The Federal Reserve’s 2% Inflation Target Increases Government, Taxpayers and Product Costs

 November 10, 2024

The Federal Reserve’s 2% inflation target, set in 2012, under the Obama Administration, has led to a cycle of automatic growth in federal spending on entitlements, salaries, and debt servicing, ultimately impacting government budgets and taxpayers. Initially intended to foster economic stability, this target has also elevated government costs, placing an increased burden on taxpayers.

The 2% inflation target affects federal spending by raising costs across inflation-adjusted entitlements, pensions, and other federal programs. This inflation rate is factored into cost-of-living adjustments (COLAs) for Social Security, federal pensions, and certain welfare programs. These adjustments directly increase the baseline of entitlements, which comprised 55% of federal expenditures in 2023. Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are among the most significant beneficiaries of these inflation-based adjustments, with even a 2% increase leading to substantial cumulative costs when applied across millions of beneficiaries.

Roughly 50 to 60 federal programs—including Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and veterans' benefits—are linked to annual inflation adjustments based on the Federal Reserve's target. Many of these programs use the Consumer Price Index (CPI) as a benchmark for COLAs. Given entitlement spending of approximately $3.3 trillion annually, a 2% increase translates to an added $66 billion in entitlement outlays alone. This figure excludes other inflation-sensitive government expenses, such as federal employee salaries, which collectively amplify the budgetary impact and taxpayer burden.

The broader implications of the Fed’s 2% inflation target extend beyond its stated goals of maximum employment, price stability, and moderate long-term interest rates. While the target aims to stabilize prices, it inadvertently raises government costs, driving the need for increased revenue through taxation or borrowing. Experts and I suggest that a ZERO inflation target would alleviate these pressures while still supporting the Federal Reserve’s objectives.

How the Fed’s 2% Inflation Target Affects Government Costs and Taxpayers:

1. Automatic Increases in Federal Spending: Many federal programs, such as Social Security, Medicare, and federal pensions, include cost-of-living adjustments (COLAs) that are typically linked to inflation metrics like the Consumer Price Index (CPI). With a 2% inflation target, these programs automatically adjust upwards each year, which increases federal spending and contributes to the national debt if revenues do not grow at the same rate.
2. Impact on Federal Salaries and Benefits: The federal workforce’s salaries and benefits are often adjusted to reflect inflation. A consistent 2% annual inflation guarantees that costs will rise in line with inflation targets, impacting government budgets and adding to long-term fiscal pressures. Pensions for retired federal employees and military personnel are also tied to inflation, increasing automatically. This means the government’s financial obligations grow each year, leading to compounding expenses.
3. Increased Debt Servicing Costs: As inflation increases, so does the interest rate environment (although not in lockstep), which can raise the cost of servicing the national debt. With the federal government’s debt currently exceeding $30 trillion, even a small increase in interest rates due to inflation can add hundreds of billions of dollars in additional costs. This is especially relevant in periods when interest rates rise in response to inflation—for example, the recent hikes to counteract high inflation—making debt financing more expensive.
4. Long-Term Growth in Government Budgets: A sustained 2% inflation target implies that the government's annual budget must grow to account for inflation-adjusted increases in programs and services. While this theoretically supports wage growth and price stability, it also means that government budgets and deficits grow, potentially outpacing revenue growth. Over decades, the cumulative effect of a 2% increase each year can significantly inflate government spending.
5. Taxpayer Burden: Taxpayers ultimately bear the burden of these inflation-linked increases through higher taxes or increased debt, as the government seeks ways to finance the growing cost of entitlements and interest payments. This could mean higher taxes in the future or reduced spending in other areas to manage deficits, impacting economic growth and public investment.
6. Questioning the 2% Target’s Long-Term Impact: Originally, the 2% target was designed to provide a cushion against deflation, to promote growth and stability. However, this target has led to permanent price increases that may not be necessary and instead contribute to ongoing fiscal stress. In today’s economy, critics suggest that a ZERO inflation target or a lower targeted range may more effectively balance economic growth without continuously inflating costs.

In Summary:

The 2% inflation target that the Fed established in 2012 has created a cycle where federal spending on entitlements, salaries, and debt servicing grows automatically, impacting government budgets and the taxpayer base. While the intention was economic stability, this target has driven up government costs and increased the taxpayer burden. Some experts argue that a ZERO or lower inflation target could lessen these pressures while still achieving the Fed’s goals.

