Aggregator
The Myth Of Price Controls
The Cuban dictator Miguel Díaz-Canel’s recent admission that Cuba’s generalized price caps failed to contain inflation, generated shortages, encouraged illegal markets, and reduced tax revenues is another confirmation of a much older economic lesson: price controls do not solve inflationary pressures, and they intensify the distortions they are meant to prevent.
The Cuban case is especially revealing because the criticism comes not from ideological opponents but from the regime that imposed the controls and later conceded their failure.
Cuban dictator admits that price controls never work.
Mamdani, Elizabeth Warren, Sanders and Ocasio Cortez should listen pic.twitter.com/OtEChOioL3
According to Díaz-Canel’s own remarks, price controls in Cuba produced the opposite of their intended effect: instead of stabilizing prices, they encouraged product scarcity, illegal-market activity, higher effective prices, and falling tax revenues. The government’s decision to eliminate price controls therefore amounts to an empirical acknowledgment that administrative decrees could not keep pace with economic reality.
This episode matters beyond Cuba because it captures the core mechanism of price control failure. When official prices are fixed below levels that would clear the market, legal suppliers reduce availability, quality deteriorate, and transactions migrate to informal channels where the real market price reappears, often with a premium for risk and scarcity. Thus, inflation is not abolished by decree but only transferred from the official statistics into queues, shortages, and the underground market.
The Austrian School of Economics has long argued that prices are not arbitrary numbers but indispensable signals coordinating dispersed knowledge across an economy. Ludwig von Mises claimed that intervening against market prices does not eliminate the underlying forces of supply and demand but rather creates secondary distortions that generate demands for additional intervention. Friedrich Von Hayek reminded us that market prices transmit information that no planner can centrally aggregate in real time, making administrative price fixing structurally destructive.
From this standpoint, price controls always fail because they attack symptoms of disequilibrium rather than the causes. Inflation is caused by monetary expansion, fiscal excess, and government intervention. Capping prices cannot restore equilibrium; it only disguises the visible expression of official price measures for a short time. Every nation that implemented price controls experienced repressed inflation, scarcity, and the transfer of exchange into underground markets.
Modern empirical research is almost unanimous. A broad review of studies on price controls and limits finds near-universal evidence of shortages and persistent inflation, along with lower quality, weaker innovation, and long-run welfare losses. Historical evidence from the United States also shows that wartime price controls and the Nixon-era stabilization program only brought rationing, shortages, and renewed price surges.
The empirical literature is particularly clear on resource misallocation. Lucas Davis and Lutz Kilian estimate that residential natural gas price controls in the United States from 1954 to 1989 created shortages of almost 20 percent and widespread supply disruptions. Edward Glaeser and Erzo Luttmer find that rent control in New York generated scarcity and misallocated housing by encouraging occupancy patterns disconnected from household size, imposing substantial annual welfare losses.
Other studies show that the negative effect of controls quickly adds other costs. H. E. Frech III and William C. Lee estimate that the welfare cost of gasoline queuing during the U.S. oil crises exceeded $5 billion in California alone, illustrating how suppressed prices frequently reappear as waiting costs and widespread economic losses. Research also finds that quality tends to deteriorate under ceilings because producers attempt to remain profitable by lowering inputs when they are prevented from charging market prices.
One of the worst outcomes of price controls is the expansion of the black economy. When the legal price becomes uneconomic for suppliers, transactions disappear or go off the books, where sellers can charge prices closer to actual scarcity conditions. Even the European Commission, the World Bank, and the FMI recognize this pattern, admitting that controls drive activity toward illegal markets, reduce tax collection, and create significant distortions in the economy. Gas price controls in Spain resulted in an increase in prices for 75% of consumers when the government imposed a cap on the 25% that used the state-regulated tariff. Gasoline price controls in China led to enormous losses in refineries and a widespread ban on refined product exports that resulted in multi-billion yuan losses in tax revenue.
This fiscal effect is not irrelevant. When activity shifts into informal channels, governments lose taxable transactions even as they face stronger political pressure to subsidize shortages, police markets, and intensify enforcement. The result is a destructive cycle in which intervention reduces formal output, shrinks the tax base, and then becomes the rationale for additional intervention.
