Inflation remains one of the most discussed and misunderstood economic issues affecting the United States today. With rising prices impacting everything from grocery bills to gas stations, understanding the underlying causes, ongoing impacts, heresies and speculations, and possible solutions is essential. In this blog, we delve into the complexities of inflation and examine the role of government actions, particularly under the Biden Administration, in managing this economic challenge.Photo by Matthias Groeneveld on Pexels.com
What Causes Inflation?
Inflation can arise from several sources, categorized mainly into three types: demand-pull inflation, cost-push inflation, and built-in inflation.
Demand-pull inflation occurs when the demand for goods and services exceeds their supply.
Cost-push inflation is caused by an increase in the costs of production, such as raw materials and wages.
Built-in inflation emerges from the expectation of future price increases, leading workers to demand higher wages, which companies pass on to consumers as higher prices.
Understanding these mechanisms is crucial to addressing inflation effectively, as each type may require different policy responses.
Current Causes of Inflation in the US
Today, the US economy faces inflation driven largely by post-pandemic economic recovery dynamics. Key factors include supply chain disruptions, increased consumer spending, substantial government stimulus measures, and global economic pressures. Each of these factors has combined in unique ways to push prices upward, albeit hopefully temporarily.
Heresies, Speculations, and Truths
A significant point of contention and speculation revolves around the concept that corporations are exploiting these turbulent times to increase prices disproportionately, thereby boosting profits at the expense of consumers. While businesses are indeed facing increased costs, the extent to which these are being passed on to consumers varies by industry and firm, leading to debates over potential price gouging.
This raises an essential question: Are current inflation trends purely the result of macroeconomic factors, or are they exacerbated by strategic corporate pricing behaviors? The truth likely lies somewhere in between, reflecting the complex interplay of cost-driven pricing adjustments and market power.
Policy Responses and Actions by the Biden Administration
Addressing inflation requires a combination of monetary policy, fiscal adjustments, and targeted interventions.
Monetary Policy: Traditionally managed by the Federal Reserve, this includes manipulating interest rates and controlling the money supply to temper economic overheating.
Fiscal Policy: Here, government spending and taxation play roles—areas where the administration has significant influence.
Regulatory Measures: The government can enforce antitrust laws, monitor unfair pricing practices, and ensure a competitive market environment.
Under President Biden, the Inflation Reduction Act represents a broad policy measure ostensibly designed to tackle inflation by making long-term investments in energy infrastructure, healthcare, and tax reforms. While its name suggests an immediate reduction in inflation, its actual impacts are geared more towards future economic stability and growth.
Furthermore, the administration can support the economy through social programs, wage supports, and direct financial aid, which can alleviate the burden on consumers and help stabilize demand.
Something to Think About
While inflation remains a pressing issue, it is clear that no single policy or action can completely address its varied causes. A balanced approach that includes responsible monetary policy, prudent fiscal management, and firm regulatory oversight is essential. Moreover, clear communication and strategic planning by the administration can help set realistic expectations and guide the economy toward a more stable future.
In tackling inflation, understanding its roots, dispelling myths, and implementing a holistic strategy are vital steps forward for the Biden administration and other stakeholders. As we navigate these economic challenges, staying informed and engaged is crucial for all citizens.
References and Resources
Understanding inflation involves a multi-faceted approach, taking into account economic theories, current events, and policy impacts. Here are some resources that can provide a well-rounded view of the ongoing discussions and analyses regarding inflation in the current US economy:
Advertisement
Federal Reserve Economic Data (FRED) – St. Louis Fed
Description: Find detailed economic analyses and data on GDP, consumer spending, and corporate profits, all of which tie into broader inflation discussions.
Description: Brookings provides thorough research articles and papers on economic topics, including detailed discussions on inflation causes and effects.
“Inflation Dynamics and Monetary Policy” by the International Monetary Fund (IMF)
Description: This paper discusses inflation dynamics and the impact of monetary policy, offering a global perspective that can also be applied to the US context.
Description: Although not an article, this textbook provides a solid foundation in economic principles, including detailed discussions on how inflation works.
Description: A wealth of research papers on economic topics, including inflation studies that help explain current trends in the US.
By exploring these resources, you can gain a deeper insight into how inflation is currently affecting the US economy, what the potential future trends could be, and how policy decisions influence the economic outlook.
