Lumpenproletariat
Veteran Member
- Joined
- May 9, 2014
- Messages
- 2,577
- Basic Beliefs
- ---- "Just the facts, ma'am, just the facts."
Where is the evidence that anything the Fed ever did produced a net benefit to the economy?
(Let's set aside controlling inflation, which is ambiguous. You could make a claim that the inflation rate has been controlled better in the last 100 years than prior to the Fed. Some case might be made, but probably a weak one. What the Fed chairman preaches about mostly is not controlling inflation, but driving down interest rates and doing anything to "stimulate" the economy. And why does the Fed enslave itself to the dogma that we need an inflation rate above zero? Why isn't zero the ideal rate?)
What is the Fed's behavior based on other than religious faith? Where is the science? where the evidence, or "data"?
What is the evidence that the economy ever was too slow or too fast and that the Fed did anything to make it better?
You know there is always a negative impact from anything the Fed does, such as suppressing interest rates or pushing up the inflation rate. You know there has to be a point beyond which such action necessarily does more harm than good.
Just as you know there must be a threshold point beyond which a higher minimum wage has to do net damage to the economy rather than making it better. You know the policymakers always stop at some point and say they can't drive it any further because it would do more harm than good. I.e., the limits to quantitative easing, limits to driving down interest rates to negative levels, etc. Also limits to minimum wage, limits to unemployment benefits, limits to "jobs" programs -- in short, limits to any measures taken to try to force the economy to do what those in power want.
But once you admit the danger of going beyond the limit, how do you know what that limit is? How do you know the limit is not already passed at the first level of interference into the market by the Fed (or by the Congress or by the President)?
You know an artificially-low interest rate has to do some damage. So then how do you know that the current artificially-low interest rate is not already doing net damage to the economy, i.e., that the damage from it doesn't offset any supposed benefit and doesn't actually result in net harm rather than benefit?
Where is the empirical evidence to prove where that optimum point is? How low is too low for interest rates? How do you know? Who ever proved what that optimum point is?
Where is the evidence that the optimum minimum wage is $13.00 and not $23.00? Why not $43.00? or $53.00? How do you know the obvious damage inflicted at these high levels does not correspond to a lower level of net damage at a lower level?
Where is the empirical evidence that any of these measures made the economy better and not worse? Why do you accept it on faith that similar damage, at a lower degree, does not take place when the economy is manipulated at a lower degree of interference? Why is a small dose of "economic stimulus" OK anymore than a small dose of counterfeiting is, or a small dose of bank robbing or tax cheating or child abusing or scamming or slave trafficking?
You do agree, don't you, that an "economic stimulus" of 50 trillion dollars would do more harm than good? or a minimum wage of $50/hour? or an interest rate suppressed to negative 10%? or inflation rate driven up to 5 or 10%?
So where's the line? Why is it drawn at this point and not a higher or lower point?
Can anyone give an example of evidence that proves where the line should be drawn, for any of the above examples where the Fed or Congress imposes its formula onto the economy instead of letting the market draw all the lines automatically?
Are not all these policies based on pure faith, with no empirical evidence? And doesn't that faith contradict reason in most cases?
The Fed chariman said so? Some Harvard economist said so? Some think tank "researcher" said so? But what is your evidence, other than the mouthings of these pundits? What evidence do they give other than their credential or title and their claim to be an expert?
(Let's set aside controlling inflation, which is ambiguous. You could make a claim that the inflation rate has been controlled better in the last 100 years than prior to the Fed. Some case might be made, but probably a weak one. What the Fed chairman preaches about mostly is not controlling inflation, but driving down interest rates and doing anything to "stimulate" the economy. And why does the Fed enslave itself to the dogma that we need an inflation rate above zero? Why isn't zero the ideal rate?)
What is the Fed's behavior based on other than religious faith? Where is the science? where the evidence, or "data"?
What is the evidence that the economy ever was too slow or too fast and that the Fed did anything to make it better?
You know there is always a negative impact from anything the Fed does, such as suppressing interest rates or pushing up the inflation rate. You know there has to be a point beyond which such action necessarily does more harm than good.
Just as you know there must be a threshold point beyond which a higher minimum wage has to do net damage to the economy rather than making it better. You know the policymakers always stop at some point and say they can't drive it any further because it would do more harm than good. I.e., the limits to quantitative easing, limits to driving down interest rates to negative levels, etc. Also limits to minimum wage, limits to unemployment benefits, limits to "jobs" programs -- in short, limits to any measures taken to try to force the economy to do what those in power want.
But once you admit the danger of going beyond the limit, how do you know what that limit is? How do you know the limit is not already passed at the first level of interference into the market by the Fed (or by the Congress or by the President)?
You know an artificially-low interest rate has to do some damage. So then how do you know that the current artificially-low interest rate is not already doing net damage to the economy, i.e., that the damage from it doesn't offset any supposed benefit and doesn't actually result in net harm rather than benefit?
Where is the empirical evidence to prove where that optimum point is? How low is too low for interest rates? How do you know? Who ever proved what that optimum point is?
Where is the evidence that the optimum minimum wage is $13.00 and not $23.00? Why not $43.00? or $53.00? How do you know the obvious damage inflicted at these high levels does not correspond to a lower level of net damage at a lower level?
Where is the empirical evidence that any of these measures made the economy better and not worse? Why do you accept it on faith that similar damage, at a lower degree, does not take place when the economy is manipulated at a lower degree of interference? Why is a small dose of "economic stimulus" OK anymore than a small dose of counterfeiting is, or a small dose of bank robbing or tax cheating or child abusing or scamming or slave trafficking?
You do agree, don't you, that an "economic stimulus" of 50 trillion dollars would do more harm than good? or a minimum wage of $50/hour? or an interest rate suppressed to negative 10%? or inflation rate driven up to 5 or 10%?
So where's the line? Why is it drawn at this point and not a higher or lower point?
Can anyone give an example of evidence that proves where the line should be drawn, for any of the above examples where the Fed or Congress imposes its formula onto the economy instead of letting the market draw all the lines automatically?
Are not all these policies based on pure faith, with no empirical evidence? And doesn't that faith contradict reason in most cases?
The Fed chariman said so? Some Harvard economist said so? Some think tank "researcher" said so? But what is your evidence, other than the mouthings of these pundits? What evidence do they give other than their credential or title and their claim to be an expert?
ANDREW JACKSON!