Hacker News Reader

Comment by wronglyprepaid | Hacker News Reader

So something I don't quite get is this. (some) economist postulate that pumping metric fucking shit-tons of money into the economy will cause inflation, because there is literally more money chasing the same amount of goods, and this creates a quite expected upwards pressure in prices.

Other economists and politicians posit this won't happen and then proceed to do it, and then inflation happens, and then all of a sudden nobody could have predicted it, it is transitory (until it clearly is not), it is caused by Putin (except not according to the fed chair), it is because the economy is in transition, etc etc.

How about, don't pump metric shit-tons of money into the economy and see how that works.

And while you are at it, maybe don't make a campaign promise to end fossil fuels and act all surprised when the prices for fossil fuels go through the roof. I'm as happy as the next person to see the end to carbon emissions, but I don't do everything I can to end it and then whine about it ending .

View on HN

Inflation is happening now because oil demand is higher than supply, food demand is higher than supply, electronic chip demand is higher than supply. The causes of the supply drought is due to covid reducing supply and it not recovering fast enough, and of course the whole Russia invasion of Ukraine.

> Inflation is happening now because oil demand is higher than supply, food demand is higher than supply, electronic chip demand is higher than supply.

But none of that is sufficient for inflation to occur. Inflation is a fall in the value of a unit of currency. In your terms, it can only occur when currency supply is higher than currency demand.[1]

But in other terms, while it is true that shortfalls in the supply of food, oil, and circuitry lower the value of a dollar, it is not true that they are able to cause inflation; if the number of dollars is lowered commensurately with the loss in value, that will offset the effect.

Inflation is a general rise in prices. A fall in currency value is one reason that would occur.

No, a general rise in prices and a fall in currency value are one and the same thing. The meaning of "a fall in currency value" is nothing other than "a general rise in prices".

A currency can maintain its value against others, and against certain commodities whilst a general price rise occurs.

Talking in terms of the currency often puts the issue backwards.

> A currency can maintain its value against others, and against certain commodities whilst a general price rise occurs.

So? It's not maintaining its value. Who cares whether it's maintaining its value measured in baht? That would just mean the baht is also losing value.

No, it wouldnt. Because the UK can experience (temporary) inflation whilst Thailand not. These are the kinds of confusion which arises when you offer a theory of why inflation occurs (currency changes), rather than a definition.

The pound sterling can experience inflation while the Thai baht doesn't, that's true.

And it's also true that the pound sterling can experience inflation while maintaining its exchange rate against the Thai baht.

But those two things cannot happen simultaneously; if the pound is experiencing inflation and maintaining its exchange rate with the baht, then the baht is also experiencing inflation.

currencies dont experience inflation... it's prices which inflate

a currency is "devalued" by, eg., money printing, only in the sense that eventually the new cash drives prices up

when speaking about "inflation" we're always talking about some sets of prices... even in the case of "general inflation", this does not mean global prices for all products -- it means a certain subset, eg., CPI

so the GBP can maintain its value in many senses whilst the person-on-the-street experiences CPI.. the value of GBP isnt only in "general purchasing power relative to market relative to baskets"

trivially, arbitrage opportunities do exist, markets aren't perfectly efficient.. so there can be cases where UK CPI inflation is "ahead of the global curve"

What does this mean? Not always, but most of the time neither supply nor demand is being fully used up, and both unmet supply and unmet demand are irrelevant.

To what extent do we have saturation of some parts of the system? We expect growth in all areas including how much stuff the can be delivered from manufacturing, but investments in capacity might be missing

> Inflation is happening now because oil demand is higher than supply, food demand is higher than supply, electronic chip demand is higher than supply.

I'm not sure this statement makes that much sense, won't demand always go up when prices drop, and drop off when it goes up? Demand does not exist in abstract, if I could get an iPhone 13 pro for $10 I would take 5, if it costs $2,000 I will take 0. If oil cost $1 a gallon instead of $4, won't the demand increase? And if it is $10 a gallon won't the demand decrease?

Maybe to simplify, cite something that backs your claim that demand is higher than supply.

And then maybe further, can you clarify: will demand not increase when people are given more money? Won't for example trillions of direct and indirect stimulus drive up demand? And if price stays constant won't the increase in demand not have to result in prices going up in order to avoid supply shortages?

Inflation is just a general rise in prices.

