We’re headed into the deficit debate, and one attractive idea has been left on the sidelines – the notion of a financial transactions tax. Most of our stock transactions these days come out of a computer. They offer nothing of value to the public, enhance risk and feed a desire for more dangerous bets that could (and often do) cause financial crashes. As a society, even if we had no need for more revenue, we would do well to limit this growing financialization in the economy, and that goes hand-in-hand with limiting stock transactions. And one great way to use market forces to reach that goal is through a small tax on each transaction. CNN Money explains.
The Center for Economic and Policy Research, a left leaning group, said Monday that a tax on trades of stocks, options, futures and other financial instruments could generate $150 billion this year, or over 1% of U.S. gross domestic product.
While the idea of taxing financial transactions is not new, it has gained some traction overseas in the wake of the global financial crisis.
French President Nicolas Sarkozy, in comments Monday, said a financial transaction tax is one of his top priorities as leader of the Group of 20 nations this year, according to press reports.
The CEPR study looks at a 0.25% tax on stock trades in the United Kingdom and estimates that an equivalent tax in the United States could raise $40 billion a year for the Treasury.
“This is not hypothetical,” said Dean Baker, co-director at CEPR and author of the report, in a statement. “The UK has used an FST to collect large amounts of revenue,” he said, adding that the International Monetary fund “is currently advocating the tax in recognition of the enormous amount of waste and rents in the financial sector.”
As Baker says, this is already in place in Britain, and as a result, the City of London still stands, and mass exodus from the stock markets in the UK has not transpired. The common rebuttal from the business community to a proposed financial transactions tax is that business will fly away to other countries. First of all, given the harm which the financial industry has caused the US economy, my first response would be “Do you need help finding a ticket?” But second, Baker shows here that the non-hypothetical example shows that a financial transaction tax does not lead to business flight.
As a result, individual investors who make a handful of trades a year will not even feel a tax like this, but hedge funds and investment banks who use algorithms and the like will feel it enough to potentially limit their risky trades. And if not, they’ll provide the government with a healthy source of revenue to cover the damage to individuals in the event their risk leads to another crash.
If you want a rejoinder to this constant talk of cutting spending and fixing the deficit, you could do worse than a financial transaction tax – something that raises a lot of revenue and discourages behavior that society should reject anyway.




44 Comments

Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL News Desk
With almost 50% of trades in the US now occurring in high-frequency trading operations (latency arbitrage) this would be the least damaging tax imaginable for the whole economy, and would present legislators with major options with regard to debt and ongoing priorities.
But we just got GE in the house! You think Obama and his MOTU patrons will put up with such a radical idea?
The example of the UK is misleading because they actually use something called stamp duty which exempts broker/dealers and online trades.
See Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stamp_duty_in_the_United_Kingdom
In any case Wall Street has an army of lobbyists who have been fighting the Tobin tax for years. They can’t quite kill it, but it’s moribund in the Obama era.
ack!!!!!! the deficit doves attack!!!
whether or not a financial transaction tax is good or bad policy has NOTHING to do with our fed gov deficit. could you possibly propose a financial transaction tax without using the fed gov deficit as a justification?
taxes do not fund federal gov spending.
please get a clue about what taxes, fed gov spending, deficits, etc are and how they operate in our economy. i offered — actually i think i begged — to help you over a year ago (you turned me down) and here you are still attempting to provide progressive policy based on false neoliberal economic premises.
i’m going to make another request. this time to both you and to all your readers: please read, listen or watch the transcript/audio/video of last year’s Fiscal Sustainability Teach-In and Counter-Conference.
you are reinforcing the neoliberal premise that fed gov deficit spending is somehow a bad thing and must be curtailed. that is road to national suicide — it may be paved with good intentions, but it’s still going to kill a lot of people.
