Nothing upsets the old of trickle-down cultists like the suggestion that perhaps markets are not always and forever perfect at solving every human problem. And thus the extensive hand-wringing by this crew about the proposal by VP Harris to take on the corporate price gouging that accelerated inflation so much that it cost American households about $12,000 a piece.

There are surely a lot of details to sort through in order to make anti-price-gouging policies work, and having open debates about policy implementation is a good thing. But The Economist goes in an entirely different direction, trying to close off any debate at all. Yup, they argued that not only does “the evidence” not support “the claim” that price-gouging exists… but that a presidential candidate talking about price gouging as a serious issue in fact “erodes the faith in open markets that makes America prosperous.” Yes: the argument is that simply using the word “gouging” is itself a threat to American prosperity.

Make it make sense.

While the evidence is now abundant that corporate concentration has a large role to play in many of the price increases of the past few years, mainstream economists have been slow to take the issue seriously. It’s a surprising oversight — until you take a look at just how concentrated the economics profession itself is.

A new analysis of the economics profession discussed in the Financial Times underscores the overwhelming concentration in the field: just eight university departments dominate economics, with a revolving door between those academic departments and key public policy roles. Strikingly, the graph below shows how Nobel Prizes in economics have become increasingly concentrated over time, while the top ranks of other academic fields have become less concentrated. As even the Financial Times itself suggests: perhaps this monopolistic market failure at the heart of economics is itself due for a breakup. 

You may be under the impression that rent control policies have only been implemented in a small number of communities, but it turns out that rents are controlled on a widespread basis across the country. Specifically, they’re controlled by landlords using price-fixing software called RealPage to coordinate and drive up the rents they charge tenants.

As Lindsay Owens of Groundwork Collaborative points out in an epic twitter thread detailing a recent Justice Department’s legal complaint, RealPage not only informed landlords about just how high they could raise rents, they encouraged landlords to “auto accept” suggested rent hikes, and even penalized landlords who failed to follow through with the largest increases. In much of the country, housing costs have been increasing far faster than wages — and this is part of the reason why.

Civic Action
119 1st Avenue South Suite 320
Seattle, WA 98014
United States

If you believe you received this message in error or wish to no longer receive email from us, please unsubscribe.