News Do Low Interest Rates Really Help The Economy?

[John Creighto]

The theory goes that lowering interest rates allows people to borrow more and this stimulates consumption. However, as I mentioned in https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=415842" low interest rates allow people to hold onto non perishable goods longer. The consequences is a surplus of vacant houses and excess inventory. Consumption is primary driven by both the quantity and quality of employment. Any changes in consumption which result from changes in debt burden are purely transitory.

In David Cass & Menahem Paper http://economics.sas.upenn.edu/~dcass/two.pdf they show that if the interest rate is less then then growth rate then this is a suboptimal situation because it is possible for all parties to consume more. How might we interpret this model in the case of capital formation. Perhaps we could conclude that the real interest rate should be equal to the rate of real GDP growth. The real GDP growth can be scene in the flowing graph:

http://scottgrannis.blogspot.com/2010/05/10-gdp-output-gap.html

As for the real interest rate I'm having trouble in getting a good standard number. A graph for the funds rate is shown bellow and is zero or bellow from the period of 2000 to 2006. I suspect if I looked at the real prime interest rate and the real mortgage rates it would be closer to 6% but if you subtract the risk premium perhaps it would be closer to the 3%.

"[URL
http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article4386.html

It is clear that at least in terms of short term borrowing some institutions can borrow much cheaper in real terms then the growth in GDP but I'm not yet sure of the implications of this on the wider economy.

 

[talk2glenn]

The theory goes that lowering interest rates allows people to borrow more and this stimulates consumption. However, as I mentioned in https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=415842" low interest rates allow people to hold onto non perishable goods longer.

Why is this the case? A lower interest rate implies that capital is cheaper to borrow and more expensive to hold and/or lend; the opposite should be true. A holder of some fixed property is incentivized to sell in a lower-rate environment, and hold in a higher-rate environment.

Consider your home mortgage. As rates go down, the cost of a larger mortgage goes down as well. This means you can effectively afford to pay more for the same property (a $120,000 mortage will cost the same as a $100,000 mortgage over the term if the fixed rate goes down by 20%). The reverse is true when rates go up. If rates go up, demand goes down, which means a seller will have to accept a lower clearing price for the same property.

It may be the case that an investor will believe real property to be a superior investment than cash in a low-rate environment, encouraging him to hold it (presumably until rates go up?), as you imply in your linked thread. This is a reasonable expectation of investor behavior, but a dubious economic proposition. Market forecasting is an imprecise game; there is no guarantee that the price appreciation in his property will be large enough that he will still earn a greater return than an equivalent investment in cash, after debiting for the price decline that will follow a rising interest rate. For a real life example of this, consider the price collapse that followed the interest rate hikes between 2006 and 2008; clearly a property purchased in the low-rate environment of 2000-20005 turned out to be a poor investment relative to cash.

Any changes in consumption which result from changes in debt burden are purely transitory.

Only to the extent that the interest rate policy is transitory. The same can be said for employment conditions (or do you consider them fixed?).

In David Cass & Menahem Paper A Re-Examination of The Pure Consumption Loans Model they show that if the interest rate is less then then growth rate then this is a suboptimal situation because it is possible for all parties to consume more. How might we interpret this model in the case of capital formation. Perhaps we could conclude that the real interest rate should be equal to the rate of real GDP growth.

I am not familiar with the paper or the model, but I do not understand why a condition where the interest rate was less than the growth rate would be considered sub-optimal, particularly for allowing "all parties to consume more". Are we talking real interest rates (rate of return minus rate of inflation) or norminal interest rates? As growth picks up, so too does inflation, so real interest rates would decline if we assume no change in nominal rates. This has the effect of encouraging additional consumption, creating a positive-feedback loop which central banks tend to want to mitigate by raising nominal rates.

Is this Cass & Menahem's concern?

It is clear that at least in terms of short term borrowing some institutions can borrow much cheaper in real terms then the growth in GDP but I'm not yet sure of the implications of this on the wider economy.

The implication is variable. Low interest rates are desirable when the policy goal is increased consumption, and undesirable when the goal is decreased consumption. All other things being equal, more consumption means economic growth but also price inflation. Policy makers strive to maintain a balance between these inversely competing metrics through interest rate policy, while also reducing the severity of economic peaks and troughs.

 

[heusdens]

If you ask me, low interest rates are as "beneficial" for the economy as drugs are for a person's health: you might at first feel more energetic, but in the end it will detoriate your health. This kind of monetary policy which has been invoked now to "cure" the crisis, is to me a sign that this (capitalistic) system is on a dead-end.

 

[Kimchijjigae]

If they raise the interest rate now, then people with mortgages at floating rates will be hurt, and there will be more foreclosures and many banks would be troubled again, which would cause a shock to ripple through all the U.S. economy.

 

[brainstorm]

I think all these ideas about fiscal stimulus and GDP are overgeneralizing. Just because lower interest rates, fiscal stimulus, and/or increased GDP increases the flow of money, it says nothing about who is getting more and who is getting less and what is being done in exchange for the money. The person who mentioned drugs as an analogy could just as well have mentioned drugs, prostitution, or gambling as real examples of activities that stimulate the economy fiscally and probably increases GDP while actually decreasing economic (and physiological) health.

Lower interest rates stimulate investment, which stimulates productive labor. The question is when labor is beneficial and when it is detrimental economically. Labor requires material resources, such as equipment, vehicles, fuel, etc. When the product of labor is something relatively unnecessary, like superfluous service sector activity - why does it make sense to stimulate GDP to achieve this? An economy that drives blindly in the direction of profit without well-reasoned goals is a waste-machine.

Arguably, all life is a form of waste (see George Bataille's "The Accursed Share"). But even if life is waste, there are still ways to manage resource utilization in ways that make it possible for more life to occur with relatively less waste. It makes no sense to stimulate the global economy to the point where, say, 10 billion human lives can be sustained when the same resources could be used to sustain, say, 20 billion. You may say that this is an ethical concern, not an economic one, but consider it in economic terms: why would you produce 10 million widgets per year with a factory using a certain amount of power when you could produce 20 million with the same factory and the same amount of power?

Whether interest rates go up or down, the more relevant issue, imo, would be how money is spent and how the spending affects economic patterns and resource-utilization. If anything, I think lower interest rates have caused property prices to rise while discouraging saving. I think lower property prices and higher interest rates would make it easier to own property and save money, which would provide more financial security, thus making the economy less desperate for revenues and income.

The problem that people always note with this is that existing debts become more difficult to pay off if interest rates go up. That may be true but it is a self-fulfilling prophecy that the economy must boom to generate money to pay off debts and that debt-payments are relieved by lower interest rates, which also encourage more spending and less saving. So by taking existing debts as a reason to keep interest rates low and stimulate economic growth, a perpetual high-money-flow economy is advocated, which itself will continue to promote debt and superfluous business activity with little if any purpose other than generating revenues for the sake of profit and income.

 

[Kimchijjigae]

Well, the service sector accounts for what? 70% of the U.S. economy? So that definitively is not superfluous since many jobs come from that sector. If the employment rate falls below 30%, prepare yourself for Armageddon. People will burn cars and the overall economy will turn into something as chaotic as a civil war.