I think that is an overwrought response. Still, I argue for a Tobin Tax on financial transactions and never mention the budget in this post.
what exactly is overwrought? do you disagree with me re attempting to balance the fed gov budget? or is it something else?
p.s. i’d love to see a financial transaction tax (especially on the very short term trades). it’s the “solution” to deficit hysteria i object to. instead of caving, why not explain what fed gov deficit really are how necessary they are?
curious – I thought the UK had a 0.5% “stamp duty” transfer tax even on transactions done by UK citizens in other countries – not enforceable of course but still out there – but only for paper certificate transfers or issue of new stock. But as you noted, Electronic trading does not have the tax.
http://www.healthunlimited.org/Policy/Taxandhealth/Globaltaxesforhealth
The above is a link to the Daiana Beitler of Just Economics report for Health Poverty Action and Stamp Out Poverty that looks at Financial Transaction Taxes – one of the core parts of the Robin Hood Tax campaign – where she notes the Tobin Tax and how “Prime Minister Gordon Brown has taken a u-turn from his historic opposition to the idea, backing it in a speech at the G20 finance ministers meeting in Scotland in early November and since. Earlier in the summer Lord Turner, chairman of the Financial Services Authority, gave his backing. This British support comes after pressure building up from long-term backers France and Germany.”
Perhaps we can get a an international transaction tax.
Ellen Brown (Web of Debt) said that the total of state budget deficits is 140 Billion. So let’s Use the Tobin Tax to give to the states. After all, we gave 13 Trillion to the big banks in interest free credit. A measly 150 billion in transaction tax wouldn’t hurt them at all.
Although she also suggests that the states, if they don’t get help from Washington, establish their own state banks Like North Dakota has.
But, nooooo. We are going to take it from the poor by taking away “Make Work Pay” deduction. We are going to take it from retirees. And we the sheeple will just bleat.
This afternoon I watched Fun With Dick And Jane from 1977 with Jane Fonda & George Segal. There was a scene in which they went to a “turned down everywhere else?” place to borrow money and the guy offered them $1,000 for 1 year at 18 percent interest. They were aghast and Jane said “Isn’t that against the law?” Well my point, of course, is that YES, back then it was quite against the law to charge such usury rates. Now harken back to the first piece of legislation that Obama got passed, his credit card “reform”. That piece of legislation FAILED to cap interest rates at 30 percent. Need I elaborate further?
yes!
All of the banksters, including the ones at GE Capital, are Obama’s paymasters. So there’s no way in hell that Obama will use his executive powers to force the banksters into paying their fair share in taxes, much less making them pay for all the damage they did and are still doing to our economy.
I agree with Selice, don’t buy into the deficit hawk/dove game.
That aside, a Tobin tax is a fantastic idea. The sooner we get one the better.
But this admin will not pass a Tobin tax. Geithner has spoken out against it. And that pretty much means that Robert Rubin, Larry Summers and Peter G Peterson are also opposed.
Geithner’s comment on Bloomberg TV regarding the Tobin Tax: “I have not seen the version of that that I think works.”
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Timothy_F._Geithner
Excellent link to your excellent 2009 post – I agree that the Tobin tax is needed.
The commentary in 2009 deals with bid/ask spreads, decreased income from trading in non-giant brokers, and “efficiency in markets”. None of the commentary could point to actual studies that show bad results – or even decreased smoothness to be expected in price changes.
Agree about high frequency trading.
Thanks Dave.
A lot of enterprises are exempted, but many – like hedge funds – would be subject to the tax. Also, somewhat interestingly, the way the exemption is structured seems to function as an impediment to proprietary trading. Per the HRMC manual on the tax, any prop trading “taints” the exemption and subjects all trades to the tax (as the manual states, the exemption is “all or nothing:” either all of an entity’s trades are on behalf of others or tax is due on all trades).
from naked capitalism last year (guest post by warren mosler with commentary by yves): Deficit Doves, the Gift that Keeps on Giving
that’s just the first bit. highly recommend reading the rest of the post.
Can we then push it from the state level? It’s obvious that Washington centrists (corporatists) wants to break the state employees unions by making sure that the states go after unions and their pensions. But if we propose it to our governors and local legislators??
Time for letters to the editor.
There’s been some empirical studies on Taiwan’s transaction tax; the studies I’ve seen conclude (for example, here) that the tax does increase bid/ask spreads.
Oh snap…! It’s Selise…! Aloha stranger…! *g*
Speaking of taxes, here is an article on GE vanishing effective tax rate. Now that Mr. GE is Obama’s advisor, might they expect more tax breaks?
http://www.tax.com/taxcom/taxblog.nsf/Permalink/MSUN-8DEKQP?OpenDocument
howdy CT!
Seriously, the notion that a click of a mouse, on ScottTrade or some other online Financial Service site, costing about a postage stamp is very doable…!
