30 ms·
It isn't really apolitical. Ironically, it seems to be more supported by the left (like the people downvoting you), despite the lack of consistency with progres
by lend000 5y ago
It isn't really apolitical. Ironically, it seems to be more supported by the left (like the people downvoting you), despite the lack of consistency with progressive economics. I suppose it enables big spending and debt, which can be progressive, while more than undoing itself with X-inflation + deadweight loss.
- jjoonathan 5y ago> Ironically, it seems to be more supported by the left (like the people downvoting you) Speak for yourself. > it enables big spending and debt No, low interest rates are not what enables big government debt. The government can monetize its debt -- money printer, remember? > , which can be progressive, while more than undoing itself with X-inflation + deadweight loss. Well, if the losses trickle down as effectively as the last 40 years of gains, I think the bottom 90% of the pyramid should rather welcome those losses.
- lend000 5y agoThe parent describes "consistently low interest rates, quantitive [sic] easing and other central bank policies," so I'm not sure why you singled out low interest rates (which are a byproduct of the Fed actions that DO enable big government debt, and which certainly make it take longer before annual interest on government debt becomes unsustainable). > I think the bottom 90% of the pyramid should rather welcome those losses. Maybe my sentence wasn't clear, but X-inflation here refers to asset/property inflation as much as consumer inflation, none of which should be welcomed by those who don't have huge amounts of net worth tied up in appreciating assets.