Kerby Anderson
Most left-leaning economists cannot understand why American consumers are complaining when many economic indicators are positive. One of those individuals is Paul Krugman, a Nobel-prize-winning columnist for the New York Times.
He argued in a previous column that inflation was not a problem and used his recent trip to the grocery store to prove it. “Now, I go grocery shopping myself, and am occasionally startled by the total at the cash register—although that’s usually because I wasn’t factoring in the price of that bottle of scotch I picked up along with the meat and vegetables.” He did admit that he had “no idea” what he paid for the same groceries a few years ago.
Michael Powell, writing in The Atlantic, uses this story to illustrate the growing chasm between liberal economists and American consumers. Economists point to low unemployment and a cooling inflation rate (though the consumer price index was 3.5 percent higher in March than a year ago).
Meanwhile, consumers see higher prices just about everywhere they look. The consumer price index for food rose 25 percent from 2019 to 2023. Gas prices have gone up 50 percent in the past four years. Fuel-oil prices jumped by more than half in the same period. Home prices have gone up nearly 50 percent nationwide since the start of the pandemic.
Paul Krugman has an answer for Americans: “Maybe my message here sounds like Obi-Wan Kenobi in reverse: Look, don’t trust your feelings.” Michael Powell responds that Americans would be “wiser to trust their feelings and checking accounts than to rely on liberal economists riffing as Jedi masters.” That is why there is such a gap between liberal economists and American consumers.

Kerby Anderson
Over the last few months, the word “unsustainable” has been frequently used. The GAO (Government Accountability Office) proclaimed: “The federal government is on an unsustainable long-term fiscal path that poses serious economic, national security, and social challenges if not addressed.”
The Chairman of the Federal Reserve, Jerome Powell, said in his 60 Minutes interview: “The U.S. federal government is on an unsustainable fiscal path. And that just means that the debt is growing faster than the economy. So, it is unsustainable.”
The country burdened with more than $34 trillion in national debt should be having a serious conversation about how to turn the economy around. Don’t expect any serious discussion from most candidates this election season.
Fortunately, Scott Powell makes a convincing case for the need for “radical economic change.” The current US debt-to-GDP ratio now exceeds 122 percent. As I have mentioned in previous commentaries, that puts us in the danger zone.
He is realistic enough to show that we need both spending reductions as well as new sources of revenue. Cutting spending is politically difficult but also constitutionally difficult since two-thirds (65%) of the federal budget is mandatory spending. But something must be done to reduce the size of the federal government.
The other way to balance a budget is to get more sources of income. He points to the country’s massive oil and gas reserves. The US is number one among nations in both natural gas and oil reserves. He also argues that another way to pay down the national debt is for the federal government to “sell half of its 640 million acres of public land.”
These ideas might seem radical, but we need to ask candidates running for office this year whether they have a better solution. I doubt they do.