Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Inflation Has Changed—And So Has Who Pays for It

Opinion

Bar graph of shopping carts

A deeper look at inflation in today’s economy—beyond money printing. Explore how trade fragmentation, geopolitics, tariffs, and industrial policy are driving structural inflation and rising costs in the U.S.

Andriy Onufriyenko/Getty Images

A familiar conservative argument is back: inflation is the result of government printing and overspending. Too many dollars, too much demand, not enough goods. It is a tidy explanation, one that has the advantage of clarity and a long intellectual pedigree. It is also incomplete.

That story assumes a stable, globalized economy in which production is efficient, supply chains are reliable, and market signals dominate political ones. In that world, inflation can plausibly be reduced to a question of monetary discipline or fiscal restraint. But today’s economy no longer operates under those conditions. Inflation is now driven less by excess demand and more by rising costs tied to trade fragmentation, industrial policy, and geopolitical conflict. These forces are not temporary disruptions. They are reshaping how goods are produced, where they are produced, and at what cost.


A More Expensive World

Globalization once acted as a quiet but powerful constraint on inflation. Firms produced where it was cheapest, supply chains were optimized for efficiency, and consumers benefited from lower prices across a wide range of goods. That system is now breaking down. Tariffs, export controls, and strategic decoupling are raising costs in ways that are both direct and cumulative. Tariffs, in particular, function like a tax on imports and their inputs. Those costs rarely remain with firms; they are passed along to consumers, often invisibly but consistently.

Production is shifting closer to home, not because it is cheaper, but because it is seen as safer. Supply chains are being duplicated rather than streamlined. Political priorities are replacing market efficiency as the guiding principle of economic organization. Each of these changes may be justified on strategic grounds. Taken together, they create an economy that is structurally more expensive to operate.

Geopolitics reinforces this trend. Conflict with Iran, particularly any disruption of the Strait of Hormuz, would drive up global energy prices almost immediately. Roughly one-fifth of the world’s oil supply moves through that narrow passage. Any sustained disruption would ripple through transportation, manufacturing, and food production. The effects would not be evenly distributed. Lower-income households would feel them first and most acutely, as fuel, heating, and basic goods become more expensive in a matter of weeks.

Industrial policy adds another layer of cost. Governments are investing heavily in semiconductors, energy infrastructure, and advanced manufacturing. These are long-term bets intended to rebuild domestic capacity and reduce reliance on foreign suppliers. They may succeed over time, but in the short term they require enormous capital outlays in sectors where the United States no longer has a fully developed industrial base. Rebuilding that capacity is expensive, and those costs work their way through the broader economy.

The same dynamic is now visible in the expansion of artificial intelligence infrastructure. Data centers are being built at a rapid pace, requiring vast amounts of electricity, land, water, and specialized hardware. Utilities must upgrade grids. Local governments must expand infrastructure. Construction costs rise as demand for materials and labor increases. These pressures do not remain confined to the technology sector. They feed into energy prices, housing markets, and local tax structures, creating diffuse but persistent upward pressure on costs.

Governing Without Discipline

Governance amplifies these structural pressures. Fiscal policy in the United States has become increasingly reactive rather than strategic. Temporary funding measures replace long-term budgeting. Policymakers focus on avoiding immediate crises rather than establishing coherent priorities. The result is a system that struggles to impose discipline, even when conditions demand it.

The traditional conservative view begins with a partial truth: monetary expansion and government spending can fuel inflation, particularly in the short run. But it falls short as a comprehensive explanation. Today’s inflation is not simply the product of too much money in circulation. It is also the result of how the economy is being reorganized and how effectively political institutions manage that transition. When governance becomes fragmented and short-term, it can magnify cost pressures rather than contain them.

Who Actually Pays

The consequences of this shift are uneven, and that unevenness is central to understanding the current moment. Higher-income households can often absorb rising costs. They have access to assets that appreciate in value, and they possess the flexibility to adjust spending without fundamentally altering their standard of living.

Lower-income families do not have that flexibility. Consider a Detroit couple, Maria and James. Their rent rises by $150 a month. Groceries cost more. Gas prices climb. Their wages inch upward, but not enough to close the gap. There are no easy substitutions. Cheaper housing is farther from work, increasing transportation costs. Cutting back on essentials is not a real option. What appears, in aggregate terms, as modest inflation becomes a set of immediate and binding constraints.