The case for a zero percent inflation policy combined with an interest rate cap, such as 3%, can be made based on the potential economic stability and predictability it might offer, particularly regarding government spending on inflation-adjusted entitlements and programs. Here are a few points in favour of this argument:

1. Reduction in Government Spending Growth: A zero-inflation target would limit the automatic increases in entitlements, pensions, and federal salaries tied to inflation. Since programs like Social Security, Medicare, and various government contracts adjust based on inflation rates, maintaining a zero-inflation policy would potentially stabilize or even reduce government spending over time, easing the tax burden on future generations
2. Enhanced Predictability for Budgeting: With a zero-inflation target, both public and private sectors could plan budgets with greater certainty, knowing that costs will not rise due to inflation. This predictability could also contribute to economic stability by allowing for more consistent spending and investment strategies, without the need to frequently adjust for inflationary impacts.
3. Lower Borrowing Costs: By capping interest rates on credit transactions at 3%, borrowing becomes more affordable and predictable for consumers, businesses, and the government. Lower borrowing costs could stimulate economic activity without fueling inflation, as seen in times of economic expansion under low-interest conditions. This would also make it easier for the government to manage debt repayment without escalating interest expenses.
4. Avoidance of "Inflation Tax": Inflation erodes purchasing power, effectively acting as a hidden tax on savings and incomes. By eliminating inflation, people retain more value in their earnings and savings, promoting individual financial stability and leading to higher consumer confidence and spending.
5. Reduction in Income Inequality: Inflation disproportionately affects lower-income households, which spend a higher percentage of their income on necessities that are subject to price increases. A zero-inflation policy would mitigate some inequality by stabilizing costs for essential goods and services, benefiting all citizens especially those with fewer resources.

However, setting a zero-inflation target and a strict cap on interest rates would require careful management to avoid risks like deflation, which could harm economic growth. Additionally, such policies would significantly shift the Federal Reserve’s traditional mandate and would likely necessitate structural reforms in how monetary policy is conducted. 

The zero inflation and interest rate cap approach, if implemented with sufficient safeguards, could lead to a more stable and predictable economy, potentially reducing government costs over time.

The Urgency of Sustainable Housing Reform in Canada: A Call for Structural Change

 

November 9, 2024

As Canadians we face a staggering housing crisis; it’s become clear that the old solutions are failing. Major cities like Toronto and Vancouver have transformed housing into an investment commodity, pushing prices beyond reach for everyday Canadians. Many are left with no choice but to look to smaller cities, or even other countries, to find homes they can afford. Meanwhile, public housing sits in disrepair, mired in bureaucracy, and the demand for real change has never been greater.

If we want sustainable, long-term solutions, we must look past quick fixes. Housing affordability isn’t just an issue of supply and demand; it’s a deeply rooted problem tied to how we view housing, how our systems are structured, and how our leaders prioritize—often ineffectively—the most basic needs of Canadians.

1. Shift the Mindset: Housing as a Public Good, Not a Commodity

• Action: The government must reframe housing as a basic necessity, not an investment asset. This starts by discouraging speculative buying practices that inflate prices. The speculative approach has created a market that drives up prices, leaving countless Canadians struggling to keep up.
• Goal: Establish regulations that protect homes from being treated as cash-generating assets, especially in major cities where affordable housing is in desperate need.

2. Build High-Density, European-Style Apartments on Public Land

• Action: On government-owned land, develop European-style, spacious apartments—1000-1200 square feet for two- and three-bedroom units. This type of housing is commonplace in Europe: functional, affordable, and perfect for families. By using public land, we remove one of the major cost factors in development—land acquisition.
• Goal: Affordable, spacious housing in high-demand urban areas without middlemen or speculative real estate involvement.

3. Cut Out the Middlemen: Reduce Reliance on Realtors and Financial Institutions

• Action: Design a streamlined public housing model where buyers work directly with housing providers rather than through realtors or mortgage institutions that increase costs and complicate processes.
• Goal: By removing intermediaries, buyers could access housing at lower costs, with fewer bureaucratic hurdles and less price inflation from added fees and commissions.

4. Revitalize Public Housing Through Public-Private Partnerships

• Action: Public housing is in crisis, with conditions often so poor that people hesitate to move in. The government should partner with private developers to revamp public housing units, combining efficient private-sector management with strict public-sector regulations on affordability and quality.
• Goal: Create housing that provides dignity to residents, rather than a last-resort option, while ensuring long-term affordability through public oversight.

5. Reduce Housing Demand by Cutting Business Taxes

• Action: As housing costs have outpaced wage growth, Canadians’ real purchasing power has diminished. Reducing taxes on businesses could make Canadian companies more competitive and allow them to invest more in employees’ wages. A stronger economy could support higher wages, helping Canadians better afford housing without intense market pressure.
• Goal: Shift from a reliance on social support to a system where Canadians have enough purchasing power to sustain themselves in a healthy housing market.