STM Daily News is a vibrant news blog dedicated to sharing the brighter side of human experiences. Emphasizing positive, uplifting stories, the site focuses on delivering inspiring, informative, and well-researched content. With a commitment to accurate, fair, and responsible journalism, STM Daily News aims to foster a community of readers passionate about positive change and engaged in meaningful conversations. Join the movement and explore stories that celebrate the positive impacts shaping our world.
Rod: A creative force, blending words, images, and flavors. Blogger, writer, filmmaker, and photographer. Cooking enthusiast with a sci-fi vision. Passionate about his upcoming series and dedicated to TNC Network. Partnered with Rebecca Washington for a shared journey of love and art. View all posts
Rod: A creative force, blending words, images, and flavors. Blogger, writer, filmmaker, and photographer. Cooking enthusiast with a sci-fi vision. Passionate about his upcoming series and dedicated to TNC Network. Partnered with Rebecca Washington for a shared journey of love and art.
Tariffs 101: What they are, who pays them, and why they matter now
Learn what tariffs are, who pays them, and why they matter for the U.S. economy. Explore how import taxes impact prices, trade policy, and everyday consumers as the Supreme Court reviews Trump’s global tariffs.
Tariffs 101: What they are, who pays them, and why they matter now
Kent Jones, Babson College The U.S. Supreme Court is currently reviewing a case to determine whether President Donald Trump’s global tariffs are legal. Until recently, tariffs rarely made headlines. Yet today, they play a major role in U.S. economic policy, affecting the prices of everything from groceriesto autosto holiday gifts, as well as the outlook for unemployment, inflation and even recession. I’m an economist who studies trade policy, and I’ve found that many people have questions about tariffs. This primer explains what they are, what effects they have, and why governments impose them.
What are tariffs, and who pays them?
Tariffs are taxes on imports of goods, usually for purposes of protecting particular domestic industries from import competition. When an American business imports goods, U.S. Customs and Border Protection sends it a tariff bill that the company must pay before the merchandise can enter the country. Because tariffs raise costs for U.S. importers, those companies usually pass the expense on to their customers by raising prices. Sometimes, importers choose to absorb part of the tariff’s cost so consumers don’t switch to more affordable competing products. However, firms with low profit margins may risk going out of business if they do that for very long. In general, the longer tariffs are in place, the more likely companies are to pass the costs on to customers. Importers can also ask foreign suppliers to absorb some of the tariff cost by lowering their export price. But exporters don’t have an incentive to do that if they can sell to other countries at a higher price. Studies of Trump’s 2025 tariffs suggest that U.S. consumers and importers are already paying the price, with little evidence that foreign suppliers have borne any of the burden. After six months of the tariffs, importers are absorbing as much as 80% of the cost, which suggests that they believe the tariffs will be temporary. If the Supreme Court allows the Trump tariffs to continue, the burden on consumers will likely increase. While tariffs apply only to imports, they tend to indirectly boost the prices of domestically produced goods, too. That’s because tariffs reduce demand for imports, which in turn increases the demand for substitutes. This allows domestic producers to raise their prices as well.
A brief history of tariffs
The U.S. Constitution assigns all tariff- and tax-making power to Congress. Early in U.S. history, tariffs were used to finance the federal government. Especially after the Civil War, when U.S. manufacturing was growing rapidly, tariffs were used to shield U.S. industries from foreign competition. The introduction of the individual income tax in 1913 displaced tariffs as the main source of U.S. tax revenue. The last major U.S. tariff law was the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930, which established an average tariff rate of 20% on all imports by 1933. Those tariffs sparked foreign retaliation and a global trade war during the Great Depression. After World War II, the U.S. led the formation of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, or GATT, which promoted tariff reduction policies as the key to economic stability and growth. As a result, global average tariff rates dropped from around 40% in 1947 to 3.5% in 2024. The U.S. average tariff rate fell to 2.5% that year, while about 60% of all U.S. imports entered duty-free. While Congress is officially responsible for tariffs, it can delegate emergency tariff power to the president for quick action as long as constitutional boundaries are followed. The current Supreme Court case involves Trump’s use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA, to unilaterally change all U.S. general tariff rates and duration, country by country, by executive order. The controversy stems from the claim that Trump has overstepped his constitutional authority granted by that act, which does not mention tariffs or specifically authorize the president to impose them.
