Home
/
RELIGION & LIBERTY ONLINE
/
The moral deficit of inflationary spending
The moral deficit of inflationary spending
Mar 29, 2026 10:16 AM

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
The Saddleback story: When a ‘call to missions’ results in entrepreneurship
When David Munson was 19 years old, he went on a missions trip and was sure he had discovered his ultimate vocation. “I just knew I wanted to do ministry for the rest of my life,” he says. Soon thereafter, he moved to Mexico to teach English as a way to kickstart his life in foreign missions. Yet through a range of unexpected encounters, he found himself designing leather products and selling them out of his truck. The weirdest part:...
Fact check: Did ‘austerity’ kill 120,000 people?
Did stingy UK mit “economic murder” by slashing NHS funding? A clip of a self-described Communist accusing the government of killing 120,000 people has gone viral, but the facts do not bear out her contention. Ash Sarkar, who scored a glowing profile inTeen Vogueafter calling herself “literally a Communist,” made ment on the BBC programQuestion Time: Austerity was not just a bloodless balancing of the books it was paid for with people’s lives, 120,000 people. The reason why I’m so...
10 facts about homelessness in America
The homeless represent the most vulnerable portion of Americans living in poverty. The latest U.S. government report on homelessness shows that a culture ofsecularism and statism isdepriving Americans of church philanthropy, curbing the free market’s ability to provide,and leaving the most vulnerablereliant on the government – or the mercy of the streets. The Council of Economic Advisers detailed their conditions in itsreporton “The State of Homelessness in America,” released last week. It found that “rent controls” may have priced homeless...
The UK Supreme Court’s dangerous ruling
This morning, the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom ruled unanimously that Boris Johnson unlawfully suspended Parliament and annulled hisorder to prorogue. Today’s Supreme Court decision holds deep importance for Brexit, EU corruption, and the rule of law. The Supreme Court branded Prime Minister Johnson’s order to prorogue Parliament “unlawful” and declared it null and void. Members of Parliament were told to act as though it had never taken place. Speaker John Bercow announced Parliament will return to session tomorrow...
5 key points of Donald Trump’s UN religious freedom remarks
President Donald Trump addressed the Global Call to Protect Religious Freedom on Monday, ing the first U.S. president to host a United Nations meeting on religious liberty. The heads of state of more than 130 nations and UN Secretary-General António Guterres attended. Here are five key themes of his address: 1. Rights are unalienable, because e from God. “The United States is founded on the principle that our rights do e from government; e from God. This immortal truth is...
Reason and faith at the Heritage Foundation
Since my book Reason, Faith, and the Struggle for Western Civilization appeared in June this year, I’ve been pleasantly surprised by the reception. The book seems to have touched upon topics that, while not at the forefront on daily political debate, are on many people’s minds and underlie some of the bigger questions that are to be found just beneath the surface of many contemporary discussions in Western countries. It turns out that subjects like the relationship between reason and...
Pandering: The politician’s pastime
What if someone told you “politicians sacrifice long-term economic performance for individual, political gain”? Many people would yawn (or sigh) and say this is obvious, or perhaps they would say it’s obvious with respect to the politicians in that otherpolitical party (the one that opposes their own). Nathan Jensen and Edmund Malesky, however, have not only made the claim quoted above, they’ve set out to prove it through hard data and careful argumentation in their book Incentives to Pander: How...
Sohrab Ahmari’s biggest mistake
The debate between Sohrab Ahmari and David French has sparked a useful conversation about the means and ends of liberty. In that discussion, both men make valid criticisms and both sometimes fall short, but a recent column by Ahmari reveals perhaps the most glaring error in his perspective. Ahmari believes both economic interventionists (“progressive liberals”) and those who oppose state intervention (“conservative liberals”) share the same goal of maximizing freedom apart from state coercion. AtFirst Things, he writes: Progressiveliberals are...
Wilfred McClay on friendship new and old
What is friendship? What does it mean to be or to have a friend? And why does Aristotle consider friendship a virtue and an important for political life? Wilfred McClay has a nice essay on friendship at the Hedgehog Review, where he reflects on the title of the song “My New, Old Friend.” McClay writes that he initially did not like the idea of a“new old friend,” first because true friendship is rare and takes time to develop, and second...
Bailouts, moral hazards, and the scapegoating of the taxpayer
If pandering is the politicians’pastime, then we owe a special debt of gratitude to those who resist this seemingly irresistible force. Today, UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson confirmed that he refused to extenda £150 million government bailout to preventThomas Cook, the world’s oldest travel agency, from going bankrupt. Moreover, the prime minister explained his actions in both economic and moral terms. “It is perfectly true that a request was made to the government for a subvention of about £150 million​,”...
Related Classification
Copyright 2023-2026 - www.mreligion.com All Rights Reserved