Retirees face a similar but distinct challenge. A couple living primarily on Social Security may receive cost-of-living adjustments, but those adjustments lag behind actual price changes and often fail to capture the full increase in healthcare, insurance, and housing costs. Over time, purchasing power declines. The erosion is gradual, but it is persistent, and it forces difficult trade-offs between basic needs.

Moderate inflation in the aggregate thus becomes severe in practice. It also redistributes wealth in ways that are often overlooked. Inflation tends to benefit those who hold assets that rise in value, such as real estate or equities, while disadvantaging those whose income is fixed or whose savings are held in cash. In this sense, inflation is not neutral. It reshapes the economic landscape, often widening existing inequalities.

The core issue is not simply whether inflation rises or falls in the coming months; it is whether institutions can manage an economy that is becoming more expensive to operate. That challenge requires more than adjusting interest rates. It requires coherent fiscal policy, a realistic approach to industrial strategy, and a clearer understanding of the trade-offs between economic security and efficiency.

Inflation is no longer just a technical problem to be managed by central banks. It reflects deeper structural and political changes that extend well beyond monetary policy. The economy is changing, prices are following, and the question is not only how high they will go, but who will bear the cost and whether our institutions are capable of responding effectively.


Robert Cropf is a Professor of Political Science at Saint Louis University.


Read More

Mamdani is ignoring 40 centuries of economic lessons

New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani arrives prior to speaking about the fiscal year 2027 budget in New York City on May 12, 2026. Mamdani has led the charge to freeze rents on one- and two-year leases for New York City’s 1 million rent-regulated apartments.

(Timothy A. Clary/AFP/Getty Images/TNS)

Mamdani is ignoring 40 centuries of economic lessons

Last week, New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani announced a citywide freeze on rents.

The response from economists can be summarized as “oy.”

Keep ReadingShow less
America's Blue Collar Workers Shouldn’t Be the Fall Guy for Everyone Else’s Prosperity
yellow and black fork lift
Photo by Pickawood on Unsplash

America's Blue Collar Workers Shouldn’t Be the Fall Guy for Everyone Else’s Prosperity

One of the worst mistakes a Democratic President ever made was Bill Clinton's signing of the NAFTA trade agreement. The impact of free trade agreements—economically and politically—has been terrible for the American blue-collar worker and for the Democratic Party. I don't believe Donald Trump would be in the White House today were it not for NAFTA and the other trade agreements.

As early as 2011, I wrote a post, "Democrats Better Pay Attention to the Needs of the Middle Class." The middle class was clearly hurting due to job losses from globalization and wage stagnation since the 70s. And they were angry. But the Democratic Party paid no attention.

Keep ReadingShow less
The Trillionaire and the Homeless Person
A politician counting money in front of the US Capitol Building.
Getty Images, fStop Images - Antenna

The Trillionaire and the Homeless Person

There have always been and there will always be rich people and poor people. That is inherent in the nature of man in non-collective societies.

But while our Founding Fathers—in particular John Adams—recognized that nature is filled with examples of inequalities in man's material possessions as well as in his mental and physical attributes—and that's just the way it is—he felt strongly that each person has the moral right to change his circumstances, the moral right to equality as well as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. And that government's role—as stated in the Declaration of Independence—is to "secure" those rights.

Keep ReadingShow less
 Full length of man unloading cardboard box from van

America's moving season is slowing to a historic standstill. Discover how mortgage lock-in, housing shortages, and declining mobility threaten economic opportunity and the American Dream.

Maskot / Getty Images

America Has Stopped Moving

The arrival of early June traditionally signals the great seasonal stirring of the American demographic engine. As school districts wrap up and corporations align their fiscal calendars, hundreds of thousands of families pack up moving vans, pull up stakes, and chase opportunity across state lines. This radical freedom to move - to escape an economically stagnant region, abandon a declining industry, and claim a stake in a booming frontier - has long been the primary safety valve of American democracy. It is the literal mechanism of self-reinvention, an unwritten article of the national faith that promises that where you begin is not where you are destined to finish. It was this spatial fluidity that historically distinguished the American social hierarchy from the rigid, ancestral geography of Europe, where a family's prospects were bound to the soil of their birth for generations.

Yet, as the peak moving season gets underway this year, real estate data reveals an eerie, unprecedented stagnation: domestic relocation rates have plummeted to modern historic lows, with the Census Bureau reporting the lowest mobility rate since tracking began in 1948. The great continental migration that has defined American economic vitality and cultural mixing since the days of the frontier has ground to a sudden, structural halt. From abroad, the silence of this once restless internal movement is even more striking – a demographic engine that once roared now barely hums.

Keep ReadingShow less