4 ms·

> 0% interest rate for several years is not healthy That's not healthy or unhealthy. It's just a thing. > QE is not healthy Ask Europe that didn't do quantit

> 0% interest rate for several years is not healthy That's not healthy or unhealthy. It's just a thing. > QE is not healthy Ask Europe that didn't do quantitative easing (or did too little too late) which economy they'd rather have right now. And it's no longer a thing - because it ran its course and largely worked. >Inflating assets is not healthy Some classes of assets are inflating. Some are deflating. Again it's a little vague. > 100+ % debt:GDP ration is not healthy. It was never higher than right before the boom of the 50's and 60's so... Agree with you on the impact on the middle class. But I think you can assert on the balance of things that the economy is healthy vs not. You've obviously ignored a lot of positive stats around employment growth and economic growth.

wutbrodo 11y ago
>> 0% interest rate for several years is not healthy > That's not healthy or unhealthy. It's just a thing. I agree with you generally, but this response is a little silly. What does "it's just a thing" even mean? Given that there's no ironclad economic consensus on this question yet, it's more comfortable to not spend too much time sitting on the ZLB. Now that doesn't suggest anything specific about what costs should be incurred to get away from the ZLB[1], but all else held equal, it's not unreasonable to suggest that staying near zero for so long is a bit more uncomfortable than having a bit of a buffer to lower rates. [1]i.e., I'm not taking the oft-heard position that we need to do what it takes to raise rates NOW before it's too late
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- jusben1369 11y ago
  There's this general sentiment that it should be between 1-3%. But it's just a sentiment mostly based on historical experience. But the global economy is constantly evolving; China wasn't really even a blip on the radar 15-20 years ago. So whose to say what the right level is except the one that is attempting to balance inflation and employment goals.
  - wutbrodo 11y ago
    The advantage is much more fundamental. Given the uncertainty that you're describing, removing a constraint on our actions is ceterus paribus a good thing. The same argument could have been made during the Bush years, when rates were kept low "unnecessarily" (according to conventional thinking), and the inability to lower rates after the crash tied our hands unnecessarily.
bsbechtel 11y ago
Europe can't really do QE in the same way the US can because there isn't a central bank tied to a central government. In addition: http://www.cnbc.com/2015/08/18/st-louis-fed-official-no-evidence-qe-boosted-economy.html http://www.cnbc.com/2015/08/18/st-louis-fed-official-no-evid...
eli_gottlieb 11y ago
>Ask Europe that didn't do quantitative easing (or did too little too late) which economy they'd rather have right now. And it's no longer a thing - because it ran its course and largely worked. This isn't an excluded-middle sort of question. QE is indeed very unhealthy, precisely because it's a solely monetary stimulus, pumping up finance while households and public services starve. Fiscal stimulus works far better when you actually want a stimulus (but requires that Congress be willing to act).
- jusben1369 11y ago
  You mean less optimal not unhealth .

wutbrodo 11y ago

>> 0% interest rate for several years is not healthy > That's not healthy or unhealthy. It's just a thing. I agree with you generally, but this response is a little silly. What does "it's just a thing" even mean? Given that there's no ironclad economic consensus on this question yet, it's more comfortable to not spend too much time sitting on the ZLB. Now that doesn't suggest anything specific about what costs should be incurred to get away from the ZLB[1], but all else held equal, it's not unreasonable to suggest that staying near zero for so long is a bit more uncomfortable than having a bit of a buffer to lower rates. [1]i.e., I'm not taking the oft-heard position that we need to do what it takes to raise rates NOW before it's too late

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
jusben1369 11y ago
There's this general sentiment that it should be between 1-3%. But it's just a sentiment mostly based on historical experience. But the global economy is constantly evolving; China wasn't really even a blip on the radar 15-20 years ago. So whose to say what the right level is except the one that is attempting to balance inflation and employment goals.
- wutbrodo 11y ago
  The advantage is much more fundamental. Given the uncertainty that you're describing, removing a constraint on our actions is ceterus paribus a good thing. The same argument could have been made during the Bush years, when rates were kept low "unnecessarily" (according to conventional thinking), and the inability to lower rates after the crash tied our hands unnecessarily.

bsbechtel 11y ago

Europe can't really do QE in the same way the US can because there isn't a central bank tied to a central government. In addition: http://www.cnbc.com/2015/08/18/st-louis-fed-official-no-evidence-qe-boosted-economy.html http://www.cnbc.com/2015/08/18/st-louis-fed-official-no-evid...

eli_gottlieb 11y ago

>Ask Europe that didn't do quantitative easing (or did too little too late) which economy they'd rather have right now. And it's no longer a thing - because it ran its course and largely worked. This isn't an excluded-middle sort of question. QE is indeed very unhealthy, precisely because it's a solely monetary stimulus, pumping up finance while households and public services starve. Fiscal stimulus works far better when you actually want a stimulus (but requires that Congress be willing to act).

jusben1369 11y ago
You mean less optimal not unhealth .