The pros and cons of tariffs
In my view, though, the bigger question is whether tariffs are good or bad policy. The disastrous experience of the tariff war during the Great Depression led to a broad global consensus favoring freer trade and lower tariffs. Research in economics and political science tends to back up this view, although tariffs have never disappeared as a policy tool, particularly for developing countries with limited sources of tax revenue and the desire to protect their fledgling industries from imports. Yet Trump has resurrected tariffs not only as a protectionist device, but also as a source of government revenue for the world’s largest economy. In fact, Trump insists that tariffs can replace individual income taxes, a view contested by most economists. Most of Trump’s tariffs have a protectionist purpose: to favor domestic industries by raising import prices and shifting demand to domestically produced goods. The aim is to increase domestic output and employment in tariff-protected industries, whose success is presumably more valuable to the economy than the open market allows. The success of this approach depends on labor, capital and long-term investment flowing into protected sectors in ways that improve their efficiency, growth and employment. Critics argue that tariffs come with trade-offs: Favoring one set of industries necessarily disfavors others, and it raises prices for consumers. Manipulating prices and demand results in market inefficiency, as the U.S. economy produces more goods that are less efficiently made and fewer that are more efficiently made. In addition, U.S. tariffs have already resulted in foreign retaliatory trade actions, damaging U.S. exporters. Trump’s tariffs also carry an uncertainty cost because he is constantly threatening, changing, canceling and reinstating them. Companies and financiers tend to invest in protected industries only if tariff levels are predictable. But Trump’s negotiating strategy has involved numerous reversals and new threats, making it difficult for investors to calculate the value of those commitments. One study estimates that such uncertainty has actually reduced U.S. investment by 4.4% in 2025. A major, if underappreciated, cost of Trump’s tariffs is that they have violated U.S. global trade agreements and GATT rules on nondiscrimination and tariff-binding. This has made the U.S. a less reliable trading partner. The U.S. had previously championed this system, which brought stability and cooperation to global trade relations. Now that the U.S. is conducting trade policy through unilateral tariff hikes and antagonistic rhetoric, its trading partners are already beginning to look for new, more stable and growing trade relationships. So what’s next? Trump has vowed to use other emergency tariff measures if the Supreme Court strikes down his IEEPA tariffs. So as long as Congress is unwilling to step in, it’s likely that an aggressive U.S. tariff regime will continue, regardless of the court’s judgment. That means public awareness of tariffs – and of who pays them and what they change – will remain crucial for understanding the direction of the U.S. economy. Kent Jones, Professor Emeritus, Economics, Babson College This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
STM Daily News is a vibrant news blog dedicated to sharing the brighter side of human experiences. Emphasizing positive, uplifting stories, the site focuses on delivering inspiring, informative, and well-researched content. With a commitment to accurate, fair, and responsible journalism, STM Daily News aims to foster a community of readers passionate about positive change and engaged in meaningful conversations. Join the movement and explore stories that celebrate the positive impacts shaping our world.
Public Outrage Grows After Campbell’s Executive’s Alleged Remarks — Online Creators Share Homemade Soup Alternatives
Public outrage is rising after a Campbell’s executive was allegedly recorded making offensive remarks about the company’s products and the customers who buy them. While no formal boycott exists, the controversy has sparked widespread social media criticism and inspired home cooks to share homemade alternatives to popular Campbell’s soups.
Public Outrage Grows After Campbell’s Executive’s Alleged Remarks — Online Creators Share Homemade Soup Alternatives
A controversy inside Campbell Soup Company has touched a nerve nationwide, sparking widespread frustration and online criticism after a senior executive was allegedly recorded making demeaning comments about Campbell’s products and the customers who buy them.
While no organized or formal nationwide boycott of Campbell’s soups has emerged, there is significant public outrageand a rapidly growing conversation across YouTube, TikTok, and Reddit. For many consumers, the alleged remarks hit hard at a time when food prices are already a point of stress for millions of households.
The Controversy: What Sparked the Outrage
The uproar began when former Campbell employee Robert Garza filed a lawsuit alleging that senior executive Martin Bally referred to Campbell’s products as “s–t for f—ing poor people” during a recorded meeting. Bally also allegedly criticized the quality of Campbell’s food, made derogatory remarks toward employees of Indian descent, and admitted to sometimes working under the influence of THC edibles.
