Home
/
RELIGION & LIBERTY ONLINE
/
The moral deficit of inflationary spending
The moral deficit of inflationary spending
Apr 24, 2026 4:14 PM

The Judeo-Christian tradition is against harming the poor and the voiceless (the young in this situation. Thrift, responsibility (ethical and financial), and honesty have been hailed as virtues from time immemorial. With inflationary deficit spending, the government embodies none of these virtues, and does so to our moral and economic deficit.

Read More…

Spending! Relief! Infrastructure Investment! Build Back Better!

These are words and sayings that have been bandied about throughout the past year. Anyone with a basic interest in the news cycle is bound to have heard that the federal government has proposed plans to spend trillions of dollars. Whether for stimulus checks, COVID-19 relief, business loans, or infrastructure upgrades, the government has offered to “pay” for it.

The stated goal of this spending is to help people materially in light of the pandemic. However, after massive COVID-19 relief spending, real hourly earnings decreased 0.2% from April to May 2021. If the goal and purpose was to help people financially, then why has all of this spending coincided with a decrease in real earnings?

To make sense of this seeming paradox, we need to ask: where will this e from, as well as what the end result we be?

The answer? The money e from excessive deficit spending, and the result will be inflation.

To proceed, we need a better understanding of the nature and effect of deficit spending and inflation.

In Alan Greenspan’s 1966 essay, “Gold and Economic Freedom,” the former head of the Federal Reserve, wrote some incisive statements on deficit spending and its subsequent inflationary effects. What makes the essay so valuable is that it was written by a former critic of deficit spending before he became a central banker (i.e., a deficit spending financier).

Greenspan states that:

Under a gold standard, the amount of credit that an economy can support is determined by the economy’s tangible assets, since every credit instrument is ultimately a claim on some tangible asset. But government bonds are not backed by tangible wealth, only by the government’s promise to pay out of future tax revenues, and cannot easily be absorbed by the financial markets.

Greenspan is arguing that, with a gold standard, the government could really only spend what it collected through direct taxation or what it held in the Treasury. That is, the government had to spend money like any normal household. Now, however, without a gold standard, the government sells bonds to the Federal Reserve, which then buys the bonds. Once the Federal Reserve buys the bond, the Treasury can print the monetary value of the bond.

It is important to note that what the government “sells” in the bond is an IOU, which it promises to pay from future tax revenue from future generations. In short, it puts a financial/tax burden upon people who have not consented to this kind of spending.

Too often, the result of this kind of deficit spending, is inflation, which can be considered ‘a form of taxation’ and ‘theft.’ It is a tax because inflationary deficit spending is a way for the government to get revenue, which consumers pay for by higher prices. It is theft, because, through a sleight-of-hand trick, it takes away from the value of your wealth (as held in and expressed by monetary units).

Greenspan puts it this way:

As the supply of money (of claims) increases relative to the supply of tangible assets in the economy, prices must eventually rise. Thus the earnings saved by the productive members of the society lose value in terms of goods. When the economy’s books are finally balanced, one finds that this loss in value represents the goods purchased by the government for welfare or other purposes with the money proceeds of the government bonds financed by bank credit expansion.

Greenspan went so far as to say that without a gold standard “there is no way to protect savings from confiscation through inflation,” and that “[d]eficit spending is simply a scheme for the confiscation of wealth.”

Moreover, as a tax, it is a flat-regressive tax that disproportionally affects the poor: They have fewer savings and are still paying the same (inflated) prices as middle- and upper-class people. If inflation is at 5% across the board, people with large savings have more money with which they can cover the cost of inflation, whereas a poor family has fewer reserves to draw upon.

The Judeo-Christian tradition is against harming the poor and the voiceless (the young in this situation. Thrift, responsibility (ethical and financial), and honesty have been hailed as virtues from time immemorial. With inflationary deficit spending, the government embodies none of these virtues, and does so to our moral and economic deficit.

