3 ms·

Hmm; all of those things are what I would associate with breaking the stability promise, that is, reneging on inflation control and holding interest rates low.

Hmm; all of those things are what I would associate with breaking the stability promise, that is, reneging on inflation control and holding interest rates low. That encourages borrowing and propels the price of assets. I'd expect your objection to be associated with growth at all costs, not with stability.

BitwiseFool 5y ago
I'm not the person you responded to, but to me stability also implies artificially propping up parts of the economy that should otherwise be in-decline. It's not necessarily the same as growth at all costs, but I sense it is related.
- batshit_beaver 5y ago
  Counter point: maybe prices (including on assets) should be allowed to go up, so that their prices better reflect their value relative to productivity? The fed didn't really prop up any major industry this time around (unlike in 2008), just added fuel to the fire to keep the whole economy going.
  - dnautics 5y ago
    > The fed didn't really prop up any major industry this time around (unlike in 2008), just added fuel to the fire to keep the whole economy going. So, what you are saying, is: they propped up the financial industry.
dnautics 5y ago
Stability in the current economic discourse implies growth at all costs due to the way that our monetary systems are organized. "If we didn't raise the debt limit our economy would collapse"; discourse on "countries must meet their growth targets" e.g.
- refurb 5y ago
  It absolutely doesn’t imply grow at all costs. And, you seem to think GDP is consumer goods, but GDP is what pays for social safety nets, healthcare, etc.
  - dnautics 5y ago
    It actually does. What happens if you stop growing the money supply? The system crashes because you force a cascading inability to repay debts (this is just math and is unavoidable). Growing the money supply without growing the economy also means crashes. So, yeah. Stability under our current system means grow at all costs.

BitwiseFool 5y ago

I'm not the person you responded to, but to me stability also implies artificially propping up parts of the economy that should otherwise be in-decline. It's not necessarily the same as growth at all costs, but I sense it is related.

batshit_beaver 5y ago
Counter point: maybe prices (including on assets) should be allowed to go up, so that their prices better reflect their value relative to productivity? The fed didn't really prop up any major industry this time around (unlike in 2008), just added fuel to the fire to keep the whole economy going.
- dnautics 5y ago
  > The fed didn't really prop up any major industry this time around (unlike in 2008), just added fuel to the fire to keep the whole economy going. So, what you are saying, is: they propped up the financial industry.

dnautics 5y ago

Stability in the current economic discourse implies growth at all costs due to the way that our monetary systems are organized. "If we didn't raise the debt limit our economy would collapse"; discourse on "countries must meet their growth targets" e.g.

refurb 5y ago
It absolutely doesn’t imply grow at all costs. And, you seem to think GDP is consumer goods, but GDP is what pays for social safety nets, healthcare, etc.
- dnautics 5y ago
  It actually does. What happens if you stop growing the money supply? The system crashes because you force a cascading inability to repay debts (this is just math and is unavoidable). Growing the money supply without growing the economy also means crashes. So, yeah. Stability under our current system means grow at all costs.