That can be caused by supply-side inflation, eg., a sudden general drop in supply. Or demand-side, a sudden general increase in available cash.

Central banks increasing money supply is demand-side inflation. The issue with this, as a "final theory", is the last decade+ where it didnt hold; and in japan where inflation and money supply are entirely uncorrelated.

The only difference today, with inflation, is the supply-side shock. If central bank policies were causing inflation, they'dve caused it over the last decade; and likewise in japan.

Whilst central bank policies have raised asset prices, etc. there's very limited evidence they've raised, eg., the CPI

> The only difference today, with inflation, is the supply-side shock. If central bank policies were causing inflation, they'dve caused it over the last decade; and likewise in japan.

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/M1SL

They money supply (M1SL) increase by 500% since March 2020 - don't tell me that this is purely a supply side shock.

Or at the very least cite something that shows supply has dropped. And then explain to my why policies that increase the money supply by 500% is not expected to cause historic inflation while a pandemic is affecting supply?

Well I said central bank, the gov. has also given a stimulus during the pandemic -- this is a larger part of the story.

However, we should be careful not just to say inflation is caused by the money supply. This is a theory of why inflation could occur, it isnt inflation. Inflation is just the general rise in prices.

Given that everything is suddenly more expensive when energy prices rise (since energy is required for everything), etc. And given supply chain crises, etc.

We are seeing a case where the supply-side is undergoing huge general shocks. If you want to say that M1 has caused a demand-side inflation, fine... but it seems to me that 1/2ing the price of oil would 1/2inflation; whereas doubling interest rates wont.

So if money supply is the cause of inflation, interest rates will entirely solve the problem. If the supply-side is, then it wont.

I'd place a large bet on supply side being the major part. I think 1/2ing oil price would take inflation down to (4-6)%, at which interest rates would then be effective.

> If you want to say that M1 has caused a demand-side inflation, fine... but it seems to me that 1/2ing the price of oil would 1/2inflation

I would like to see some evidence for this, as I don't think this is the case, I think this is just propaganda from fossil fuel companies and their political allies. Like Biden said the economy is just in transition. I think restricting oil and gas supply further will be much more more likely to lower inflation. Maybe Biden should outlaw all oil refining on US soil to help drive the transformation faster.

If people were just less greedy and cared more about the environment than their wallets then they would buy electric cars instead of driving gas guzzling SUVs that are destroying our planet.

If that was the cause, then you'd see it reflected in exchange rates. For example, Canada did about half as much QE per capita as the US did. You would expect that to cause the American dollar to fall against the Canadian dollar, but in fact it has risen. And Canada isn't a picked example, almost every western country did less QE than the US and yet has seen their currency fall against the dollar.

> I'm not sure this statement makes that much sense, won't demand always go up when prices drop, and drop off when it goes up? Demand does not exist in abstract, if I could get an iPhone 13 pro for $10 I would take 5, if it costs $2,000 I will take 0. If oil cost $1 a gallon instead of $4, won't the demand increase? And if it is $10 a gallon won't the demand decrease?

Does it work like that in real world? If gas price doubles does that mean that folks who commute by car go only half way to work or stay at home every other day? If an iPhone costs $10, why would you buy 5 of them? What would you do with extra four? Browse hn on five screens at once?

Supply and demand are not infinitely elastic, as some like to think.

> If gas price doubles does that mean that folks who commute by car go only half way to work or stay at home every other day?

There are a lot of behavior that can be changed, not all of it, but people could skip some trips, maybe only 10% - but it is not 0%.

> If an iPhone costs $10, why would you buy 5 of them?

I have 5 umbrellas but just one body. I sometimes forget it at some place, or misplace it. Nice to have a spare when I need one. I could then leave an iPhone at work for when my battery runs out for example.

> Supply and demand are not infinitely elastic, as some like to think.

Fair enough, my examples were a bit contrived and absurd, but my point is more just that neither supply nor demand is fixed. But yes they are not infinitely elastic, but they are somewhat elastic.

How sensitive demand is to changes in price depends on a lot of factors. When heating your home suddenly costs four times as much you can't just use a quarter of the gas, or you'll freeze. Given enough time of course, demand will go down as people improve insulation and switch to heat pumps, but on the scale of a year or two or three demand can't be reduced very much.

> When heating your home suddenly costs four times as much you can't just use a quarter of the gas, or you'll freeze.