 

[brainstorm]

Well, the service sector accounts for what? 70% of the U.S. economy? So that definitively is not superfluous since many jobs come from that sector. If the employment rate falls below 30%, prepare yourself for Armageddon. People will burn cars and the overall economy will turn into something as chaotic as a civil war.

Freedom is dangerous, eh? Many service sector jobs are far from superfluous, and even the superfluous ones aren't terrible. My point is more that you have to consider what the resource-cost of these services are in light of their utility. There's an assumption many people make that whatever generates profit and jobs is automatically good, but that's short-sighted.

Culturally, there is currently the problem that cheap, plentiful fossil fuels have allowed numerous economic practices to develop that aren't sustainable in the long term. Yet people are simply accustomed to these little lifestyle perks to the degree that they suffer significantly when they have to do without them. Ask any single-car family how inconvenient it is to deal with having only one car. Try turning off your air-conditioning or just raising your thermostat and see how grumpy you get. Try reducing your discretionary shopping and sticking to buying only basic necessities and the occasional perk. Try only going out to eat (including fast food) only once a month. Just living at this level of reduced-consumption would be enough for many people to ignite armageddon.

Nevertheless, there are many people in the world who would find it heavenly to live at this level of consumption if they could just have peace and access to good health, clean water, healthy food, and time with family. Since these basic services and necessities aren't that costly in and of themselves, the question is why the economy is so saturated with superfluous needs that get paid for by juicing up the economy so much more than necessary with profit-making and job-creation. People are working their butts off and depleting resources like mad to maintain lifestyles that don't really give them peace of mind. And what's worse is that it seems to be contagious and very difficult to voluntarily reduce economic participation to a level that achieves such peace-of-mind without losing social and professional status and ending up in poverty. So what is the problem with this economy that causes this?

 

[loseyourname]

Well, the service sector accounts for what? 70% of the U.S. economy? So that definitively is not superfluous since many jobs come from that sector. If the employment rate falls below 30%, prepare yourself for Armageddon. People will burn cars and the overall economy will turn into something as chaotic as a civil war.

I believe the unemployment rate in Somalia was estimated to be around 85% or so.

Although, I'm not sure how they estimate that. I guess arming oneself and taking the necessities of life isn't considered employment.

 

[brainstorm]

I believe the unemployment rate in Somalia was estimated to be around 85% or so.

Although, I'm not sure how they estimate that. I guess arming oneself and taking the necessities of life isn't considered employment.

Usually the unemployment rate drops as people get discouraged from seeking paid employment, since it only counts those actively seeking employment.

A friend of mine recently visited Ghana and told me that there is a local agricultural economy where people dig up cassava roots and cook them into dough and sold in local markets. She said there is an animal the size of a small pig that is caught wild and slaughtered for meat, along with chickens. I didn't ask her what the vegetable selection was or who farmed produce.

Needless to say, people can feed themselves locally if necessary, but US agriculture is so far from people going hungry, even if they were all unemployed. The issue is what to do with all those labor hours ready to be utilized once people have learned to feed themselves instead of relying on food service constantly. I would expect a vibrant (informal) self-service social economy to evolve if the economic means to gain access to raw materials were available without pushing people into debt.

What it comes down to is that if people were satisfied with a lower level of service-dependency, the pressure to generate profit and jobs would decrease and people would be more free to combine more meaningful forms of employment with more free time to do their own cooking, cleaning, leisure, etc. Wouldn't this be a more pleasant economy than the constant hustle-bustle of zipping around for big ticket service-consumption constantly? I think so.

 

[Kimchijjigae]

Freedom is dangerous, eh? Many service sector jobs are far from superfluous, and even the superfluous ones aren't terrible. My point is more that you have to consider what the resource-cost of these services are in light of their utility. There's an assumption many people make that whatever generates profit and jobs is automatically good, but that's short-sighted.

Culturally, there is currently the problem that cheap, plentiful fossil fuels have allowed numerous economic practices to develop that aren't sustainable in the long term. Yet people are simply accustomed to these little lifestyle perks to the degree that they suffer significantly when they have to do without them. Ask any single-car family how inconvenient it is to deal with having only one car. Try turning off your air-conditioning or just raising your thermostat and see how grumpy you get. Try reducing your discretionary shopping and sticking to buying only basic necessities and the occasional perk. Try only going out to eat (including fast food) only once a month. Just living at this level of reduced-consumption would be enough for many people to ignite armageddon.

Nevertheless, there are many people in the world who would find it heavenly to live at this level of consumption if they could just have peace and access to good health, clean water, healthy food, and time with family. Since these basic services and necessities aren't that costly in and of themselves, the question is why the economy is so saturated with superfluous needs that get paid for by juicing up the economy so much more than necessary with profit-making and job-creation. People are working their butts off and depleting resources like mad to maintain lifestyles that don't really give them peace of mind. And what's worse is that it seems to be contagious and very difficult to voluntarily reduce economic participation to a level that achieves such peace-of-mind without losing social and professional status and ending up in poverty. So what is the problem with this economy that causes this?

Don't put economic issues, moral issues and environmental issues in the same mix because if you do that economy won't make any sense. From a purely policy and national perspective, putting a stop to the capitalist system is nonsensical. What you are promoting is something akin to what Mao Zedong had in mind. Moreover, as technology progresses, humanity will be able to better cope with environmental issues and the rate of innovation is closely tied to economic prosperity.

 

[brainstorm]

Don't put economic issues, moral issues and environmental issues in the same mix because if you do that economy won't make any sense. From a purely policy and national perspective, putting a stop to the capitalist system is nonsensical. What you are promoting is something akin to what Mao Zedong had in mind. Moreover, as technology progresses, humanity will be able to better cope with environmental issues and the rate of innovation is closely tied to economic prosperity.

What is the purpose of any economy? If you can answer that, we can deal exclusively with economic issues, as you suggest.

 

[Kimchijjigae]

There is no purpose of an economy. There is a purpose in trade, which is exchanging goods and services for other goods and services, and a purpose in increasing GDP, which is ultimately to raise the living standards and political power of a country, but there is no purpose of an economy.

 

[brainstorm]

There is no purpose of an economy. There is a purpose in trade, which is exchanging goods and services for other goods and services, and a purpose in increasing GDP, which is ultimately to raise the living standards and political power of a country, but there is no purpose of an economy.

What if raising GDP lowers living standards and corrupts political(economic) power? Would the purpose of an economy then to raise living standards and rectify political(economic) power by other means than raising GDP? Also, what if certain kinds of GDP growth actually lead to stagnation of certain forms of trade? Is it then better to look at forms of stimulating trade that avoid raising GDP, if it is the stumbling block? If GDP is more important than economic well-being, please provide your reasoning.

 

[John Creighto]

What if raising GDP lowers living standards and corrupts political(economic) power? Would the purpose of an economy then to raise living standards and rectify political(economic) power by other means than raising GDP? Also, what if certain kinds of GDP growth actually lead to stagnation of certain forms of trade? Is it then better to look at forms of stimulating trade that avoid raising GDP, if it is the stumbling block? If GDP is more important than economic well-being, please provide your reasoning.