Haven’t read comments yet I was just too lured and excited (I know, I know) by the diary David I had to reply . . .
Man, what I would give to see something like this.
Hell, ANYthing but the giveaway of my life of 58 years, and my labor and contributions. That blue collar diary posted the other day sure spoke volumes to many of us in our mid to late 50′s, those older, and many younger.
Back to yer diary David . . . this is interesting to learn of . . .
Ya see, we got our selves a SOTU Address comin up soon . . .
The Dim’s are disaster, the nation’s a disaster, and without restoring some 10 million jobs soon, we and ME, and mine, are all gonna be disasters . . .
N all of a sudden, in a few days, the most unusual series of announcements have come out from the MSM . . .
1) Obama is said to be dialing back Thuglican efforts to cut SS. It’s been all over FDL and HuffPo, so no linky I don’t think. As a corporate whore from the get go, I DO have to ask, why is Obama dong this NOW, when it and many other actions could have been done two years ago.
2) Obama is said to be working on MORE investments into job creations . . shit he didn’t do before he saved the corporate worlds ass early on in his term . . . when he cast aside middle america for the corporate fascist oligarchy’s needs and ideals. Well docmumented, we don’t need no stinky linky, do we?
3) PHreakin Rahm is temp booted from ChiTown Mayoral Race! Ok, this is just MY pure spite and delight and it couldn’t happen to a bigger asshole . . . well, it could but ya get my point. Weird news, this is, cuz like, are they vulnerable?
4) N now, Really? Someone Is Calling Out Wall Street THugs?
N now yer post! Love it!
But you add this all up, and it’s just a BIT too much to tittilate this Larue and make me dance in the street for change we should have had in ’08.
Color me askanced, skeptical n slightly disbelieving as I add it all up.
WHat’s the final computation?
My thought it is cleverly created rhetoric and faux actions leading up to the SOTU Address, a big swing in ratings for a while as sheeple are duped once again . . .
N my key indicator is to follow them issues above and see just where the phook they end up.
Yeah, you got it FirePups, my thoughts and yers . . . great minds . . .
It’s all Bullshit to lull us angry proggies back into the hallowed halls of corporate fascism’s second grandest old party.
I’m not from Missouri, but phookin SHOW me . . . cuz I ain’t buyin the hopey. Not effing yet, I sure as hayall ain’t.
To close, I just can’t imagine what life would be like without FDL, MyFDL, Mz. Hamsher, Mz. WHeeler, David Dayen, Jon Walker, µichael WHitney, TBogg, BMaz, Ruth, Rayne and too many others that came before (christy!) and are here now . . .
Keeps me sane while it’s all driving me carazy.
In this case, thanks David Dayen!
Harumph!
*G*
Interesting study you linked to – and indeed they do conclude that their futures trading bid-ask were affected by Taiwan’s transaction tax – but the system of trading on Taiwan is not a duplicate of the US system, and we are talking futures and not actual stock – minor points I suspect, but still of interest – but the bid-ask change is affected by definition since one must clear a higher hurdle.
The volatility studies in other cases show no change – but again the bid-ask change is affected by definition – and I am not sure this is a bad thing. I discount the B_ll Sh_t of slower “price discovery” since it is circular thinking, a given, and not a problem – all that we are saying is adding a larger hurdle to make money makes folks see fewer opportunities for a quick buck – Speculators still observe new information, form a fresh sense of risk and return, and discover that the present valuation on the market is out of date. Speculators then actually risk their capital in taking positions on the market. If a speculator thinks that new information justifies a lower valuation, he short sells the security, and vice-versa, thereby feeding his interpretation of his information into the market and discovering for at least himself what the price should be and where the market has it wrong. Plus an efficient market must exhibit volatility because it must reflect news- and the hurdle of a transaction tax should not – and in the studies does not – affect volatility.
It’s good to see someone is calling out the Wall Street Thugs. My money is on possible charges against some low hanging fruit. They won’t go anywhere near the big fish.
I recall when Gary Aguirre attempted to subpoena John Mack while Gary was working for the SEC. He had uncovered evidence of insider trading related to Mack and Pequot Capital. The SEC made him back off because Mack had “too much juice.” Gary was later fired, while on vacation, after having received a two-step promotion and glowing reviews.
Bingo! They give out $150 billion in Christmas bonuses.