Price-control defenders believe that inflation is caused primarily by the pricing decisions of firms rather than monetary and macroeconomic imbalances, and they think that governments can set prices. However, every single instance of price controls leads to scarcity and worse results, but interventionists do not care because they blame the problems caused by intervention on the lack of enough repression. The evidence is clear. Price controls can alter the formal expression of inflation, but they do not remove price pressures or the underlying causes; instead, they convert open price increases into scarcity, rationing, lower quality, and underground-market premium.
Inflation cannot be solved by declaring prices illegal. Furthermore, price controls perpetuate high inflation by destroying the elements that can help prices normalize, competition and technology, as well as innovation. Inflation is solved through sound money, prudent fiscal policy, and a market process that allows prices to coordinate production and consumption.
Governments never reduce prices; they increase them by spending and printing. All a government can do is facilitate inflation reduction by controlling spending and opening the economy to competition. Cuba’s reversal is therefore more than just a change in domestic policy; it serves as a reminder that regimes committed to intervention will eventually clash with economic realities that price controls cannot disguise.
Tyler Durden Tue, 06/23/2026 - 20:05Florida man allegedly raped teen girl then locked her in dryer
Bay Area hospitality group abruptly closes all restaurants and slashes hundreds of jobs
Oust the commissars from control of Wikipedia
Kyle Pitts lands $54 million Falcons extension after long-awaited breakout
Trump Admin Kicks Off American Nuclear Renaissance With $17.5 Billion Loan Program For Reactor Projects
With hyperscalers set to spend roughly $800 billion on data-center capex this year alone, alongside reshoring and broader grid electrification, baseload power demand is poised to surge.
We have made the case that intermittent solar and wind are no match for the scale and reliability requirements of the modern economy, and that nuclear power is emerging as the clean, always-on power source needed to power the AI era.
The Wall Street Journal reports Tuesday morning that the Trump administration plans to supercharge the deployment of nuclear power with a $17.5 billion low-interest loan program to help utilities finance orders for Westinghouse Electric Co.'s AP1000 reactors.
The Energy Department, under Secretary Chris Wright, plans to make five loans available for two-reactor projects, with the goal of expediting equipment orders and cutting up to three years from construction timelines.
More from the report:
Seven utilities have already signed formal letters of intent for the five available project loans, according to the Energy Department, which didn't name the utilities.
Wright said the plan to accelerate the deployment timeline of ten reactors will "unleash the next American nuclear renaissance."
Those reactors "will also help accelerate the timeline of building those large-scale reactors by up to three years, lowering construction costs and ensuring the United States is able to deliver on President Trump's bold and ambitious energy addition agenda," Wright said.
The AP1000 reactors, which produce about 1,100 megawatts of power, are slated to come online in 2035 and will generate enough electricity to power a midsize city or a large data center.
Westinghouse Electric CEO Dan Sumner stated, "It really kick-starts fleet-scale nuclear development in the United States."
The problem is that the US track record of bringing new nuclear power reactors online has been awful. The only completed domestic AP1000s are Vogtle Units 3 and 4 in Georgia, which entered commercial service in July 2023 and April 2024, and took ten years to build.
The latest nuclear reactor construction note from Goldman shows China is in the lead with 40 reactors under construction, followed by India with eight and Russia with six.
Read the latest on the nuclear reactor construction tracker (here).
Tyler Durden Tue, 06/23/2026 - 19:40Google's YouTube settles social media addiction case with teen
Who is Carl On ‘Love Island USA’ Season 8? Meet The Casa Amor Casanova With Eyes For Aniya Harvey
Post Wanted and PerfumeTok agree this viral brand is worth the splurge and it’s 20% off on Prime Day
Today’s leftists are destroying what America’s Founding Fathers fought for — on the same NYC streets they once marched
Horrifying video shows teen plunge over waterfall on Disneyland’s Tiana’s Bayou Adventure
The Next Commodity Supercycle Has Already Started
Authored by Chris Macintosh via InternationalMan.com,
The world rotates between two sectors: technology and energy.
You have to turn the lights on or nothing happens. You need both the lights and the energy to power them. No lights, only energy? Nothing. Lights with no energy? Nothing.