6. Streamline Bureaucratic Processes for Faster Housing Development

• Action: Red tape and bureaucratic delays have stifled housing growth, making projects longer and more costly. Governments should overhaul the approval process for housing developments, streamlining it to prioritize projects with the most community benefit and ensuring accountability throughout.
• Goal: Prevent lengthy, costly delays by implementing a fast-track approval process for housing, as seen in projects like the Honda plant, which avoided endless bureaucratic back-and-forth.

7. Empower Regional Growth: Encourage Canadians to Build Beyond Major Cities

• Action: The intense focus on cities like Toronto and Vancouver has not only strained resources but left smaller towns underutilized. By investing in infrastructure and incentivizing businesses to establish roots in smaller cities, the government could encourage more balanced population growth.
• Goal: Relieve pressure on major cities, reduce costs, and foster development in underutilized areas, spreading out housing demand while creating more affordable options nationwide.

---

Can We Count on Political Will?

The real question is: Do we have the political will to enact these changes? Looking at recent large-scale projects, it’s clear there’s a stark difference between private-sector urgency and government timeliness. While the Honda plant managed a rapid construction schedule by bringing in efficient, out-of-town contractors, public projects like Toronto’s Eglinton Crosstown Light Rail have been delayed, mired in local red tape and inefficiency.

This contrast illustrates the urgency of real reform. Canadians need leaders who prioritize sustainable housing solutions with the same efficiency and commitment as they would any major corporate initiative. By streamlining public housing projects, removing speculative interest, and creating a direct pathway for affordable housing, leaders could make these reforms a reality.

The crisis calls for bold, unapologetic action. Canadians need to demand better, holding leaders accountable for inaction. With public pressure and decisive government policy, Canada could set a new standard for housing—a standard that provides for its citizens and paves the way for sustainable, accessible, and affordable homes for future generations.

It’s time for our leaders to turn words into action.

The challenges go well beyond housing, touching on broader economic and bureaucratic issues.

1. Population and Demand

• Insight: Higher population density in urban centers and the commodification of housing are indeed big drivers of high prices. In cities like Toronto and Vancouver, property has shifted from being a basic necessity to a high-value asset.
• Thought: While reversing population trends isn’t feasible, adapting to these trends is possible. Governments could promote the development of smaller cities by improving infrastructure and incentives to attract people away from congested, expensive urban cores.

2. Relocation as an Interim Solution

• Insight: People moving to more affordable cities or countries is a reality. However, relocating is not an ideal or sustainable solution for everyone, and it reflects a shortcoming in making housing affordable within Canada.
• Thought: There’s potential to explore policies that encourage balanced regional development across the country. A more distributed population could relieve pressure on housing markets in overpopulated areas while boosting the economies of smaller cities.

3. Cutting Out Middlemen

• Insight: Reducing the reliance on realtors, mortgage institutions, and bureaucratic red tape could indeed lower costs. Middlemen can inflate housing prices and complicate access for ordinary buyers.
• Thought: Government-backed, middleman-free models for housing could be explored, where publicly owned land is developed for residential purposes directly by local agencies or cooperatives. This could limit speculation and lower prices while focusing on providing homes rather than investments.

4. European-style apartments on Public Land

• Insight: High-density, European-style housing—affordable, spacious, and functional—is a practical model. Building on government-owned land would reduce land costs, a major factor in high housing prices.
• Thought: Allocating public land for residential developments, and building spacious units as you mentioned, could be effective if managed with strict pricing regulations to prevent turning it into another speculative market.

5. Reducing Business Taxes to Cut Demand

• Insight: Lowering business taxes to make Canadian companies more competitive would have indirect benefits for housing by relieving cost-of-living pressures. As companies grow, they could afford to increase wages, potentially balancing housing demand with residents’ buying power.
• Thought: A stronger economy can support a more sustainable housing market, as wage growth can catch up with housing costs. However, if done poorly, it could inadvertently shift demand elsewhere rather than lowering housing costs directly.

6. Government Efficacy and Delays

• Insight: Governments at all levels have a mixed track record on housing and infrastructure projects, often due to bureaucratic delays and political inertia. The example of the Honda plant highlights how effective out-of-town contractors and streamlined approaches can be in completing projects on time.
• Thought: To tackle the housing crisis seriously, leaders would need to adopt a similar urgency to large-scale public housing. Streamlining approvals, prioritizing partnerships with developers and unions that prioritize efficiency, and creating clear accountability structures could help.

Feasibility of Change

• Political commitment is often lacking. A sustainable solution requires not just policy change but also a fundamental shift in mindset about housing—treating it as a public good rather than solely as a market asset. Public buy-in and electoral pressure might be the only ways to push governments toward this kind of reform.

Closing Thoughts

While it may seem unlikely under the current system, the pressure for action is mounting. With high levels of frustration from citizens, there could be a growing demand for real, structural changes—especially if political leaders start seeing housing as a national priority with long-term economic and social benefits.