharonY]

28 minutes ago, iNow said:

It's a half truth. Inflation from quantitative easing and "printing money" could lead to inflationary effects. It's just not the root cause of the inflation most people are bitching and moaning about right now. That was due to supply chain shocks globally at the same time that families received rapid unexpected injections of cash to prevent collapse of the system. 

That is what I am getting at. OP makes the claim that "printing money" is the main cause of current inflation and that "increasing taxes" are the only mechanism to reduce them.

While both are have pro an counter inflationary effects (though only personal income taxes, from what I remember ), they are far from being the only mechanisms. And they specifically do not seem to play a role now, (alluding to news outlets suggests current events).

[J.C.MacSwell]

Just to add to INow's answer, it's not just about the amount of money, printed and otherwise effectively out there, but how fast it circulates...along with a number of other factors that affect "the market".

[swansont]

4 hours ago, iNow said:

It's a half truth. Inflation from quantitative easing and "printing money" could lead to inflationary effects.

Which is what was claimed when Obama was president, and the predicted disaster never happened.

[J.C.MacSwell]

58 minutes ago, swansont said:

Which is what was claimed when Obama was president, and the predicted disaster never happened.

If they print enough money we'll see an inflationary effect...maybe they just didn't over do it?

[Linkey]

9 hours ago, iNow said:

It's a half truth. Inflation from quantitative easing and "printing money" could lead to inflationary effects.

If I understand correctly, the quantitative easing is an analogue of money printing, while the quantitative tightening is an analogue of burning the money? Can you tell more what do these terms mean?

[iNow]

Yes, I can. So can google. 

[npts2020]

Printing money only increases inflation if the money supply grows faster than the pool of goods and services.

[Linkey]

1 hour ago, npts2020 said:

Printing money only increases inflation if the money supply grows faster than the pool of goods and services.

I suppose, this meme was created by the people who control the Federal Reserve now (US financial aristocracy). And I don't agree with this meme.
The technology always grows, and smartphones become cheaper and cheaper, but this do not mean that people indeed become richer. If a person can afford a new iPhone, but can't purchase a house to live in, then this person is poor. By the way, some authors write that the middle class disappears in the western world now, in particular it is extreme hard for a usual worker now to buy a flat. An apparent reason is that the inflation does not allow a person to simply accumulate money for buying a house.

[swansont]

17 minutes ago, Linkey said:

I suppose, this meme was created by the people who control the Federal Reserve now (US financial aristocracy). And I don't agree with this meme.

Meme? You keep using this word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

17 minutes ago, Linkey said:

The technology always grows, and smartphones become cheaper and cheaper, but this do not mean that people indeed become richer. If a person can afford a new iPhone, but can't purchase a house to live in, then this person is poor. By the way, some authors write that the middle class disappears in the western world now, in particular it is extreme hard for a usual worker now to buy a flat. An apparent reason is that the inflation does not allow a person to simply accumulate money for buying a house.

What does this have to do with whether inflation is caused by “printing dollars”?

Computer/semiconductor technology, including smartphones, is deflationary, BTW. Which is perhaps one reason contributing to why inflation didn’t spike from ”printing dollars”

[Linkey]

49 minutes ago, swansont said:

Meme? You keep using this word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Sorry, my English is not perfect, maybe not a meme but a widely-used statement.

 

49 minutes ago, swansont said:

What does this have to do with whether inflation is caused by “printing dollars”?

Do you deny that the quantitative easing is a form of a hidden taxation?

[swansont]

10 minutes ago, Linkey said:

Do you deny that the quantitative easing is a form of a hidden taxation?

So far as I know, it is not.

In fact, I think it might be argued that failure to do it when circumstances dictate would be, since at such times people are not buying government bonds. If the government raised the bond rates attract buyers, the taxpayers would be on the hook for even more money 

[Linkey]

1 hour ago, swansont said:

So far as I know, it is not.

In fact, I think it might be argued that failure to do it when circumstances dictate would be, since at such times people are not buying government bonds. If the government raised the bond rates attract buyers, the taxpayers would be on the hook for even more money

You use economic terms that I know little about, and it is difficult for me to argue with you at your level. But this does not mean that I know little in general: I believe that my horizons are very broad, and I have arguments in favor of my point of view from other areas, that are not within the scope of your professional interests. It would take me a very long time to use these arguments.
It is written here, that during the past 100 years, prices in dollars have increased 30 times:

https://www.usinflationcalculator.com/

If you want to argue using economic terms, I suggest discussing this article:

https://www.minneapolisfed.org/research/working-papers/unique-implementation-of-permanent-primary-deficits

I have not read it carefully yet, but as I was told, the author complains here that bitcoins prevent the Fed from expropriating money from people like you, and to solve the problem, the author suggests taxing bitcoins.

[swansont]

20 minutes ago, Linkey said:

You use economic terms that I know little about, and it is difficult for me to argue with you at your level. But this does not mean that I know little in general: I believe that my horizons are very broad, and I have arguments in favor of my point of view from other areas, that are not within the scope of your professional interests. It would take me a very long time to use these arguments.

You started this thread, so it’s assumed you could carry on a discussion at some level. The discussion thus far doesn’t really involve any advanced economic concepts. I’m not sure how broader horizons enters into it, especially when you won’t go into detail.

You also probably have no idea what my professional interests are. Maybe it’s better you don’t assume you do.

 

[dimreepr]

20 hours ago, Linkey said:

You use economic terms that I know little about, and it is difficult for me to argue with you at your level. But this does not mean that I know little in general: I believe that my horizons are very broad, and I have arguments in favor of my point of view from other areas, that are not within the scope of your professional interests. It would take me a very long time to use these arguments.
It is written here, that during the past 100 years, prices in dollars have increased 30 times:

https://www.usinflationcalculator.com/

If you want to argue using economic terms, I suggest discussing this article:

https://www.minneapolisfed.org/research/working-papers/unique-implementation-of-permanent-primary-deficits

I have not read it carefully yet, but as I was told, the author complains here that bitcoins prevent the Fed from expropriating money from people like you, and to solve the problem, the author suggests taxing bitcoins.

You don't seem to have any idea about how even the basics of an economy works, inflation is the expression of the people who want more than they have now; it's a natural tax on the future, not futures (which is another such expression)...