GDP is related to economic well being but it doesn't tell the whole story. It tells us what is produced but it doesn't tell us what we already have. It also tells us nothing about the distribution of wealth or about our quality of life in general.

I would also like to point out that while real GDP growth is claimed to be be 3% per year in the good times that is based on the CPI and even the fed does not use the cpi as their measure of inflation. Anyway, we are getting quite far off topic not that I mind this digression.

 

[brainstorm]

GDP is related to economic well being but it doesn't tell the whole story. It tells us what is produced but it doesn't tell us what we already have. It also tells us nothing about the distribution of wealth or about our quality of life in general.

I would also like to point out that while real GDP growth is claimed to be be 3% per year in the good times that is based on the CPI and even the fed does not use the cpi as their measure of inflation. Anyway, we are getting quite far off topic not that I mind this digression.

It's not really a digression since the thread topic is what "helps" the economy. You claimed that higher GDP growth is good, and you don't want to seem to consider that it might be bad. You say now that GDP says something about what is produced, but how much does it really say about that? If GDP goes up because of, say, planned obsolescence then ultimately less is getting produced per $GDP. If high GDP is causing companies to be pushed to increase revenues/profits, it could lead to more strategies of planned obsolescence to increase sales.

Another example of how GDP growth can have a negative effect is through not just price inflation (including real-estate, insurance policies/premiums, and other goods and services not measured by the CPI or any other inflation measure). It could also generate or at least reflect a proliferation of goods and services that ultimately decrease rather than increase quality of life. For example, I can remember 10 or 20 years ago when people would acquire loads of kitchen utensils or knick knacks because they were in fashion. Ultimately these items didn't get used and ended up getting thrown away or stored in attics. Their purchase certainly contributed to GDP growth, job-creation, stock dividends, etc. but that's ultimately all they were - that and a waste of energy to produce and distribute them.

Why isn't it possible that instead of GDP growth being better when its higher, that lower levels of GDP are better because they promote more fiscal discipline and caution in consumption? It could be that living economically simpler lives is ultimately better for people and better for the functionality of the economy as a system - but how would economists ever recognize this if it was true?

 

[talk2glenn]

Another example of how GDP growth can have a negative effect is through not just price inflation (including real-estate, insurance policies/premiums, and other goods and services not measured by the CPI or any other inflation measure).

This is not a bad thing. Price inflation encourages consumption and production. If prices were constant, or worse deflationary, consumers have less incentive to purchase and producers less incentive to produce today (market participants being forward looking).

It could also generate or at least reflect a proliferation of goods and services that ultimately decrease rather than increase quality of life.

This is impossible by definition. GDP is the gross value of all goods bought and sold in an economy. No consumer will voluntarily exchange his own capital for someone elses unless he believes his net utility has increased (that is, he is better off after the exchange than before hand). Therefore, quality of life - defined in economics as net personal utility - always increases when the number of market exchanges increases.

For example, I can remember 10 or 20 years ago when people would acquire loads of kitchen utensils or knick knacks because they were in fashion. Ultimately these items didn't get used and ended up getting thrown away or stored in attics. Their purchase certainly contributed to GDP growth, job-creation, stock dividends, etc. but that's ultimately all they were - that and a waste of energy to produce and distribute them.

A waste of energy, in your opinion. Don't confuse individual taste preferences with general aggregate utility. Just because you don't see the point in buying gaudy kitchen utensils doesn't make them a waste. It only means others value goods differently than you do. Some people like Honda, others like Hyundai. Doesn't make either of them correct, absolutely. Society benefits when markets provide everyone with the maximum utility attainable given a fixed level of technology and capital, in aggregate.

Why isn't it possible that instead of GDP growth being better when its higher, that lower levels of GDP are better because they promote more fiscal discipline and caution in consumption?

Because, by definition, consumers in a smaller per capita economy are consuming fewer goods - meeting fewer needs, gaining less utility - than consumers in a larger economy. Consumers are no less cautious or disciplined when they are impoverished. They buy less because they have to, not because of some fundamental change in behavior or preferences. Additionally, they save more because there's more risk during periods of economic contraction (risk of job loss, price deflation, etc).

It could be that living economically simpler lives is ultimately better for people and better for the functionality of the economy as a system - but how would economists ever recognize this if it was true?

You only believe this to be the case because you have never understood what it means to live in an undeveloped economy. Westerners generally take the quality of their lives for granted; they have no concept of how unique their circumstances are, historically and globally.

Economics is a science, not an art. Certain assumptions can be made about any living organism - specifically, it wants to maximize its utility (quality of life, etc). This is as true for a peasant in Africa as it is for a laborer in China or an investment banker in London. The only difference is circumstance. By better understanding the laws of economics, we can build society's (markets) which more efficiently allocate available resources, increasing net utility without any corresponding change in technology or capital.

 

[brainstorm]

This is not a bad thing. Price inflation encourages consumption and production. If prices were constant, or worse deflationary, consumers have less incentive to purchase and producers less incentive to produce today (market participants being forward looking).

Price inflation actually discourages consumption. Do you want to buy more of something when the price goes up? Demand curves don't. In classical free market economics, relative scarcity results in higher prices, which in turn attract producers to the market. Once these producers begin producing more of the scarce commodity and engaging in price competition, the price falls according to the commodities increasing relative abundance. This is how the invisible hand functions ensures maximum availability of commodities at the optimum price for both consumers and producers.

This is impossible by definition. GDP is the gross value of all goods bought and sold in an economy. No consumer will voluntarily exchange his own capital for someone elses unless he believes his net utility has increased (that is, he is better off after the exchange than before hand). Therefore, quality of life - defined in economics as net personal utility - always increases when the number of market exchanges increases.

This argument is vague and doesn't say anything about what is actually causing quality of life except profit. You're assuming that people live in a vacuum where the only thing that makes them happy or sad is net income. By that definition, of course GDP growth would correspond with net happiness, because you're not taking any other factors into consideration.

A waste of energy, in your opinion. Don't confuse individual taste preferences with general aggregate utility. Just because you don't see the point in buying gaudy kitchen utensils doesn't make them a waste. It only means others value goods differently than you do. Some people like Honda, others like Hyundai. Doesn't make either of them correct, absolutely. Society benefits when markets provide everyone with the maximum utility attainable given a fixed level of technology and capital, in aggregate.

There may be some people who got some utility out of these things. They were just an example of something that many people did not really get any utility out of. I am suggesting that this is a general trend in a high-growth economy. In that case, many people would be working harder to keep up with consumption trends and pay off the debts accrued, while other people would be enjoying net income and profits due to those consumption trends. It also needs to be understood how marketing and other factors causes people to consume with the hope of gaining happiness without actually wanting the goods and services they are buying. This is the result of associations between immaterial things like happiness, peace of mind, friendship, and love and material commodities that are supposed to bring them. In reality, the high GDP economy is what is repressing these non-material commodities by reducing people's free time and ability to devote time and energy to non-material aspects of their lives.