Comments
Welcome to mreligion comments! Please keep conversations courteous and on-topic. To fosterproductive and respectful conversations, you may see comments from our Community Managers.
Sign up to post
Sort by
Show More Comments
RELIGION & LIBERTY ONLINE
Is the Government Ever Big Enough?
Can the government ever be too big? How much spending is enough spending? And if there can be too much spending, where is that point? “When was the last time you heard a liberal politician say, ‘Yeah, we solved that social ill. We’re just going to close up that government agency now, zero out the budget and move on to another problem,'” asks William Voegeli, Senior Editor of the Claremont Review of Books. In the video below, Voegeliexplains why our...
To Reduce Human Trafficking, Increase Economic Freedom
Trafficking in persons is estimated to be one of the top-grossing criminal industries in the world (behind illegal drugs and arms trafficking), with traffickers profiting an estimated $32 billion every year. So what can be done to end this scourge? A recent report from the Heritage Foundation mends an oft-overlooked solution: adopting policies that promote economic freedom. A close examination of human trafficking and the principles of economic freedom—especially strong rule of law—reveals the robust connections between these two desirable...
Breaking: City of Grand Rapids drops property tax dispute against Acton
Acton Building located in downtown Grand Rapids’ Heartside District A two-year dispute between the Acton Institute and the City of Grand Rapids over the non-profit’s exempt status under state property tax law is over, with Acton emerging the victor. In 2014, the City rejected Acton’s request for a tax exemption on its building, parking areas, and personal property at 98 E. Fulton. Acton purchased the property in 2012 and spent much of the next year renovating the property. An appeal...
Explainer: What You Should Know About GMOs and Mandatory Food Labeling
Last year, the House passed a bill to preempt states from imposing mandatory labeling of genetically engineered food (GMOs). But as Daren Bakst notes, “While it looked like the Senate was going to follow suit, in the last minute, the new Senate bill would actually effectively mandate the labeling of genetically engineered food.” “In the Senate bill, there would be a national mandatory labeling requirement unless the Secretary of Agriculture determines that there has been substantial participation by labeled foods...
U.S. House unanimously passes bill declaring Islamic State guilty of genocide
UPDATE: (3/17/16) United States: Islamic mitted genocide against Christians, Shi’ites. U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry: “The fact is that Daesh kills Christians because they are Christians. Yazidis because they are Yazidis. Shi’ites because they are Shi’ites,” Kerry said, referring to the group by an Arabic acronym, and accusing it of crimes against humanity and of ethnic cleansing. Video of Secretary Kerry giving his statement on the Islamic State is now included at the bottom of this post. ✶✶✶✶✶ In...
Audio: Todd Huizinga Talks Global Governance and the New Totalitarian Temptation
Todd Huizinga, Acton’s Director of International Outreach, joined host John J. Miller of National Reviewto discuss his new book,The New Totalitarian Temptation, on the Bookmonger Podcastat Ricochet.They discussed the problems afflicting the European Union, the potential Exit of the UK from the EU, and whether or not the United States faces the same problems with unaccountable government that bedevil Europe. You can listen to the podcast here. If you find the topic interesting, you can join us tomorrow here at...
Feel the Romantic Bern
“Do voters have a mitment problem’ with Bernie Sanders?” asks Dylan Pahman in this week’s Acton Commentary. So why would someone who seems really to want to be President (unlike candidates who appear to be using their campaigns to promote a book, for example) tell Americans he’s a socialist when half the country says they wouldn’t vote for one? How does that serve his interest? Shouldn’t it hurt his electability? The full text of the essay can be found here....
Elon Musk on the Problem with Regulators
“Most of economics can be summarized in four words: ‘People respond to incentives,’” says economist Steven E. Landsburg. “The rest mentary.” When governments create a regulation, they are creating an incentive for individuals and businesses to respond in a particular way. But the people who create the regulations —government regulators — also respond to incentives. As Elon Musk, the CEO of Space X and Tesla Motors, explains, There is a fundamental problem with regulators. If a regulator agrees to change...
Shareholder Activists Drop Religious Pretext
Religious shareholder activist group As You Sow released its 2016 Proxy Preview last week, and it’s a doozy. Tellingly, AYS has dropped religious faith as a rationale for its climate-change and anti-lobbying efforts. From the panying press release: More 2016 shareholder proposals than ever before address climate change — pared with 82 in 2015. Of the resolutions, 22 ask energy extractors and suppliers to detail how the warming planet will affect their operations and how they will respond if governments...
Video: A Gentleman’s Debate – Distributism vs. Free Markets with Jay Richards and Joseph Pearce
On February 18th, the Acton Institute was pleased to e Jay Richards and Joseph Pearce to our Mark Murray Auditorium for an exchange on two distinct ideas on economics: Distributism vs. Free Markets. The gentleman’s debate was moderated by Acton Institute President Rev. Robert A. Sirico. Joseph Pearce, writer in residence at Aquinas College in Nashville, Tennessee, and Director of the college’s Center for Faith and Culture, argued in favor of distributism; Jay Richards,Assistant Research Professor School of Business and...
Related Classification
Copyright 2023-2026 - www.mreligion.com All Rights Reserved