There will not be a quick solution to the problem of price increases. It has spread to entire economic areas of activity after having initially struck most the food and energy sectors.
We’ve been given various explanations as to why this has been and still is happening. In the main, what pushed prices upwards were developments that occurred independently of each other. Probably all the reasons that have been referenced are correct. Every development by itself and in complex interaction with the others contributed to generate the ongoing inflation. So, it will be difficult to contain the problem.
Another complication could be that it feels as if inflation is a totally new phenomenon. Today’s decision makers have limited familiarity with inflation and how it progresses. Up to not so long ago, European monetary experts were discussing how hard it was becoming to push inflation up to 2 per cent. At a time when prices were flat, they argued that without a pinch of inflation, economies stagnate. Now they’re getting more than a pinch of it – in fact, a ladleful.
***
UNAWARE
In political life, what gets most noticed are the “great” themes and controversies. Too often though, we do not realize how the most successful political breakthroughs are those which – even while contributing most to an improvement in the quality of our life – are still the least that get mentioned.
Somebody recently provided me with two instances of this. The first was the introduction of seat belts and their use when in a car. By some miracle, people got used to wearing such belts, even if initially there was quite some resistance against the practice.
The other example is that of breast screening against cancer as a routine procedure for women. About this there is today full agreement, and it is saving many lives.
Both are the outcome of wise political action, even though few seem to acknowledge this.
***
AS IF ...
It’s not just a matter of saying that “if things were being done badly in the past, is that a reason for doing them badly now...?”: though this is an argument that cannot simply be ignored.
Still, when someone like yours truly learns about certain lamentations, it is difficult to avoid arriving at certain conclusions. Like say, the complaints about how public broadcasting is run in an “unbalanced” manner and serves to promote that version of public affairs which comes closest to the government’s views.
As if this has not always been the case. For instance, in the two years prior to Malta’s accession to the EU as a full member, the national broadcasting system was primed to transmit as many as possible of very positive messages about the EU, while projecting the Nationalist government’s perspective about the progress or otherwise of the negotiations the latter was conducting with the EU.
In the referendum organized by the government on membership, votes in favour as a percentage of the valid votes cast was the lowest in the referenda which were held in the countries that were then lining up for membership.What would have been the outcome had the public broadcasting system at that time been truly “balanced”?