Because, by definition, consumers in a smaller per capita economy are consuming fewer goods - meeting fewer needs, gaining less utility - than consumers in a larger economy. Consumers are no less cautious or disciplined when they are impoverished. They buy less because they have to, not because of some fundamental change in behavior or preferences. Additionally, they save more because there's more risk during periods of economic contraction (risk of job loss, price deflation, etc).

You're right, and this is the part of low GDP that I struggle to figure out a solution to. If so much saving and competition for share of GDP is going that certain people or businesses are subject to extreme deprivation, those people and firms will become that much more desperate to fight for a share of GDP by any means. This reproduces the same effect of a high GDP economy, only in a more aggressive way. The issue is how a stable economy can emerge with low or negative GDP growth where competition to increase share of GDP gives way to adaptations to achieve economic well-being with less consumption and earning. Theoretically, both private consumers and businesses should be able to adapt their operations to adjust to lower GDP, deflation, etc. and maintain non-disasterous levels of production and consumption - but how?

Economics is a science, not an art. Certain assumptions can be made about any living organism - specifically, it wants to maximize its utility (quality of life, etc). This is as true for a peasant in Africa as it is for a laborer in China or an investment banker in London. The only difference is circumstance. By better understanding the laws of economics, we can build society's (markets) which more efficiently allocate available resources, increasing net utility without any corresponding change in technology or capital.

If economics is a science, not an art, why are you painting it in broad strokes using metaphors?

 

[Kimchijjigae]

What if raising GDP lowers living standards and corrupts political(economic) power? Would the purpose of an economy then to raise living standards and rectify political(economic) power by other means than raising GDP? Also, what if certain kinds of GDP growth actually lead to stagnation of certain forms of trade? Is it then better to look at forms of stimulating trade that avoid raising GDP, if it is the stumbling block? If GDP is more important than economic well-being, please provide your reasoning.

Raising GDP improves the living standard, little as it may be. I never said the means used to achieve it improves the living standard of a country.

 

[brainstorm]

Raising GDP improves the living standard, little as it may be. I never said the means used to achieve it improves the living standard of a country.

Your returning to cling to this dogmatic and uncritical faith in GDP growth as the only possible means of improving a free market economy is indicative of the reason why the economy has gotten as bad as it has. More money makes things better in some cases but worsens things in others. Economics needs to grow up and start recognizing that economic health is more complex than "more money flow = better." Your perspective is like having a doctor whose solution to every health issue is to increase calorie intake.

 

[John Creighto]

If you ask me, low interest rates are as "beneficial" for the economy as drugs are for a person's health: you might at first feel more energetic, but in the end it will detoriate your health. This kind of monetary policy which has been invoked now to "cure" the crisis, is to me a sign that this (capitalistic) system is on a dead-end.

You may like this quote:

"Economic stimulus is, in a sense, like a narcotic drug. A little bit can be a life-saver, when you’re in extreme pain. But it’s also a poison, and if you keep using, you’ll end up strung out and addicted like Dr. House on Vicodin. (Paul Krugman argues that this analysis is comparable to saying the economy must be “punished” for its excesses, which he finds both callous and ridiculous. In fact, I’m not saying we should ban all painkillers because they’re potentially addictive and dangerous, which would be foolish and cruel indeed. What I am saying is that, when taking painkillers, you ignore their very real dangers at your peril — just because they make you feel good doesn’t mean they’re good for you. Whereas Krugman and his fellow Keynesians, to carry the analogy one step further, seem to advise popping economic painkillers as though they were candy)." by prchovanec

 

[brainstorm]

Considering how long low and lower interest rates have been popular, it is difficult to remember why interest rates were ever high and what reasons there would be to raise them. Would retired people be the only ones to benefit from higher interest rates? Could higher interest rates serve as yet another avenue of fiscal stimulus, i.e. by increasing interest income on savings deposits?

 

[airborne18]

One aspect that everyone is missing in this conversation is that interest rates are used to value assets and measure risk. This rule is dictated by GAAP.

Lower rates force everyone to take more risk to achieve a return on investment.

That is why there are so many analysts predicting the market will go down below 9000. Because interest rates will be going up, and that will force all assets to be revalued, i.e. downward.

 

[brainstorm]

Lower rates force everyone to take more risk to achieve a return on investment.

That is why there are so many analysts predicting the market will go down below 9000. Because interest rates will be going up, and that will force all assets to be revalued, i.e. downward.

I'm actually surprised interests rates haven't gone up already. I used to hear many people say that whenever a democrat is elected president, interest rates rise. I don't know the political logic behind that but it would also seem to make sense that as credit defaults started rising, rates would go up to mitigate the risk of defaults. I'm not sure if the bailouts helped to mitigate that effect, since the political quid-pro-quo for the bailouts was to keep lending to prevent further decline.

I saw the prolongation of low interest rates as a positive social measure for people with mortgages. Especially people with adjustable rate mortgages are better off with a long term fixed rate, especially in the event that interest rates do start going up. At this point, I don't know what would cause banks to raise interest rates however, if the recent rise in defaults hasn't. Is it possible that banks have their risks so well covered that there is no need to raise interest rates to recover losses?

 

[airborne18]

I'm actually surprised interests rates haven't gone up already. I used to hear many people say that whenever a democrat is elected president, interest rates rise. I don't know the political logic behind that but it would also seem to make sense that as credit defaults started rising, rates would go up to mitigate the risk of defaults. I'm not sure if the bailouts helped to mitigate that effect, since the political quid-pro-quo for the bailouts was to keep lending to prevent further decline.

I saw the prolongation of low interest rates as a positive social measure for people with mortgages. Especially people with adjustable rate mortgages are better off with a long term fixed rate, especially in the event that interest rates do start going up. At this point, I don't know what would cause banks to raise interest rates however, if the recent rise in defaults hasn't. Is it possible that banks have their risks so well covered that there is no need to raise interest rates to recover losses?

The interest rate story started after 9/11, to recover from the financial damage. Also there is another facet to this, and that is the cheap "dollar" policy. ( Yes the government controls interest rates and dollar exchange rates ). Low interest rates cheapen the value of the dollar, and a cheap dollar means that US exports are cheaper. It is a stimulus in itself.

The US has been on a cheap dollar policy for at least 8 years. I think probably longer, but too lazy to look it up. One of the reasons Europe has been angry at us is the cheap dollar policy.

The problem with this recession is that every economic measure available to stimulate the economy is already being done. At least the easy ones.

Higher interest rates are not a stimulus, they take investment capital out of the equity markets.

As far as banks, that is a completely different discussion. Mortgage lending is a busines in itself. Most of your smaller banks got hit harder by home equity loan defaults and lesser by mortgages. A good portion of mortgages are done through those horrible mortgage agencies, and the banks make their money off the orgination fees. Though don't get me wrong, they are hurting from the mortgages too.

 

[brainstorm]

Higher interest rates are not a stimulus, they take investment capital out of the equity markets.