Essentially you have to innovate or you never progress. Markets tend to rotate between those two broad sectors accordingly.
Go back to the height of the energy boom in 2013 and 2014. You couldn’t give Microsoft away. Energy, on the other hand, could do no wrong. That was the time to own tech.
Then tech took a bottle of Viagra and proceeded to shoot the lights out from 2014 through roughly 2022 while energy was decimated and left for dead. The way it works is that the last clutch of investors in any given sector go about losing their shirts and as a result are extremely reluctant to re-enter it anytime soon.
Recall that in 2001, the NASDAQ pulled back by a whopping 75%. That unleashed a commodity supercycle that ran all the way to 2014. When the NASDAQ recovered to its prior high, oil rolled over almost to the day… and the cycle reset. History suggests oil goes up seven times on average during such a cycle. Historically, the NASDAQ gets taken down 50 to 75%.
We are at the point where we think both have pretty decent probabilities. Hence our long positions on energy and short positions on NASDAQ.
What Has Changed: China Weaponises the Periodic TableThis cycle is bigger — far bigger and more structurally meaningful — than anything I’ve ever seen or researched by looking back at prior decades. The key driver is geopolitical and elemental.
China has weaponised the periodic table. The world’s two largest powers have divided the material world between them.
China dominates the periodic table, namely metals, rare earths, and critical minerals. China is, in essence, an electron state.
The United States dominates the organic chemistry version: hydrocarbons, food, fuels. The US is a molecular state.
When China restricted exports of critical minerals and rare earth magnets in October of last year, it immediately revealed how fragile Western manufacturing supply chains are. A magnet might represent 0.00001% of GDP, but remove it and you shut down an entire industry.
The same logic applies to oil. People say oil is a small share of the economy, but you pull it out and everything stops. Efficiency gains over decades have actually made oil more critical, not less. We’ve stripped out all the low-priority uses, leaving only the essential ones. You cannot substitute away from what remains. No energy, no civilisation. Simple.
This power struggle between the United States and China is the central frame for understanding commodity markets over the coming decade.
The End of the Bretton Woods HegemonThe broader geopolitical structure underpinning commodity markets is fracturing.
The Bretton Woods world was built in 1944 when the United States had the only functioning manufacturing supply chain on earth.
The grand bargain was simple: America would take its enormous navy — inherited from the British, who inherited it from the Spanish and Portuguese before them (a 400-year accumulation of ports, bases, and sea lanes) — and protect global shipping in exchange for the world trading in US dollars.
The most important commodity flowing through those lanes was, and still is, oil.
Three things have now broken that model:
-
The US shale revolution made America energy independent, removing its incentive to protect global supply lanes.
-
Higher interest rates then exposed the fiscal impossibility of maintaining that role — Medicare and Social Security are the largest line items in the US budget, interest costs are now second, and defence is third. The US simply cannot continue to be the world’s policeman at this cost structure. Socialism combined with fiscal irresponsibility, compounding.
-
And China is actively resupplying and supporting its allies — Russia and Iran — making any US-led enforcement action structurally harder.
When the US protects a ship carrying Chilean copper from Santiago to Shanghai, it is paying the security bill for its primary strategic competitor. That arrangement is now ending. The problem is there is no replacement hegemon large enough to step into that role.
The world may be reverting to something resembling the Dutch East India Company era — state-sponsored sovereign entities with their own security arrangements, trading in gold, silver, and hard assets, using mercenary forces to protect supply chains.
Large corporations like Apple and Exxon are beginning to look more like sovereign entities than conventional companies.
* * *
The rotation from technology to energy and commodities is only one part of a much larger shift now underway. Debt, money printing, geopolitical conflict, and deep cultural changes are all colliding at the same time. That means the years ahead could bring extraordinary volatility—and extraordinary opportunity—for investors who understand what is really happening. That is why we recently prepared a free special report called Clash of the Systems: Thoughts on Investing at a Unique Point in Time. In it, contrarian money manager Chris MacIntosh explains the major economic, political, and cultural trends unfolding right now, what risks they could create for your money and personal freedom, and what you could do to stay one step ahead. You can get the full report here.
Tyler Durden Tue, 06/23/2026 - 19:15