Maybe this is an aside to you, but would you expect heating cost to increase or decrease if you are using fossil fuels for heating, and the government has promised to end fossil fuels?

I guess we can point all fingers to Putin, but decreasing the supply of fossil fuels seems to be an implicit campaign promise of the Biden administration, and he has the most popular administration in history, so I'm not sure why people are upset with paying more for heating and gas.

I don't think many people expected the price to rise quite as quickly as it did. Demand for heat pumps and rooftop solar currently outstrips supply by far, at least here in Germany.

> [Biden] has the most popular administration in history.

I see the data quite differently. No President since World War II ended has a lower approval rating on day 523 of their administration.

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/biden-approval-rating/

But his low poll numbers is mainly because the media won't give him credit for the good things he did and because of republican rhetoric.

How is that different from literally any other president?

It is different because the media has not been as right wing as this before.

Why does the media's political bias always seem to be the antithesis of the party in power? To scapegoat the failures of each administration to actually use their power for the public good. I mean, the same media that was apparently run by a vast left-wing conspiracy for years is suddenly right-wing? Did they just change hats?

What accomplishment does Biden have that's going to counterbalance how pathetic his administration's response to the repeal of Roe v. Wade appears? It's become a meme among the left that the only thing the Democrats had prepared in response were fundraising letters.

I think you're being trolled. I admit that I can't be fully sure of it, but I seriously doubt GP believes that Biden has the most popular administration in history; I don't believe Biden has the most popular administration among just the last three, a sentiment that I suspect GP shares.

> I don't believe Biden has the most popular administration among just the last three, a sentiment that I suspect GP shares.

Well he is not if you take the poll numbers, but as Biden has said, the low poll numbers are mainly a side effect of the negative sentiment for his administration in the right wing media. You will need to compensate for this to get an accurate picture.

If you're trying to measure popularity ("the state or condition of being liked, admired, or supported by many people") of someone in an important job, it seems like asking many people whether they approve of the job being done is a primary measurement.

"Compensating" for perceived reasons why a President is not liked, admired, or supported seems antithetical to the goal of measuring popularity. That would seem to me more like "fudging the data" (if I'm being polite) or "making shit up" (if I'm going for clarity).

> I mean, the same media that was apparently run by a vast left-wing conspiracy for years is suddenly right-wing? Did they just change hats?

No, this was just a lie though, the media has always been right wing, they lie and say they are not, but they are.

> What accomplishment does Biden have

He ended COVID, he pulled out of Afghanistan, he restored US reputation on the global stage, he put Russia in it's place, he was busy ending fossil fuels. I dunno there are many things, you just don't hear of them because the media is trying to tank his presidency.

>He ended COVID

I'll grant that he was more competent at administrating the response than Trump, but COVID hasn't ended, the pandemic is still in progress.

>he pulled out of Afghanistan

Yes, but it was a humanitarian disaster. You can argue that he shouldn't be blamed for that, and I might agree, but it didn't make him look good even when reported on honestly.

>he restored US reputation on the global stage

Citation needed. NATO got a credibility boost from Russia's invasion, but the US wound up looking weak and indecisive. And I don't think you can restore the stain on America's reputation that was Trump so easily, or unburn that many bridges. Maybe, if Trumpists don't take power again in 2024, but at the moment being the country in which guns have more rights than women (and soon to be LGBTQ and black people) is not good optics.

>he put Russia in it's place

In what sense? Is Russia's "place" right on top of Ukraine? Did I miss the news about the American negotiated surrender and Russian retreat? I don't understand.

> I'll grant that he was more competent at administrating the response than Trump, but COVID hasn't ended, the pandemic is still in progress.

He gave US the vaccines, without which the pandemic would have been much worse.

> > he pulled out of Afghanistan

> Yes, but it was a humanitarian disaster.

No it was not, this is just further misrepresentation by the media.

> > he restored US reputation on the global stage

> Citation needed.

https://apnews.com/article/government-and-politics-donald-tr...

> > he put Russia in it's place

> In what sense?

He sanctioned norstream 2: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2022/feb/23/biden-u...

Also he said he will make Russia pay for election interference [1].

[1]: https://edition.cnn.com/2021/03/17/politics/joe-biden-vladim...

Are you seriously claiming that Taliban taking over Afghanistan again is not a humanitarian disaster?

