Question

Think about the debate and which claims were more clearly supported by reasons and evidence. Evaluate in a three paragraph essay (4-5 sentences each).

Which candidate do you think proposed a more compelling argument about inflation? Support your claim with specific data presented by the candidates. Be sure to mention at least one counterpoint, and refute this point with evidence.

Answer 1

Explanation:

political party need to get mark and win election

Answer 2

Answer:

• Although prices have been rising at their quickest rate in years, there hasn't been any discussion of inflation.
• Five have been the norm. If we make a distinction between them, we might be able to think through the problems more effectively.

• The first topic of discussion is the extent of the current inflation, including its duration and ultimate height.

• It all began last spring when some experts warned that inflation would likely reach its highest level in a decade.
• Others contended that inflation would first remain restrained and subsequently turn out to be "transitory."
• It has now been sustained at a high level for long enough for Jerome Powell to step down as chairman of the Federal Reserve.

• A second discussion has erupted about how detrimental this inflation is. Because it enables borrowers to pay back their loans with depreciated currency, optimists assert that it will benefit many, if not the majority of Americans.
• The public is on the side of the pessimists, who have stressed how the real value of wages has decreased over the past year.

• The third debate explores the causes of inflation. Some politicians and activists blame growing company concentration and corporate greed.
• However, these justifications don't explain: It's difficult to think that greed followed the same path as business concentration, which didn't decline for four decades beginning in the 1980s before abruptly rising last year.
• The more significant debate is on how much the overstimulation of the economy and how much the Covid-19-related disruptions have contributed to higher costs. Or, how much of the issue is caused by "supply" and how much by "demand"?

• The fourth discussion is swiftly followed by the question of how to combat inflation. There are several suggested remedies, including slowing down the Fed's asset purchases, increasing interest rates, reducing regulations to solve shortages, limiting federal expenditures, and — this one is favored by corporate-greed theorists — enforcing price restrictions.

• The fifth question follows, which is: To what extent is this President Joe Biden's fault? There isn't a prize for figuring out the division line in that case.

• It is clear that these discussions are all connected. How much damage inflation has caused can be determined, for instance, by looking at what's causing it: It is unrealistic to anticipate that a supply-driven inflation will benefit borrowers or be simple for the Fed to combat. But combining these problems can result in errors.

• Supporters of Biden have occasionally used supply-chain hiccups as an argument against his responsibility for inflation. His opponents frequently choose to highlight loose budgetary policy, which makes his guilt obvious. But this perspective on the problems is just a rut we've gotten ourselves into.

• Biden needs to do more to combat the present inflation, which can be partly attributed to a supply problem. The Jones Act, which increases the cost of shipping products, should be repealed; the president has complete authority to do so.

• The problem with Biden's spending is not only one of supply. The supply effect is what critics are referring to when they claim that Covid relief money made it too simple for people to avoid employment.

#SPJ2