But, yeah, if you are flush with cash and don't own a home but want to, #1 & #2 sound great if you consider only their first order effects on you.

#1, especially, is a huge brake on the economy (as is it's close relative #3). Which probably also has a negative impact on you, unless you are living entirely off of a pile of cash previously earned.

This book does nothing other than highlight common knowledge but does nothing to show why or how it is that way and what can be done to begin to change it.

Its the equivilant of saying well the reason the timing belt on your car breaks is it is too weak. So I made a 150kg gear system to replace it. "Wont that be too heavy for the engine to turn it?" , "Oh yeah you will have to replace the whole engine and transmission as well." Except in this instance it is all of society and humanity that would have to be changed or replaced.

On example: the reason duct tapers exist is that they handle the exceptions from really, really ,really, really difficult problems to solve that are already partially solved and working good enough.

Well, it would. Now, you can certainly argue that with an ideal distributional system (or even a far-from-ideal one that is still better than the one the US has, which aren't exactly rare in the developed world), we could have significantly lower total output and still equal or better overall well-being (and far better practical conditions for the lower 60-75% of the income/wealth distribution). And, sure, you'd be right. But we don't have such a system.

> If we broaden are thinking it could have an awesome impact long term.

Returning to a system that encourages positive-feedback economic crashes isn't broadening our thinking, it's just blindly throwing away beneficial progress.

Are there other economic friend that might eliminate the need for the current mitigation for that problem and be far better overall? Probably. Find and implement them first, though.

Anyone with debt (e.g., mortgage, student loans) is advantaged from a future lower-value currency:

> If wages increase with inflation, and if the borrower already owed money before the inflation occurred, the inflation benefits the borrower. This is because the borrower still owes the same amount of money, but now he or she has more money in his or her paycheck to pay off the debt. This results in less interest for the lender if the borrower uses the extra money to pay his or her debt early.

* https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/111414/does-inflati...

Provisos:

> Inflation can help lenders in several ways, especially when it comes to extending new financing. First, higher prices mean that more people want credit to buy big-ticket items, especially if their wages have not increased – new customers for the lenders.

Broadly speaking, it's a position of weakness and servitude. It's a similar suggestion that if you're deep in debt, you "win" if you get hit in the head with a baseball bat. Sure, you enjoyed spending the money and now you're mentally deficient so you got away with not having to pay it off, but you've still been beaten over the head with a bat.

But ultimately, even if my view is an inaccurate description of reality, what you're saying is true, but I'd argue it's still a net loss. The end-goal over a lifetime of earning is to be in the black, not red. It's difficult to lose your way to the top. Wages don't track inflation (contrary to those 2% raises a year, because salaries are suppressed from downward pressure on wages). So the relatively short time someone is in debt doesn't outweigh the time spent out of debt thus the advantage you speak of isn't worth it.

All that said, debt is not inherently bad.. but that's another discussion and not in the context of this discussion.

That's it, that is the reason banks were bailed out in the first place. That's the reason they're being subsidised now (plus lots of cheap money pushes up the stock market and spurs investment and looks good at election time).

This isn't about economics. It's about politics.

Most of my parents' net worth is in either residential or investment real estate, and low rates are very much good for them.

The majority of boomers maybe own houses. Exclude them and your claim isn’t even close to true.

Regardless, this entire situation is a huge moral hazard. I think the majority of us wouldn’t approve of the fed deciding winners and losers.

(This may not sound causal until you consider the larger feedback loop that has gotten us to here in the first place.)

The fed is doing the same thing by stepping in and manipulating the overnight rate. Without the fed doing this, banks would have to plan ahead and make sure they have sufficient liquidity. This means maybe offering better interest rates to earn customer deposits.

With the major banks still calling 0.05% “high yield”, I don’t think it’s appropriate for the fed to continue to enable their incompetence. Furthermore, the banks hold a significant inventory of foreclosed homes on their books. They’ve been sitting on them for years. It’s time they sell that resource to people who need them.

> Quantitative easing is an unconventional monetary policy in which a central bank purchases government securities or other securities from the market in order to increase the money supply

When the central bank 'buys' securities, they do so with money they're creating in that purchase. In effect they're dumping new money into wherever they're buying securities from, but the 'dumping' isn't with dump trucks or dropping it from planes.

Now those bonds come due and the money is supposed to leave the system, but until then the velocity of money means there are knock on effects.

It's not the same thing as printing money and spending it and suggesting otherwise is either disingenuous or ignorant.

It's not the same thing as printing money and spending it and suggesting otherwise is either disingenuous or ignorant.

Think of this business opportunity.

Start a company where you imagine wealth into existence then loan it to others. Then you setup partner systems where you charge folks who use that wealth. A charge for each transaction.

Zero overhead with a profit layer...

I'm pretty sure you don't actually mean "printed money", since the Federal Reserve doesn't do that. No currency was created for this market operation, just balances in books kept by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.

(This is all bad so I may be splitting hairs, but I would advocate for direct currency printing over this lending scheme if given the chance.)

Thats the difference I'm pointing out.

https://www.thebalance.com/is-the-federal-reserve-printing-m...