Remember the early days of the “bend the curve” part of the pandemic? The US economy was switched off with nothing but crossed fingers ensuring it would turn back on when the switch was flipped back. Production was quite literally brought to near zero. Anyone who dared to hesitate was labeled an anti-science caveman. I hope someone somewhere wrote down how bad an idea that was.

Much of the problem comes from the supply shock in China. Inflation is a global problem which is applying regardless how much “money was printed”

My reading of the figures is US supply has either recovered or is limited because of restricted imports (chips etc)

The governments of the world decided to prop up businesses, employment and asset wealth by printing loads of money. The alternatives were to seize wealth and redistribute it or let it all burn. I can see why they did what they did, although I think history will not be kind.

They did seize a lot of wealth, by diluting everyone's fiat money positions.

In real terms yes but most people think in nominal terms.

1. I agree with you kinda.

2. Why did prices for pretty much everything go up the week, or two, after the media started talking about the war, supply chain problems, and government spending?

Prices were pretty steady during Covid, at least on food, and gas, and most consumer products, except building materials, and appliances.

I personally think corporations used the war, and Covid, to raise prices seemingly overnight. My Chevron station went from $4.29 to $6.25 in a day.

These companies made record profits during Covid, but poof in a couple of weeks just blew up their pricing?

I think they used found a few good excuses to raise prices; and they all fell in line.

Kinda like my $5.49 rebate on my $800/yr. insurance policy at the beginning of Covid. Mercury by the way, and they used to be fair.

Yea, I was uncomfortable with Powell throwing money at the stock market, and buying all those mortgage backed securities, when housing and the stock market thrived during Covid. His response was, 'I kept my agreement with the financial sector.'

Weird times for sure.

So it looks like an overreaction, but the prices are going to be correlated with future expectations, not with prices obtainable right now. Price jumped now because the whole supply chain for X predicted the price on the market will raise soon. Since the revenue pays for future production, this makes sense - what you pay now pays for what you buy again in a month.

Oil companies did not make record profits during covid, they made record losses.

There is a lot to unpack here. I can’t go into details, maybe read a book on MMT. (I can only recommend German resources…)

Some points:

Deflation is bad for the economy, you want moderate inflation.

Increasing the money supply is a prerequisite for inflation, but not the cause. The euro zone increased it‘s money supply enormously for mor than a decade and - until last year - had problems meeting it‘s 2% a year inflation goal.

Increasing the money supply allows for cheap investments for both the state and private business. If the investments provide a net benefit to the economy (e.g. infrastructure) you should just do them. “Anything we can actually do we can afford.” - Keynes

> There is a lot to unpack here. I can’t go into details, maybe read a book on MMT. (I can only recommend German resources…)

I would recommend people start with some normal economics before they get into the economic homologue of urine therapy.

I’ll add that conspicuous consumption, risky investments, and high indebtedness could at least partly be explained by government currency devaluations and low interest rates. It is rational to consume sooner rather than later and take on debt if you’re living in a society that penalizes saving your money. I don’t know how sustainable modern advanced economies’ obsession with growth is.

If you observed the absolute insanity that has been happening in asset prices, venture funding, equities, and crypto, there is absolutely no way you'd think that money printing doesn't lead to inflation (at best) and the complete Mickey-Mousification of the economy (at worst).

Money has started feeling like a joke. It's thrown around for anything and everything.

An ERC-20 memecoin called Shiba Inu hit a market cap of $41B. A dying video game retailer hit a market cap of nearly $30B. A taxi aggregator swallowed $33B in funding and never turned a dime in operational profit in 12 years of its existence. A house bought in 2019 doubled in price in under 2 years.

Its complete and utter insanity.

> pumping metric fucking shit-tons of money into the economy will cause inflation

Only if velocity stayed constant.

Problem is, velocity plummeted with the lockdowns. But now it might be coming back up.

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/M2V

Edit: nope. Looks like GDP Now shows the GDP is still dropping.

https://www.atlantafed.org/cqer/research/gdpnow?panel=3

Ok, but how can you as a fed say that if you double the money supply the velocity will stay the same forever?

This is the ridiculous issue with this MMT theory. How the hell can you be so stupid to assume that just because money velocity is slow now, and you pump lots of money into the system (actually you give it to financial companies, another red flag), it won’t cause inflation in a few years when things pick up?

Especially after a pandemic?