But investment is stagnating anyway because of caution about deflation and recession. So if interest on savings increased, that would provide more disposable income to retirees. I don't know if more fiscal stimulus would be good for the economy at this point, but it might shift the balance of saving/spending so that people making money would be saving more and retired people could be spending more to give those making the money more to save.

 

[airborne18]

I understand what you are saying, my father-in-law still talks about 1979 when he got double digit returns on his CD's.

As much talk as you hear about they want people to save more of their income, that is more of a joke really. We have a service based economy that is relies on consumer spending. As much huffing and puffing you hear about savings, the fact is that they need everyone to buy a new car and stuff their carts at Target and Walmart.

There is a balance where you can raise rates and not hamper the economy. We should have done it 3 years ago, but the ball was dropped.

Keep in mind, when rates start rising, the stock market will sink.

 

[airborne18]

And don't forget, the higher rates just make the national debt balloon. The one benefit to this has been cheap interest on the national debt. Look at the total us budget outlays, just think of the amount if interest rates double. You might have to go lay down after doing the numbers.

 

[brainstorm]

I understand what you are saying, my father-in-law still talks about 1979 when he got double digit returns on his CD's.

As much talk as you hear about they want people to save more of their income, that is more of a joke really. We have a service based economy that is relies on consumer spending. As much huffing and puffing you hear about savings, the fact is that they need everyone to buy a new car and stuff their carts at Target and Walmart.

There is a balance where you can raise rates and not hamper the economy. We should have done it 3 years ago, but the ball was dropped.

Keep in mind, when rates start rising, the stock market will sink.

1) Aging baby boomers are a giant consumer market, and they shop for their children and grandchildren.

2) When people have more money saved up, they may be more likely to invest some of it in stock investments. Stock investment may be a last ditch effort for some people desperate to make money, but I would guess that many people cut their investment risks when they start to see their savings as the potential casualty.

3) What kind of logic is it to say that something should have happened three years ago but not any more after that?

 

[airborne18]

1) Aging baby boomers are a giant consumer market, and they shop for their children and grandchildren.

2) When people have more money saved up, they may be more likely to invest some of it in stock investments. Stock investment may be a last ditch effort for some people desperate to make money, but I would guess that many people cut their investment risks when they start to see their savings as the potential casualty.

3) What kind of logic is it to say that something should have happened three years ago but not any more after that?

1. Retired people, who have lost a ton of wealth close to retirement do not consume. You need nesting families to consume. Which the second part is that the baby boomers are leaving a terrible legacy. Their children are not doing better than their parents, unlike the baby boomers, who did. And they are not leaving home and starting families.

2. I think the last 3 crashes in the last decade have cured most people of mutual fund and stock investing.

3. Because the role of the government is to not let housing bubbles get out of control, raising rates would have smoothed the bubble out in a deliberate manner. Instead it crushed the entire economy. And it is tough to raise rates when credit is already tight.

 

[brainstorm]

1. Retired people, who have lost a ton of wealth close to retirement do not consume. You need nesting families to consume. Which the second part is that the baby boomers are leaving a terrible legacy. Their children are not doing better than their parents, unlike the baby boomers, who did. And they are not leaving home and starting families.

Right, but people try to take care of each other. If someone's parents have lost wealth, they may try to save more of their income in less risky investments to ensure they will have enough for both their parents and their children. If their parents seem to be covered, they will relax their budgets some; and if their parents are enjoying comfortable interest income, they like to give gifts to grandchildren, contribute to their savings, take them out, etc.

3. Because the role of the government is to not let housing bubbles get out of control, raising rates would have smoothed the bubble out in a deliberate manner. Instead it crushed the entire economy. And it is tough to raise rates when credit is already tight.

I don't see why ppl haven't had sufficient chance at this point to secure their debt-repayment plans with relatively fixed rate mortgages, etc. Probably the main reason it would be difficult to raise rates is because of all the money that is currently being saved. How would you pay for all that interest income unless som people were willing to borrow more at higher rates. I wonder who was borrowing money during times when interest rates were so high. Maybe the baby boomers since they had the economic means to repay.

 

[airborne18]

Okay that is another facet of interest rates. Home prices are proportional to income growth and interest rates. The amount of house you can afford is a function of the amount you can afford to pay in monthly payments.

When interest rates rise, a certain income level is effectively shut out of the market for the median priced home. So the price of the median home will drop as interest rates rise. The only offset to this is if wages grow.

The problem with the current situation is that anyone who bought at the tail end of the bubble are stuck with negative equity. To refinance they have to come up with the money to actually cover the loss in equity.

That is why the current mortgage bailout is a dud. Changing payment terms does not solve the equity crisis. This is why you hear a lot of economists mention equity forgiveness. That would solve the issue of real estate stagnation and stop the endless defaults.

 

[brainstorm]

Okay that is another facet of interest rates. Home prices are proportional to income growth and interest rates. The amount of house you can afford is a function of the amount you can afford to pay in monthly payments.

When interest rates rise, a certain income level is effectively shut out of the market for the median priced home. So the price of the median home will drop as interest rates rise. The only offset to this is if wages grow.

The problem with the current situation is that anyone who bought at the tail end of the bubble are stuck with negative equity. To refinance they have to come up with the money to actually cover the loss in equity.

That is why the current mortgage bailout is a dud. Changing payment terms does not solve the equity crisis. This is why you hear a lot of economists mention equity forgiveness. That would solve the issue of real estate stagnation and stop the endless defaults.

Equity forgiveness would only make sense once real estate is stably trading at a deflated level. At that point, it would be conceivable that debt-reductions could be funded/subsidized by taxing real-estate transactions. Yes, such a tax would further push down the median price of what was affordable to buyers but if market prices are resetting anyway, what does it matter how low they go?

The bigger question, imo, is what kind of real estate market is sustainable to avoid the bubble-burst causing growth of profiteering real-estate appreciation and investment? If the markets reset and people start flipping houses again to make loads of money, won't that just lead to another crash like the one that caused the current situation?

 

[airborne18]

Equity forgiveness would only make sense once real estate is stably trading at a deflated level. At that point, it would be conceivable that debt-reductions could be funded/subsidized by taxing real-estate transactions. Yes, such a tax would further push down the median price of what was affordable to buyers but if market prices are resetting anyway, what does it matter how low they go?

The bigger question, imo, is what kind of real estate market is sustainable to avoid the bubble-burst causing growth of profiteering real-estate appreciation and investment? If the markets reset and people start flipping houses again to make loads of money, won't that just lead to another crash like the one that caused the current situation?

I think the biggest mistake was the 8000.00 tax credit. The half measures they have done to fix the real estate market have only prolonged the agony.

Controlling real estate is done through the Fed and your state, through lending guidelines and income ratios. There are states that did not have the problem as bad as others, and it is because the states limit the types of mortgages.

I find it funny that there is still new housing starts, yet the market is flooded with inventory.

With Congress coming back and it being an election year you will see another bailout in the next month.

 

[brainstorm]

I find it funny that there is still new housing starts, yet the market is flooded with inventory.