Yes, that makes sense. It’s gotta come from outside the beltway.
David, there seems to be considerable sentiment here for you to gain at least a passing familiarity with Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) and some of its basics. I know you’re busy, but still, selise’s link will connect you with a different point of view on macro-economics in a Conference setting, where the speakers got many questions from a very bright audience that gave them an opportunity to get very deeply into criticisms of their views.
In addition, you can also look at my recent series here on Fairy Tales of the Coming State of the Union. The summary post with links to others in the series is here: http://my.firedoglake.com/letsgetitdone/2011/01/14/fairy-tales-of-the-coming-state-of-the-union-fairy-tales-and-truths/
Also, more generally, selise characterized your position as a deficit dove position. I think she’s right about that, but that raises the question of whether deficit hawk and dove positions on deficit hysteria exhaust the available well-developed points of view on the deficit. This diary suggests that the answer is no, and suggests that there are three major positions, deficit hawk, deficit dove, and deficit owl. See: http://my.firedoglake.com/letsgetitdone/2010/07/21/deficit-hawks-deficit-doves-and-deficit-owls/
Keith Olbermann For President…a possible platform
1. Enact Fair Elections Now Act. Maximum donation of $100.00
2. FCC mandate that all political advertising is a public service and therefore free
3. Permanently ban anyone who has served in federal office from becoming a lobbyist
4. Enact The Bipartisan Tax Fairness and Simplification Act of 2010 – Eliminate $1 trillion in tax giveaways. Change the top tax bracket to 70% to help pay down debt
5. Break up the big banks and strengthen the Volker Rule
6. End ALL wars and lower the bloated defense budget
7. Reduce health care costs by adding the public option. Allow Medicare to purchase drugs. Allow drug re-importation. The Medicare Independent Payment Advisory Board should be given a broader mandate for cost control.
8. National Infrastructure Bank – Run by engineers, not politicians. Find $2 trillion over 10 years to create jobs now and increase productivity later. Put millions back to work. Fund with a millionaire’s tax
9. Federal government make massive investments in R & D to create quality jobs long term in areas like biotechnology, alternative energy, IT, materials, science, alternative-fuel automobiles, and clean technology. Fund with a bank tax
10. Raise educational standards through a national core curriculum. Advocate the firing of the bottom 10% of teachers nationwide and replace them with good teachers. Make higher education free to families that can’t afford it to encourage upward mobility in society
Three people lobbying DD to drink the kool aid, people who have long pushed the theory. MMT is a ponzi scheme, no different than what the fed already is doing. The reason we have deficit hysteria is because Bernanke is bailing out insolvent banks with the spread between short and long term interest rates. Problem is the USG pays the long term rates for it’s debt. So instead of letting the banks fail, Bernanke at al want to take your SS so they don’t have to issue as much debt at those bank enriching rates.
I am not sure why David needs to get in bed with Modern Monetary Theory (I grant the existence of many smart folks on this board like yourself that inform the board about MMT concepts – but I don’t see how those concepts apply – directly – to a transactions tax discussion)
Yes, what is stated to debunk your list of “fairy tales” is true, but when we get to economic activity and transaction motivation not much in MMT changes anything.
As to the basic point about the deficit I can not be critical because I agree – but to the extent the US has outstanding debt held outside the Federal Reserve, interest rate is a wild card as to the amount of money that needs to be created. I don’t see the reason to not try to have a low interest rate. Indeed there is a law that says the US can not issue debt directly to the Fed – the reason being a fear of the unknown effect of a massive increase in the money supply on transactions – the wheelbarrow of money for a slice of bread in 1920′s Germany being the image that comes to mind (albeit the French “new” Frank process of the 60′s makes the problem’s image go away – sort of). Indeed without proper trade agreements/laws the “lowering of the value of the dollar” may not work to stimulate economic activity for exports – and the prices of imports- if important to the given economy – may crush any recovery of that economy .
Since this thread was on the financial transactions tax and its affect on economic activity, MMT is not the answer (IMO) unless the question is “do we need to tax and if we stop taxing what is the effect on the economy and how do we pay for government”.
Selise,
Great to have some pollination of MMT facts. Keep at it. I would also refer people to Professor Bill Mitchell’s blog, http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog.