> Ok, but how can you as a fed say that if you double the money supply the velocity will stay the same forever?

It went up by 500% since March 2020 btw, not just 100%, or 200%: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/M1SL

It's not just the amount of money, it is the amount of money available vs the amount of goods available. I'm not an enconomist, so I don't know exactly why, but somehow all the additionally money (which is in form of credits) doesn't end up in the hand of consumers. I think what is going on is that it is harder and harder to get return on investment, which makes it harder to get money through "organic" investments, so they make money cheaper and lower the interest rates, which makes it even harder to get ROI. So all the money they pump in just goes around and keeps the wheels turning artificially. (Meanwhile all the capital flees into housing, crypto and similar markets and inflates them like crazy.)

Anyway, I think the reason behind the inflation is not that the amount of cash is to high. Wages have not grown accordingly and demand has not gone up. But due to Covid, supply chain issues (related and incidental), international conflict, etc., we have just been producing less stuff.

So I would say the inflation of some goods (housing) is due to the simmering financial crisis, and the inflation of others (like wheat, cooking oil, electronics) is due to political strife and economic instability.

> It's not just the amount of money, it is the amount of money available vs the amount of goods available.

Okay, but ... if you just pumping money into the economy, are you not by definition just pumping money into the economy, as opposed to goods and money? If congress could by decree make goods why would anyone need to work?

If people (companies) just use that money to buy financial products, pay off other debt, and so on, and it just kinda circulates in the banks, but most of it doesn't end up in consumer's hands - then there is no reason that the prices for consumer goods should go up, right?

I'm not sure demand driven inflation (= money supply driven) is a relevant problem at the moment. On the contrary I sometimes suspect it is a bogeyman used to justify not raising wages.

> If people (companies) just use that money to buy financial products, pay off other debt, and so on, and it just kinda circulates in the banks, but most of it doesn't end up in consumer's hands - then there is no reason that the prices for consumer goods should go up, right?

Even if there was no direct stimulus, which there was, companies don't just take stimulus, put it in their bank account and forget about it. But sure, if you have some evidence to suggest that this money never really entered circulation I think it would help your case.

The reality is though, money supply increases by 400% since March 2020 and historic inflation followed. There may be other reasons, but I'm not sure what you would expect to see other than inflation.

> On the contrary I sometimes suspect it is a bogeyman used to justify not raising wages.

Wages have increased have they not? This is another signature achievement of the much maligned Biden administration, that the media is trying to hide. Wages are at historically high levels.

> How about, don't pump metric shit-tons of money into the economy and see how that works.

As far as I can tell, economists believe that pumping money into the economy only explains hyper inflation, not low or moderate inflation

If that’s the case, why do they adjust lending (mostly rates) in order to try to hit a moderate inflation target? Surely, they must believe there’s a linkage.

Well they surely are doing a stellar job running shit into the ground, so I guess they clearly know what they are doing.

Actually I think they are generally doing a pretty good job at keeping the inflation within a reasonable range, compared to other historic failures

Correct me if I’m wrong but inflation has done nothing but go up (at least in the US). If they’re keeping it in a range then that range has no upper bound.

Yes you are wrong, look at the graph here https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/USA/united-states/infl...

Inflation in the US has been pretty stable for the last few decades

I'm pretty sure people are mostly upset with the current inflation level, not the inflation level back when it was low.

But I guess those people should just be grateful it was not higher before, and just be less greedy.

The way it’s supposed to work is that the government sells bonds and the money goes away. Much like your original premise, it doesn’t much make sense that people think modern monetary policy only thought up quantitative easing and not quantitative tightening.

Can’t speak to how it will end up working, but its definitely not a surprise.

This recent episode of the Macro n Cheese podcast is very instructive

https://realprogressives.org/podcast_episode/episode-173-inf...

Well they stopped doing that.. Result: S&P500 down 20%, interest rates up, the whole economy is grinding to a halt.

They should have stopped a decade ago, that was the fatal error, and now we're in a spiral of stagflation and the crash will be much worse.

An everlasting asset bubble and money at 0% is not sustainable and never has been.

Yes, in 2009 there was lots of talk of “we’re just kicking the can down the road” when it came to TARP and other measures. But even then, kicking the can became regular policy. I think we’re at the end of the road and reality is going to fix the issue for us whether we like it or not.