The new inventory may be the saving grace to restart trading. Existing homeowners are reluctant to sell at depreciated prices, preferring to hold onto the belief that their properties are worth what they purchased them for. New housing, on the other hand, can be sold cheaper, which in turn can drive investment and trading. Ultimately excess supply will flood the market and possibly lead to more deflation and credit defaults - but it could also lead to new trends in multiple-property ownership, migration-driven investment, etc.

With Congress coming back and it being an election year you will see another bailout in the next month.

That's a hard one to call. Yes people like seeing fresh money coming their way, but there is a lot of disapproval of stimulus spending and pressure on legislators to put a stop to it.

 

[airborne18]

The coming bailout will probably be of banks, the fed chairman hinted at it today. The fed will buyout the bad loans in the bank portfolios to free up money to loan. One of the issues is that banks are wasting money with loan reserves.

This is where our economy needs immigration. That is how we are going to replace baby boomers with a tax base. It has been the overall strategy.

 

[talk2glenn]

Price inflation actually discourages consumption. Do you want to buy more of something when the price goes up?

This is wrong. Inflation rates are, by definition,a function of change in price over time, and are typically quoted at an annualized rate. If you believe prices will be 4% higher this time next year than they are today, are you more or less likely to put off discretionary demand? On the other hand, if you believe prices will be lower this time next year, how does this affect your calculus?

If we assume that price levels must either be constant, increasing, or decreasing over time, and we further assume that consumption is a desirable economic outcome (that is, nobody benefits when you produce something, but don't trade it on the market), then it follows that price inflation is preferable, because it encourages consumption and discourages saving.

It is true that, at a fixed moment in time, consumers prefer lower to higher prices. The inflation rate in a fixed period is zero or more accurately irrelevant, however.

There may be some people who got some utility out of these things. They were just an example of something that many people did not really get any utility out of. I am suggesting that this is a general trend in a high-growth economy. In that case, many people would be working harder to keep up with consumption trends and pay off the debts accrued, while other people would be enjoying net income and profits due to those consumption trends.

Who benefits is irrelevant. The question is, given scarce resources, what distribution allocation maximizes aggregate utility? A competitive market, under every model, consistently (though, depending on the model and the desired outcome, not exclusively) achieves the most efficient result. Not everyone wins in a competitive environment, however. The losers tend to complain, and demand non-competitive intervention. This benefits these individuals, to the detriment of others and/or the whole (someone loses so that somebody else can gain - in economics we call this a Pareto inefficiency).

It also needs to be understood how marketing and other factors causes people to consume with the hope of gaining happiness without actually wanting the goods and services they are buying.

No, it does not. No rational individual is convinced to buy something they don't want by marketers. Marketing is defined as convincing consumers that your product satisfies a demand they already have. Marketers don't create the demand; they match specific products to specific needs.

This is the result of associations between immaterial things like happiness, peace of mind, friendship, and love and material commodities that are supposed to bring them. In reality, the high GDP economy is what is repressing these non-material commodities by reducing people's free time and ability to devote time and energy to non-material aspects of their lives.

This is nonsensical. Compare the lifestyles of individuals in high-GDP to low-GDP economies. It is absolutely true, without exception, that "wealthy" individuals have more free time than "poor" ones. By definition, the more you make per hour (GDP per capita per hour), the fewer hours you need to be productive to meet your staple demand. This leaves you with an increased number of hours to divide between leisure time and pursuit of discretionary demand.

It is a farce to suggest that individuals in wealthier economies are "slaves to consumption". Wealth is, and always has been, a liberating mechanism. Modern market economies create wealth more efficiently, and distribute that wealth more equitably, than any social systems in human history.

This reproduces the same effect of a high GDP economy, only in a more aggressive way. The issue is how a stable economy can emerge with low or negative GDP growth where competition to increase share of GDP gives way to adaptations to achieve economic well-being with less consumption and earning. Theoretically, both private consumers and businesses should be able to adapt their operations to adjust to lower GDP, deflation, etc. and maintain non-disasterous levels of production and consumption - but how?

Of course people could adapt to a lower GDP environment. The how is not mysterious or alien. GDP is a dollar measure of purchasing power. Less GDP means less purchasing power; poor people need to work harder to afford less.

 

[brainstorm]

This is wrong. Inflation rates are, by definition,a function of change in price over time, and are typically quoted at an annualized rate. If you believe prices will be 4% higher this time next year than they are today, are you more or less likely to put off discretionary demand? On the other hand, if you believe prices will be lower this time next year, how does this affect your calculus?

I see your point, but inflation is simply not sustainable as proven by various deflationary bubble-bursts. In fact, it would only be sustainable if the economy were centrally controlled, which it isn't presuming the free market is as free as its critics like to claim.

Also, this logic of "buy now because prices are going up," would cause people with money to spend to spend frivolously on items they think they might need, but would end up either re-selling or discarding those items later on, which would result in deflation of second-hand markets and/or more economic waste. Granted, everyone loves a free-for-all but is it ultimately the best form of economy?

If we assume that price levels must either be constant, increasing, or decreasing over time, and we further assume that consumption is a desirable economic outcome (that is, nobody benefits when you produce something, but don't trade it on the market), then it follows that price inflation is preferable, because it encourages consumption and discourages saving.

You are assuming that more consumption and less saving create a better quality of life. This is simply not everyone's opinion. Some people would like to live simpler lives, consuming less, and being able to enjoy non-material things more as a result of the less intense economic demands of their work and consumption activities. Such people are willing to work to maintain a certain standard of material consumption but they have no desire to spend more time, energy, and resources than necessary on materialism and economic activities generally.

It is true that, at a fixed moment in time, consumers prefer lower to higher prices. The inflation rate in a fixed period is zero or more accurately irrelevant, however.

Slowly deflating prices encourage people to take better care of the things they have to stretch out their utility longer, thus increasing the savings of waiting longer to make a purchase. If you knew, for example, that you could buy a new car next year for 10k or wait five more years and get it for 8k, you would have an incentive to take good care of your current car, drive it less, etc. so you could spend 2k less when you did eventually buy the new car.

No, it does not. No rational individual is convinced to buy something they don't want by marketers. Marketing is defined as convincing consumers that your product satisfies a demand they already have. Marketers don't create the demand; they match specific products to specific needs.

I believe there is rational consumption and production, but there is also a great deal of irrational, mostly emotionalist, economic activity. Whether marketers do it directly or consumers themselves, brand status promotes irrational spending to acquire one name or logo over another. Likewise, most unhealthy food is consumed due to irrational short-term gratification or impatience of cooking oneself or waiting longer than necessary for healthier food. Few people organize their lives and schedules rationally, preferring instead to follow their flights of fancy. Additionally, people are often anti-critical conformists who consume according to the logic of what will make them popular or otherwise gain social approval instead of what would benefit them most either in terms of quality or price.

This is nonsensical. Compare the lifestyles of individuals in high-GDP to low-GDP economies. It is absolutely true, without exception, that "wealthy" individuals have more free time than "poor" ones. By definition, the more you make per hour (GDP per capita per hour), the fewer hours you need to be productive to meet your staple demand. This leaves you with an increased number of hours to divide between leisure time and pursuit of discretionary demand.

