US Slips Down the Ranks of Global Competitiveness

Why not? We still blame Carter and FDR!
I miss your logic.

I blame Carter for fucking up the economy in the later 70's spilling over to the first couple of years of the 80's, then, and I blame him for fucking up the same time period now.

Just because time past, history didn't rewrite itself. The book may have been rewritten, though.

As for the Islamists taking over countries instead of being a movement of wannabes, that's a true lasting renewing legacy.
 
I miss your logic.

I blame Carter for fucking up the economy in the later 70's spilling over to the first couple of years of the 80's, then, and I blame him for fucking up the same time period now.

Just because time past, history didn't rewrite itself. The book may have been rewritten, though.

As for the Islamists taking over countries instead of being a movement of wannabes, that's a true lasting renewing legacy.

Ist das ein Witz? Ja!
 
Sure, blame it on the dude that couldn't clean up the biggest mess left in US history left by someone else, within just four years in office... sure

/logic

*holds up flame shield from bible huggers*


I blame 30 years of home loans to people who couldn't afford to pay them back and had no real intention to do so , brought to us by :

Jimmy (peanut head) Carter
Bill (gotta a cigar?) Clinton
Janet (the murderess of Waco) Reno
Barney (mushmouth) Frank
Chris (nice hat) Dodd

in that order and all equally
 
Interesting that 2 of the countries above us are very Socialist (Sweden and Finland) ... and 2 have much more rigid government control of everything (Singapore and Germany) ... maybe our problem is we aren't socialist and controlling enough :D

let's start with your parents...all of their possessions should be redistributed to me and mine because they didn't earn them or deserve them , please let me know when I can expect my check , thanks
 
I miss your logic.

I blame Carter for fucking up the economy in the later 70's spilling over to the first couple of years of the 80's, then, and I blame him for fucking up the same time period now.

Just because time past, history didn't rewrite itself. The book may have been rewritten, though.

As for the Islamists taking over countries instead of being a movement of wannabes, that's a true lasting renewing legacy.

Shoot ... if we are going to go back in time to blame folks let's blame Truman and Eisenhower for not taking out Russia at the end of World War 2 (like Patton wanted to ;) ) ... if we had ended the cold war before it began who knows what our economy would be like now :cool:
 
The fact that I see so many folks here and other liberal leaning blogs dispirited at the current administration speaks volumes.

The other day I spoke to a liberal friend of mine and they were unable to defend Obama's record for the past four years. Regardless of political party folks you can't put lipstick on this pig and call her your beautiful wife much longer. It's time to face facts. In the real world after four years of piss poor performance you would be shown the door unless you worked for government.

He's not a liberal, he's a center-rightist. And that was one of the problems. But the simple fact is, he made attempts to get us back on track, some of those things did work, and the Republican plan to conduct further tax cuts for the wealthy will NOT drive down our debt. In the words of Bill Clinton, it's simple arithmetic.
 
let's start with your parents...all of their possessions should be redistributed to me and mine because they didn't earn them or deserve them , please let me know when I can expect my check , thanks

Didn't say I endorsed socialism myself ... just commenting on an interesting fact ... personally I think we need less socialism but a reduction in democracy might benefit us significantly ... Singapore was a dictatorship for a good 30 years or so ... having a single person's vision gives a country and business a lot of stability ... and a good economy is all about making business happy ;)
 
I blame 30 years of home loans to people who couldn't afford to pay them back and had no real intention to do so , brought to us by :

Jimmy (peanut head) Carter
Bill (gotta a cigar?) Clinton
Janet (the murderess of Waco) Reno
Barney (mushmouth) Frank
Chris (nice hat) Dodd

in that order and all equally

If you really believe that was the problem, then you're just another ignorant Republican not bothering to do his research. So let's see the rest of your posts.