As to the transaction tax, this may be a good idea if carefully structured. A while back I was reading Rep. DeFazio’s proposal, and as written, it would end all day trading and intermediate time frame trading. I’m not in favor of High Frequency Trading and would not mind a bit if this were banned, but as a self directed investor I can tell you categorically that a per share tax on every transaction has the potential to make all trading unprofitable. That would make all of us stuck in long term buy and hold strategies. I’m not sure this is such a good idea. It is a complex issue and there are many trade offs. The nice thing about all this liquidity is that it makes it easy to sell if a change of personal circumstance calls for more cash, and anyone with a pension or 401k is certainly seeing benefit from the recent speculative run up in prices. I’m not sure MMT would advocate this tax either, unless the economy was severely overheated. Wouldn’t financial regulation be more appropriate. Selise, what are your thoughts?
Well hello Goldie, haven’t seen you for awhile. Since you’re saying that MMT is a “ponzi scheme” I trust you know enough to define what you mean by a “ponzi scheme” and then explain to us why what MMT advocates fits that definition. If you can’t do that I don’t see why I or anyone else should give the slightest credit to what you have to say.
Hi papau, I’m with selise on this. I like the idea of a financial transaction tax. What I don’t like is the suggestion that it’s a cure for deficit hysteria. The causes of deficit hysteria are beliefs that deficits cause inflation, and also cause interest rates to rise, and in addition that the rising national debt associated with deficits will represent a burden on our grandchildren or increase our solvency risk. All these propositions, however, are false, and the effects of the transaction tax won’t show people that they or false or cause them to manage Government spending by looking at its effects rather than by evaluating it relative to whether it increases, the debt, the deficit, or the debt-to-GDP ratio.
So, what I’m saying is that Dave’s title is untrue. The financial transaction tax is a good thing to have for many reasons, but one of them is not that it is the antidote to deficit hysteria.
mmtdoc,
Please explain why you think it has that potential.
Every time the Tobin tax comes up I try to direct people to the idea of an Automated Payment Transaction (APT) tax to replace the current state and federal tax codes. It is basically an extension of the Tobin tax to all transactions in the economy and would generate all of the revenue needed for all state and federal government operations.
Installing a financial transactions tax only on stock related transactions will have no effect as long as the current, convoluted, and corporately rigged tax code still exists. Without removing the ability of the government and business to manipulate the tax code to their advantage, there is nothing to inhibit corporations and the wealthy from gamming the system through buying legislators. The complexity of the tax code is intentional in order to make it possible to evade taxes by the wealthy.
Go to this website and read for yourselves. http://www.apttax.com/.
hi nmtdoc,
agree billy blog is a great resource.
excellent! thank goodness someone is! :)
first disclaimers: i’m an economic novice and can’t speak for the mmt experts (bill mitchell, randy wray, warren mosler, etc). also, i think your question is part politics and part economics. if that is correct then there are probably lots of different mmt consistent policies, depending on one’s politics.
ok, that said, here is my wag for today: i don’t see what trading does to contribute much to the economy’s overall productive capacity. maybe that’s true of the stock market as well. if so, i’d rather see institutional arrangements made to favor “investments” in potentially productive activities rather than in asset price speculation. however, even if that’s so… taking into account path dependency, i have no idea how to get there from here.
what kind of financial regulation do you have in mind?
taxing financial transactions would, i hope, shrink the financial sector as a percent of the overall economy. that’s the point, it’s not to raise revenue.
states and local govs, as currency users, do need taxes to generate revenue. but that’s not the case for the fed gov as the currency issuer. (taxes do serve other important purposes at the fed level though).
letsgetitdone,
As I understood, the proposal called for a .025% tax per share. There are a lot of strategies out there but most of them are lucky to have a win ratio greater than 50%. ( Unless you are GS or JPM, but that’s another story) Most day traders and swing traders make a fairly small return for the amount of stock they are trading, and profit is by no means a sure thing. A typical position might be 5000 shares. The transaction cost would be $250 round trip regardless of the outcome while the expected profit may be .50 per share or $2500. You can argue that spending $250 to make $2500 is a good deal, however most traders are batting not much better than 60%. When you do the math the risk for reward becomes unfavorable. This will shift most preferences out to a much longer time horizon. Markets are like ecosystems and they are healthiest with diversity. In this case diversity means lots of different participants with lots of different agendas, strategies, and time frames. We should focus on the TBTF and not craft something that hurts small investors, and yes, speculators.