Campbell’s condemned the language, calling it “vulgar, offensive, and false,” and confirmed that the executive is no longer with the company. But the damage was already done.
Consumers took to social media to express disappointment, disgust, and a sense of betrayal — especially from a legacy brand long associated with affordability and comfort.
Public Reaction: Anger, Disappointment, and Accountability
Most online reactions fall into three main themes:
1. Outrage Over Class-Based Insults
Many commenters expressed shock at the idea that a company leader would look down on customers who rely on inexpensive pantry staples.
Posts on X, TikTok comments, and YouTube discussions reveal a powerful sentiment:
People don’t like being talked down to by the brands they support.
Advertisement
2. Concerns About Product Quality
The controversy revived older debates about:
sodium levels
processed ingredients
preservatives in canned foods
Some consumers say the scandal made them reconsider what they buy and what they feed their families.
3. Calls for Transparency — Not a Boycott
While a few individuals have independently refused to buy Campbell’s, there is no organized boycott movement. Most people simply want clarity, accountability, and respect.
A Side Story: Homemade Alternatives Gain Attention
Although this situation hasn’t produced a formal boycott, the controversy has inspired some ambitious home chefs and food creators to post homemade versions of popular Campbell’s products, both as commentary and as helpful kitchen alternatives.
These aren’t framed as protest movements — more like culinary creativity sparked by frustration.
These videos are circulating widely, especially among budget-conscious food channels.
Many creators say they’re simply giving people recipes to help them “take control of what’s in their food.”
Past Issues Resurface
The scandal also resurfaced previous points of criticism that occasionally target Campbell’s, including:
high sodium content
the use of certain preservatives
debates over processed food labeling
consumer concerns about affordability during inflation
These older issues — combined with the executive’s alleged remarks — have renewed scrutiny of the company’s overall relationship with consumers.
Advertisement
What’s Next for Campbell’s?
The company now faces:
A lawsuit
A wave of public criticism
An ongoing social media discussion
Increased interest in cooking from scratch or choosing alternatives
As the story continues to unfold, the biggest challenge for Campbell’s may be rebuilding trust with shoppers who want affordable food without feeling looked down upon. https://stmdailynews.com/
STM Daily News will continue following updates in the case, public reaction, and the conversation happening across social platforms.
At our core, we at STM Daily News, strive to keep you informed and inspired with the freshest content on all things food and beverage. From mouthwatering recipes to intriguing articles, we’re here to satisfy your appetite for culinary knowledge.
Visit our Food & Drink section to get the latest on Foodie News and recipes, offering a delightful blend of culinary inspiration and gastronomic trends to elevate your dining experience. https://stmdailynews.com/food-and-drink/
$2B Counter-Strike 2 market crash exposes a legal black hole: Your digital investments aren’t really yours
$2B Counter-Strike 2 market crash reveals a legal gap: digital items you buy aren’t really yours. Learn why corporations can manipulate virtual economies without regulation or consumer protection.
Hands using laptop type on keyboard. Image Credit: Adobe Stock
$2B Counter-Strike 2 market crash exposes a legal black hole: Your digital investments aren’t really yours
João Marinotti, Indiana University In late October 2025, as much as US$2 billion vanished from a digital marketplace. This wasn’t a hack or a bubble bursting. It happened because one company, Valve, changed the rules for its video game Counter-Strike 2, a popular first-person shooter with a global player base of nearly 30 million monthly users. For years, its players have bought, sold and traded digital cosmetic items, known as “skins.” Some rare items, particularly knives and gloves, commanded high prices in real-world money – up to $1.5 million – leading some gamers to treat the market like an investment portfolio. As a result, many investment-style analytics websites charge monthly fees for financial insight, trends and transaction data from this digital marketplace. In one fell swoop, Valve unilaterally changed the game. It expanded the “trade up contract,” allowing players to exchange – or “trade up” – a number of their common assets into knives or gloves. By flipping this switch, Valve instantly upended digital scarcity. The market was flooded with new supply, and the value of existing high-end items collapsed. Prices plummeted, initially erasing half the market’s total value, which exceeded $6 billion before the recent crash. Although a partial recovery brought the net loss to roughly 25%, significant volatility continues, leaving investors unsure whether the bottom has truly fallen out. Many of those who saw their digital fortunes evaporate immediately wondered whether there was anything they could do to get their money back. Speaking as a law professor and a gamer myself, the answer isn’t what they want to hear: no. In fact, the existing legal structure largely protects Valve’s ability to engage in this sort of digital market manipulation. Players and investors were simply out of luck. The Counter-Strike 2 crash reveals a troubling reality that extends far beyond video games: Corporations have built exchange-scale investment markets governed primarily by private terms-of-service agreements, rather than the robust set of public regulations that oversee traditional financial and consumer markets. These digital economies occupy a legal blind spot, lacking the fundamental guardrails of property rights, meaningful consumer protection or even securities regulation.Buyers’ guides like this one have cropped up on YouTube.
