In his op-ed regarding the wholly unbalanced training of today’s economists (because so many of them are not getting any training in price theory), Steven Landsburg, an economics professor at the University of Rochester, wrote that he puts a question to his students, all of whom get the correct answer, and to  variety of smart lawyers, accountants, entrepreneurs, and scientists, nearly all of whom do not.

The question:

Apples are provided by a competitive industry. Pears are provided by a monopolist. Coincidentally, they sell at the same price. You’re hungry and would be equally happy with an apple or a pear. If you care about conserving societal resources, which should you buy?

Landsburg’s answer:

In a competitive industry, prices are a pretty good indicator of resource costs. Under a monopoly, prices usually reflect a substantial markup. So a $1 apple sold by a competitor probably requires almost a dollar’s worth of resources to produce. A $1 pear sold by a monopolist is more likely to require, say, 80 cents worth of resources. To minimize resource consumption, you should buy the pear.

Maybe. Maybe not. The monopolist is unlikely to be using his resources efficiently; competition will drive that producer to maximize efficiency in resource usage. On a per fruit item basis, it may be that the two are using resources the same. Maybe the competitive producer is using fewer resources per fruit item.

The more accurate answer is that there isn’t enough information in the question to provide an answer.

The editors of The Wall Street Journal closed their Friday editorial on the threat of an “election recession” and who’ll get blamed if one occurs with this:

They [the Federal Reserve Board] don’t deserve to be scapegoats for a recession, if one is coming. What we’d like to hear from one of the candidates isn’t blame but an agenda for faster growth and stable prices.

That first part is correct. That last is evidence that the editors haven’t been paying attention. Former President and current Republican Presidential candidate Donald Trump, and his running mate, current Ohio Senator JD Vance, have been crystalline on this.

They’ve repeatedly touted their mantra of “drill, baby, drill,” their intent to open up drilling for oil and for natural gas along with their parallel push to reduce regulatory impediments to drilling, transporting the goods, refining them, and transporting the refined products, and the sale of those refined products.

They’re openly—explicitly—pushing that because with energy at the heart of our economy, reducing energy costs will reduce inflation and allow wage growth to catch up, which reduces real prices. To which I add: reduced inflation and stable pricing will by themselves produce full and stable employment, another of the Fed’s Directed Operational Capabilities.