Yeah, look at interest rates long term. Money got looser and looser with every downturn. After the last one, the rates went more or less to zero. Everyone had to know that next time we'd be hitting the wall.

Remember summer 2021 when they said, eh, we have some inflation now, but let’s carry on with QE, inflation is transitory anyway?

Would it be better to keep S&P high with inflation at highest levels in 40 years? And if so why?

> maybe don't make a campaign promise to end fossil fuels and act all surprised when the prices for fossil fuels go through the roof

There's a well sourced explanation in this video regarding the price of fuel that I really enjoyed. https://youtu.be/QnBqAzJXVGo There's also previous ones dealing with oil drilling.

The tldr idea is that the US could drill more to satisfy the supply right now, but oil corps like money and high oil prices give them that. And that's regardless of the demand going down over years - the drilling rights are already in place.

Hopefully it also incentivizes people to stop being selfish and buy an electric car.

What evidence do you have that campaign promises to end fossil fuels caused an increase in oil prices. Especially since there is the ukraine war, the end of covid, and inflation?

> What evidence do you have that campaign promises to end fossil fuels caused an increase in oil prices.

If you create policy that deter investment in fossil fuels, and reduce production, would you expect prices to go up or down? And if you don't create policy to deter investment and reduce production, then how will you end fossil fuels?

Maybe a better question to ask is, do you think there is any way to end fossil fuels other than having it be more expensive than alternatives?

Why would the government resume leasing for oil and gas drilling on federal lands if they don't think stopping it affected the supply [1]? Is it just because they really want to mess the climate up some more and break campaign promises?

[1]: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/biden-adminis...

You didn't respond with any evidence you just asked me to prove you wrong which is not how it works.

As for ending fossil fuels , I never commented on that nor am I an expert in the field so I won't make any claim

All I see is promise made, promise kept ... or well not quite but at least they were trying their best up til recently when the Biden administration took a anti climate policy turn for some reason which I don't get. I will still vote for them, but I just wish they would not have broken this particular campaign promise. I think they are right when they said people should just stop being greedy and buy electric cars. If people did this the price of oil will be irrelevant.

But I guess the media has been incredibly negative towards the Biden administration and not giving him credit for the good things he has done, so I'm not surprised that people don't recognize or appreciate the work he has done to end fossil fuels.

Here's a list of campaign promises he made from politifact

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/biden-prom...

Here's a few related to the environment

----

Rejoin the Paris climate agreement

U.S. formally rejoins Paris Climate Agreement | May 21, 2021

---

Put US on a course to net-zero emissions by 2050.

Joe Biden’s moves start the US toward net-zero carbon, but Congress is key | January 27, 2021

Establish new fuel economy standards

EPA tightens fuel efficiency rules for cars and light trucks | January 11, 2022

Give disadvantaged communities 40% of spending benefits related to clean energy

Congress holds key on clean energy dollars to poorer communities | July 20, 2021

###

There are four related to the environment that I can see. He's rejoined the paris aggreement and had then EPA increase fuel economy. The other two haven't been done ..yet.

What promise did he break? If he is anti climate what are you comparing him too? The past president left the Paris agreenment.

> What promise did he break? If he is anti climate what are you comparing him too? The past president left the Paris agreenment.

Well like I said I still think he is the best president ever, but In my view allowing new leases on federal land[1] and asking oil companies to boost supply[2] is breaking his campaign promise to end fossil fuels[3].

But I understand this may be entirely due to my own biases, and I don't want to malign him, like I said I think he is without question the best president ever and I do not mean to suggest I doubt this for one moment. I would of course prefer that he did not allow new leases on federal land but I can see that I should maybe listen to what others think and consider how this is maybe just a better way to keep his promise than what I have considered. And to be fair I'm not entirely sure that the promise to end fossil fuels is not a right wing smear against him, this could very well be the case.

[1]: https://www.cnbc.com/2022/04/15/biden-administration-to-resu...

[2]: https://edition.cnn.com/2022/06/15/politics/joe-biden-oil-co...

[3]: https://apnews.com/article/9dfb1e4c381043bab6fd0fa6dece3974

You said he broke a campaign promise. What promise did he break?

> In my view allowing new leases on federal land[1] and asking oil companies to boost supply[2] is breaking his campaign promise to end fossil fuels[3].

But as you rightly point out there are so many that he has kept that one hardly makes a difference and he still is the most popular president ever so I don't mean to disparage him.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com