Your digital ‘property’ isn’t really yours
If you spend real money on a digital item, it may feel like you should own it. Legally, you don’t. The digital economy is built on a crucial distinction between ownership and licensing. When users sign up for Steam, Valve’s platform, they agree to the Steam subscriber agreement. Buried in that contract is a critical piece of legalese stating that all digital assets and services provided by Valve, including the Counter-Strike 2 skins, are merely “licensed, not sold.” The license granted to users “confers no title or ownership” at all. This isn’t meaningless corporate jargon; it’s a legal standard routinely affirmed by U.S. courts. The legal implication is clear: Because players only license their skins, they have no property rights over them. When Valve changed the game’s mechanics in a way that collapsed the items’ market value, it didn’t steal, damage or destroy anyone’s “property.” In the eyes of the law, Valve simply altered the conditions of a license, something that its terms-of-service agreement allows it to do unilaterally, at any time, for any reason.
Consumer protection laws don’t apply
While the Counter-Strike 2 crash may seem like a violation of consumer rights, current laws are ill-equipped to handle this type of corporate behavior. Lawmakers have begun addressing concerns about digital goods, primarily focusing on instances where purchased movies or games disappear entirely from user libraries. For example, California recently enacted AB 2426. This law requires transparency, prohibiting terms like “buy” or “purchase” unless the consumer confirms that they understand they will receive only a revocable license. As commendable as this law is, it protects only against confusion and loss of access, not loss of market value when platforms rebalance virtual economies. Valve can comply with consumer transparency laws and still adjust the supply of digital items, rendering them valueless overnight. Ultimately, current consumer protection laws are designed to ensure users know what they are licensing. They do not, however, create ownership interests or protect the speculative value of those digital items.
Game items are treated like unregulated stocks
Perhaps the most significant legal vacuum is the absence of financial regulation. The Counter-Strike 2 economy, a multibillion-dollar ecosystem with dedicated investors and third-party cash markets, looks and behaves like a traditional financial market. Yet, it remains outside the purview of any financial regulator, such as the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Under U.S. law, the primary standard for determining whether an asset should be governed as a security is the Howey test. According to this Supreme Court precedent, an asset is a security if it meets four criteria. Securities involve an “investment of money” in a “common enterprise” with a reasonable expectation of “profits” derived from the “efforts of others.” Counter-Strike 2 skins arguably meet all of these criteria. Participants invest real money in a common enterprise – Valve’s platform – with an expectation of profit. Crucially, that profit depends on the “efforts of others.” The SEC notes this prong is met when a promoter provides “essential managerial efforts” that affect the enterprise’s success. Valve controls the game’s development, manages the platform and – as the recent update proves – dictates item supply and scarcity. If a publicly traded company unilaterally changed its rules in a way that predictably tanked the price of its own shares, regulators would immediately investigate for market manipulation. So how can Valve get away with this? Three things cut against the skins’ status as securities. First is their “consumptive intent” – skins are primarily game cosmetics. Second, there’s no way to convert the skins into dollars within Valve’s own ecosystem. In other words, third-party markets allow users to cash out, but these markets operate outside Valve’s own immediate control. And finally, the Howey test generally governs assets, such as stocks and bonds, that grant investors enforceable rights. Valve’s licensing scheme attempts to circumvent this by ensuring players hold nothing but a revocable license. In my view, the $2 billion crash is a wake-up call. As digital economies grow in financial significance, society must decide: Will these markets continue to be governed solely by private corporate contracts? Or will they require integration into more robust legal frameworks, such as securities regulation, consumer protection and property law? João Marinotti, Associate Professor of Law, Indiana University This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
