Commentary about the latest Nobel Prize winners in economics is a reminder that both John Maynard Keynes and Milton Friedman felt government could increase "demand" to allegedly lift economies, the only difference being that Keynes felt government spending was the demand-increasing lever, while Friedman felt increases in so-called "money supply" were the driver of more consumption. Except that governments that produce nothing can hardly increase demand. They can only spend insofar as producers have commensurately less. Central banks created by government aren't some powerful "other," untethered by simple laws of economics, when it comes to governments manufacturing demand. They can do no such thing. Friedman believed that Federal Reserve fiddling with so-called "money supply" could increase demand, but money that circulates is production determined. Always. That's why dollars circulate the globe while refereeing exchange that is always products for products. It's a reminder that "money" doesn't circulate as much as production IS money, and ensures reasonably stable exchange media necessary to facilitate trade of consumable goods, services and labor. Contra Friedman and his myriad disciples, central banks and monetary authorities are utterly immaterial to where money circulates precisely because they, like their government creators, produce exactly nothing. forbes.com/sites/johntamny/2…

The Wall Street Journal reports that economists think interest rates will be high through the decade we're in. Except that one year ago those same economists thought the opposite. If they had a clue what was ahead, they wouldn't be economists. Supposedly higher rates will put housing out of reach (but doesn't that mean it's a tougher sell, thus putting it in reach?), which Jeff Bezos says will enable more socialism. Bezos is brilliant, but politicians love home ownership precisely because they want to redistribute the taxes raised on less mobile homeowners. If the aim is more housing at lower price points, Wall Street is desperate to spare people wealth sapping housing consumption in favor of renting. This will solve the cost problem among other things: see the track record of Wall Street turning scarcity into abundance. Too bad politicians are trying to remove Wall Street from the housing space. If housing is out of reach, Wall Street is the only answer. realclearmarkets.com/article…

Implied in the "we're burdening the children/grandchildren" narrative about the national debt is the abjectly foolish Keynesian notion that government spending grows the economy while aiding those alive to enjoy the spending, only for the "bar tab" (or whatever) to be left to future generations. Tell that to those who suffered virus lockdowns paid for by trillions worth of federal extractions, or the various wars of the 21st century that a government with way too much money at its disposal was able to enter us into, or the so-called "War on Poverty," or those who endured Vietnam, not to mention all of us who suffer greatly reduced wages and living standards because government is such a size consumer of resources always and everywhere created in the private sector. The cruelty of government consumption whereby precious resources are centrally planned in politicized fashion is very much a now thing opposite the view that it's primarily the burden of future generations. realclearmarkets.com/article…