Hope that helps.
And here is the math. We will assume for the sake of argument that each trade risks .50 per share traded to make .50 per share profit, so each trade will either make .50 or lose .50. Let’s assume you have a good year and 60% of you trades are winners, and that you placed 100 trades over the course of the year using 5000 shares each trade. The numbers would be as follows.
Winner = 60 x 2500 = $150,000.00
Losers = 40 x 2500 = $100,000.00
Profit = + $50,000
Now with a transaction tax of .025% per share we would need to add $250 to the cost of every trade. 250 x 100 = $25,000.00
This would cut your profit by 1/2 to $25,000.00
Not very appealing. Especially in light of the fact that there will be years where the above figures are overly optimistic. I would wager that the decrease in the amount of transactions on the exchanges will more than offset any increase in revenues. We will also see greatly lower values in the market, and by default, all the pension plans globally. The financial sector should be shrunk, but this is a stupid way to do it, and will probably fail.
It’s a ponzi scheme because it relies on infinite growth forever, and since that’s impossible, the ‘small people’ get screwed by ever rising prices for energy, food, and medical care. Guess who sells those things? The monetary chicanery of the fed and MMT (no difference) amounts to rent seeking, it devalues the currency, but the amount of and demand for goods remains the same. The rentiers skim the spread, which is ever increasing. A ponzi scheme.
“The causes of deficit hysteria are beliefs that deficits cause inflation, and also cause interest rates to rise, and in addition that the rising national debt associated with deficits will represent a burden on our grandchildren or increase our solvency risk. All these propositions, however, are false”
This is nonsense, you are shooting down a strawman as a deflection. Does belief or disbelief in pie affect the price of milk?
i wonder what percentage of the current trade volume is made by small traders vs the likes of GS? miniscule is my guess… should GS et a. be protected in order to protect the small trader when trading is not (at least i think not) contributing materially to the productive capacity of the economy? i don’t think so — but that is my politics. is there a way to compensate the small traders? if there is, i’m all for it. would a full employment jobs program do it for you?
hammer meet nail. that’s my “don’t know how to get there from here.”
course, i think (but what do i know) that the stock market is going to crash again when the next financial crisis hits.
in any event, we need a federal gov alternative to pension plans — for the usa maybe SS, except it would have to be 1) universal for every resident, 2) at least 2x the current max, 3) available at 55 and universal first dollar healthcare and a bunch of stuff i haven’t even thought of to help offset the pension plans, etc. and i’m pretty sure our elites would fight to the death to make sure nothing like this happens.
what do you suggest? if it’s a bubble, then it’s not like the stock market isn’t going to crash again. should our economic policy priority be supporting asset bubbles over the real economy?
there’s lots of things i’d like to see done, but again it’s the path dependency that gives me headaches. how, given our current situation, do we implement policies that we may need without making things worse during the transition?
more questions than answers from me, i’m afraid.
maybe we’d have better success with those questions (and lots of others) if we weren’t being distracted by non-problems like the fed deficit.
Thanks you mmtdoc.Your comments are crystal clear. How about a tax that would exempt day traders and small operators and fall on the Bank of Americas of the world?
From wikipedia, which is pretty good on this one:
But you say:
Do you see the difference? look anyone can put a stupid label on something they don’t like, but the truth is that the Government isn’t a profit-making operation and Social Security is not a profit making insurance scheme. Nor does it actually use the funds people are paying now to pay out past “investors.” It makes its payments by marking up private sector accounts which creates new money, and its payments are backed by the full faith and credit of the United States; so the returns are much more secure than the returns to any private investment.
You claim:
The rise in energy prices and Medical care have nothing to do with Government spending on Social Security or other Government spending. Any rise in energy prices is due to the oil suppliers or to unregulated speculation. the rise in medical costs is due to the insurance companies operating in an oligopolistic market where these organizations can pass along provider price increases to consumers. The cure for increasing Medical costs is Medicare for All. The rise in food prices we are currently seeing is due to increases in the oil market.
In any case, across the board demand-pull inflation doesn’t exist right now, and the little guy is getting screwed much more by the failure of Government to do what it must to end the recession, and that, in turn, is due to its failure to act against the logic of the sectoral balance model. Anytime you do that, what you’re trying to do will end in failure.