The reason is because wealthy individuals in higher GDP economies make more money and are able to spend and consume more by spending more money on services and other labor. If wealthier individuals (and other individuals for that matter) would spend and consume less, there would be less labor-hour demand and lower GDP. Yes, higher GDP allows more people to buy their time back through investment income, but the negative result of this is that those who don't become exempt from time-consuming labor, for whatever reason, have less free time because they have to produce more profit and more consumption opportunities for those who do.

It is a farce to suggest that individuals in wealthier economies are "slaves to consumption". Wealth is, and always has been, a liberating mechanism. Modern market economies create wealth more efficiently, and distribute that wealth more equitably, than any social systems in human history.

You don't understand consumption at the social-psychological level. Some consumption is indeed liberating. Much of it is, however, habit-forming and maintenance. People get bored, sad, grumpy, etc. and consume for comfort. When they aren't consuming, they can feel a sense of emptiness or lack of direction in their lives because they're not used to doing activities that don't involve consumption. If many people are accustomed to spending their time consuming socially, people who suggest non-consumption social activities may be eschewed as being "odd," "dull," or "cheap." Status becomes a primary goal in social life. These effects are not liberating. They enslave people to maintaining a certain lifestyle or risk losing friendship and peace of mind.

Consumption would be liberating if people did it to augment their regular activities instead of as a basis for them.

Of course people could adapt to a lower GDP environment. The how is not mysterious or alien. GDP is a dollar measure of purchasing power. Less GDP means less purchasing power; poor people need to work harder to afford less.

If poor people are working harder to afford less, that would mean they are producing more and consuming less of it. If that was the case, then wouldn't GDP be going up due to greater economic productivity? If GDP would legitimately go down, people would be working less and purchasing less. If they were getting more utility out of what they did purchase, quality of life would not decrease although people would have more free time to live life outside of work and consumption.

 

[airborne18]

I don't think there is a meaningful correlation between the GDP and CPI. There is a meaningful relationship between real wages and disposable income, which is impacted by inflation.

The issue that we are facing is that the impact of the recession on economies of scale. It is not that costs are rising, but that certain retail commodities are not being discounted. PC sales is one that comes to mind. We are at the end of the back to school PC buying season, and it is one of two buying seasons for computers, yet there are no real steals.

The dilema faced by all companies is that they have to either raise top line sales, and improve bottom line return. This past year most companies had increased profits, but not through top line growth. It is a trend that will not continue this next year. You can only cut costs to a point, and that has occured. Next they will have to control the cost of sales and adjust their model for lower sales volume.

The CPI might reflect this, but the GDP will probably not. They are both trailing indiciators of the macro economy. There many ways to debate numbers.

I just do not see the value of looking at the GDP when we have 17million unemployed.
That coupled with the fact that the middle class has not only lost wealth, but their precious credit ratings.

For most of the decade financial talking heads have been huffing and puffing about how everyone should be getting cheap home equity loans and using thie ecquity. How stupid you were if you sat with equity in your home.. Okay so people did that and spent.

Now there is not going to be equity for 5 years, at best. And a part of the middle class has been lost to TRW credit ratings. And we have a whole mass of people who are rebuilding their retirements and careers.

Those are the indicators and fundamentals that the talking head economists on TV forget.

 

[turbo]

To get back to the OP, low interest rates punish people who save and reward people who borrow and spend. That is not responsible fiscal policy, but it has been the primary goal of the Fed for longer than I want to remember. Greenspan and Bernanke are crooks of the highest order, keeping Wall Street happy while stealing income from the taxpayers who are prudent enough to save.

 

[airborne18]

To get back to the OP, low interest rates punish people who save and reward people who borrow and spend. That is not responsible fiscal policy, but it has been the primary goal of the Fed for longer than I want to remember. Greenspan and Bernanke are crooks of the highest order, keeping Wall Street happy while stealing income from the taxpayers who are prudent enough to save.

Low interest rates keep our national debt interest payments somewhat managable. It is also why they started pushing the debt to shorter maturities, to nickel and dime the interest cost.

 

[brainstorm]

The dilema faced by all companies is that they have to either raise top line sales, and improve bottom line return. This past year most companies had increased profits, but not through top line growth. It is a trend that will not continue this next year. You can only cut costs to a point, and that has occured. Next they will have to control the cost of sales and adjust their model for lower sales volume.

This logic presumes a non-competitive supply side. It is completely contrary to the dynamics of supply and demand, where price-competition among firms is supposed to ensue until a price-equilibrium is reached that eliminates the glut. Firms may adjust their production to the new price level by reducing output and shifting to produce some other product instead, but the way you're describing the process would only make sense in a monopoly-type market where firms can control price as a means of generating as much or as little revenue as they please.

I just do not see the value of looking at the GDP when we have 17million unemployed.
That coupled with the fact that the middle class has not only lost wealth, but their precious credit ratings.

Both of these really just reflect a gap between expected/desired income and what people are actually getting. Once they adjust to lower income levels, they will not miss borrowing and they will be happy to get by with more free time than less.

For most of the decade financial talking heads have been huffing and puffing about how everyone should be getting cheap home equity loans and using thie ecquity. How stupid you were if you sat with equity in your home.. Okay so people did that and spent.

Now there is not going to be equity for 5 years, at best. And a part of the middle class has been lost to TRW credit ratings. And we have a whole mass of people who are rebuilding their retirements and careers.

A lot of economic restructuring is going on, but a lot of it isn't going to lead anywhere either because it is oriented toward re-establishing a level of income that doesn't make sense anymore. If, for example, a person who makes 100k/year in income loses 80% of their income and re-stabilizes, they are going to be wondering what they ever did with that extra $80k/year. They're going to realize that all they really did was invest it and plan to retire rich, but in the meantime they've adjusted their expenditures to a level where they can live normally on much less - so they might be happy to get a little more disposable income, but if they are living stably with 20k/year, why would they need to return to make 80k?

In fact, I would even venture to say that a large proportion of people's income has to be spent in relatively immaterial ways for the economy to sustain so much spending. If people took all the money they spend on stock trading, insurance, entertainment, and other immaterial things and tried to buy more cars or food, there wouldn't be enough cars and food to go around.

 

[turbo]

Low interest rates keep our national debt interest payments somewhat managable. It is also why they started pushing the debt to shorter maturities, to nickel and dime the interest cost.

You need to realize that for people to spend, they need to have a reasonable expectation of earnings. If people who save their income cannot rely on their money being available in the long term, they will not spend. If people are comfortable with the stability of the economy, they will spend more, improving the outlook of the economy. If people with savings are distrustful and refuse to spend, that is is destructive to the economy.

The Fed kowtows to Wall Street and screws citizens in the process by keeping prime interest rates so low that banks can borrow OUR money for free to speculate with. This has to be stopped.

 

[CRGreathouse]

To get back to the OP, low interest rates punish people who save and reward people who borrow and spend.

They hurt people who hold money, but not automatically those who save.

 

[turbo]

They hurt people who hold money, but not automatically those who save.

Would you like to elaborate? I'd be happy to see how you think low interest rates do not penalize people who have saved for their retirement, only to drop into this (~0) percent interest pit.

 

[brainstorm]

I wouldn't say low interest rates reward people who borrow and spend. It's more like they seduce people who want to spend into borrowing so that they'll be a source of interest income for others when interest rates go up. I wouldn't call it a reward to spend your life paying someone else's interest income.

 

[turbo]

Instead of having the Fed jerking us smaller savers/investors around to keep Wall Street happy, they should adjust the prime rate to keep us little fish earning a modest return on our nest eggs, and letting Wall Street fend for themselves. If the big banks and investment firms can't survive without corporate welfare, they deserve to die or be broken up.

 

[airborne18]

This logic presumes a non-competitive supply side. It is completely contrary to the dynamics of supply and demand, where price-competition among firms is supposed to ensue until a price-equilibrium is reached that eliminates the glut. Firms may adjust their production to the new price level by reducing output and shifting to produce some other product instead, but the way you're describing the process would only make sense in a monopoly-type market where firms can control price as a means of generating as much or as little revenue as they please.
.

Market contraction = lower demand = cost over less units = higher price.

Both of these really just reflect a gap between expected/desired income and what people are actually getting. Once they adjust to lower income levels, they will not miss borrowing and they will be happy to get by with more free time than less.
.

What? Huh? The GDP? Huh?

A lot of economic restructuring is going on, but a lot of it isn't going to lead anywhere either because it is oriented toward re-establishing a level of income that doesn't make sense anymore. If, for example, a person who makes 100k/year in income loses 80% of their income and re-stabilizes, they are going to be wondering what they ever did with that extra $80k/year. They're going to realize that all they really did was invest it and plan to retire rich, but in the meantime they've adjusted their expenditures to a level where they can live normally on much less - so they might be happy to get a little more disposable income, but if they are living stably with 20k/year, why would they need to return to make 80k?

In fact, I would even venture to say that a large proportion of people's income has to be spent in relatively immaterial ways for the economy to sustain so much spending. If people took all the money they spend on stock trading, insurance, entertainment, and other immaterial things and tried to buy more cars or food, there wouldn't be enough cars and food to go around.

Your second paragraph is on point, and that has been the goal of the green movement, and this has been the stated goal of the administration. That is why the first thing that occurred was a freeze on any defense spending. I call them the 2% crowd. The ones that always state that any problem could be solved if we just spend 2% of what we spend on defense.

That is why the stimulus was wasted. Stimulus from the bottom up does not work. Supply-side does work, and the last 2 years and next 2 will prove that fact, and painfully so.

 

[talk2glenn]

The Fed kowtows to Wall Street and screws citizens in the process by keeping prime interest rates so low that banks can borrow OUR money for free to speculate with. This has to be stopped.

This is not true. The Fed does not set the prime interest rate; the market does. It responds to several forces, including the Reserve Board and the US Treasury, but the player of largest import is the consumer debt markets - consumers and producers set clearing prices as a function of their competing interests subject to supply and demand.

Further, the prime rate is loosely defined (though it is a non-standard, non-technical term) as the base rate charged on new corporate loans. As in, money borrowed by consumers, from corporations. It is THEIR money borrowed by YOU so YOU can speculate.

Instead of having the Fed jerking us smaller savers/investors around to keep Wall Street happy, they should adjust the prime rate to keep us little fish earning a modest return on our nest eggs, and letting Wall Street fend for themselves. If the big banks and investment firms can't survive without corporate welfare, they deserve to die or be broken up.

Again, the Fed does not set the prime rate, and it has nothing to do with the rate of return on savings and investments.

Would you like to elaborate? I'd be happy to see how you think low interest rates do not penalize people who have saved for their retirement, only to drop into this (~0) percent interest pit.

Clearly, he is referencing investments, which are not the same thing as savings (but they are often used interchangably). Lower interest rates penalize cash holdings (saving), but rewards investments (which are a form of consumption).

It is important to differentiate between savings as defined technically in economics (money not spent), and savings as defined in personal finance (low risk investments). Direct investment is a form of consumption (you are effectively buying a tiny fraction of some factory in Malaysia, if you will), and is not harmful to an economy.

In general, a positive economic objective is maximal cash flow - the longer individuals are holding cash, the longer the economy is going without utilizing that individuals excess productive capacity towards creating growth. Higher interest rates tend to encourage holding cash both directly, in the way you guys are thinking, by discouraging lending and encouraging leaving your money in a savings account, and indirectly, by increasing the market value of currency and reducing the rate of inflation, which has a cyclical effect of further depressing consumption and encouraging savings - starving the economy of both investment capital (and conversely making that capital more expensive, increasing production costs) and consumer demand, leading necessarily to recessionary conditions.

That is about as simplified an explanation of "why savings are bad" as I can give. They make sense for individuals when those individuals lack confidence in their financial futures, but they never make sense macro-economically, and are to be avoided. This is why the US central bank uses monetary policy principally to preserve consumer confidence in the stability of the financial system, with inflation control as a secondary goal (Europe takes the opposite approach).

 

[mheslep]

This is not true. The Fed does not set the prime interest rate; the market does. It responds to several forces, including the Reserve Board and the US Treasury, but the player of largest import is the consumer debt markets - consumers and producers set clearing prices as a function of their competing interests subject to supply and demand.

No, practically speaking that's incorrect. The Prime Rate is indeed set by the market but it is always, always about 3 percentage points above the Federal Funds Rate which is set by the Federal Reserve and jumps almost immediately following changes to the Fed rate. The rates given in the consumer debt market do fluctuate more based on supply and demand. Occasionally even below prime rates are made available in the consumer market, but generally consumers do not have access to Prime rate lending.

http://www.wsjprimerate.us/

 

[brainstorm]

Market contraction = lower demand = cost over less units = higher price.

This is why you read a few years ago about growing production and supply-chain flexibility, on-demand production, etc.

Your second paragraph is on point, and that has been the goal of the green movement, and this has been the stated goal of the administration. That is why the first thing that occurred was a freeze on any defense spending. I call them the 2% crowd. The ones that always state that any problem could be solved if we just spend 2% of what we spend on defense.

That is why the stimulus was wasted. Stimulus from the bottom up does not work. Supply-side does work, and the last 2 years and next 2 will prove that fact, and painfully so.

The only reason I see defense spending as fiscally conservative is that people who are participating in military activities usually don't get such an opportunity to consume their wages. The result is that people come home with large nest eggs, which they want to manage well so that they won't deplete what they worked so hard to save up. Military service is an exercise in fiscal discipline as well as other kinds of discipline in this sense.

Yes, I've figured out that the game is to first drive up spending and then lower taxes. That way they can get fiscal stimulus from both ends of the cash cow, so to speak. It's ironic because first people complain they don't want the stimulus. Then once it's circulating around the economy, they want to be the ones it gets spent on and they don't want to pay it back to the government where it came from in the first place.