Bill the bold faced liar has been "making it up" since he graduated high school , I wonder what Vince Foster would have to say , guess we will never know

And you completely disregard the fact that the fact-checker consensus on Bill Clinton's speech - which, unlike recent RNC speeches, was loaded with specifics and numbers...the consensus is that Bill's speech was right on the money.

let's start with your parents...all of their possessions should be redistributed to me and mine because they didn't earn them or deserve them , please let me know when I can expect my check , thanks

And again. Please, FFS, can some of you morons at least TRY to understand what concepts like what socialism actually is and what it isn't? :rolleyes:
 
You do realize the GOP openly stated they were going to stop Obama from passing any real bills that could help fix the economy all to attain their goal of making him a 1 term President?

Right?

I'm a registered Libertarian, but the GOP is who you should be blaming. They have placed party politics above the good of the nation.

I really don't think you understand how hard it is for me to appear to side with Obama, who I consider a murderer for the assassination of Anwar Al-Awlaki and his 16 year old son. Both US citizens placed on a kill list for 2 years without any trial whatsoever.

So yeah.

Keep those partisan blinders on. That is the purpose of the game they are playing.

DIdnt he (Al-Awlaki) tell/teach american muslims to attack americans in their own soil? (plus teach radical views) If that is not treason, I dont know what is. His son on the other hand, i agree, was uncalled for.

On topic, lol at blaming this on Obama. He inherited the US without any issues, amirite?
 
DIdnt he (Al-Awlaki) tell/teach american muslims to attack americans in their own soil? (plus teach radical views) If that is not treason, I dont know what is. His son on the other hand, i agree, was uncalled for.

On topic, lol at blaming this on Obama. He inherited the US without any issues, amirite?

The reason does not matter. He is a US Citizen and afforded the right to a trial.

If a law is optional, it isn't a law.

This is quite possibly the worst precedent Obama has set during his entire first term. Make no mistake, the US Government WILL eventually abuse this. There isn't a single case of them taking a power and NOT eventually abusing it.
 
If you really believe that was the problem, then you're just another ignorant Republican not bothering to do his research. So let's see the rest of your posts.



And you completely disregard the fact that the fact-checker consensus on Bill Clinton's speech - which, unlike recent RNC speeches, was loaded with specifics and numbers...the consensus is that Bill's speech was right on the money.



And again. Please, FFS, can some of you morons at least TRY to understand what concepts like what socialism actually is and what it isn't? :rolleyes:

morons?...ignorant?...your 5 year old mentality and name calling is holding you back son...but then again , being young isn't helping you either...hahaha
 
Name calling solves nothing. Arguing/debating solves a lot. That said,
If you want to be entertained about the economy, watch this.
 
s8C6O.jpg
 
The fact that I see so many folks here and other liberal leaning blogs dispirited at the current administration speaks volumes.

The other day I spoke to a liberal friend of mine and they were unable to defend Obama's record for the past four years. Regardless of political party folks you can't put lipstick on this pig and call her your beautiful wife much longer. It's time to face facts. In the real world after four years of piss poor performance you would be shown the door unless you worked for government.
What? Name one thing he's done alone that's been "piss poor performance." One. He's working with a Congress who's approval rating has dipped to the single digits during one of the worst recessions in the last century.

Honestly, people who say "it's Obama's fault!" I write off as complete fucking idiots because it's obvious they have no idea how the government or the economy works
 
morons?...ignorant?...your 5 year old mentality and name calling is holding you back son...but then again , being young isn't helping you either...hahaha

This post is almost a completely perfect representation of what the Republican party has become. It completely fails to address a competing viewpoint, accuses the other side of its own flaws (complaining about name-calling while tossing out insults) while revealing a complete lack of intellectual capacity all at the same time. LOL HAHAHAHA LMAO :rolleyes:

What? Name one thing he's done alone that's been "piss poor performance." One. He's working with a Congress who's approval rating has dipped to the single digits during one of the worst recessions in the last century.

Honestly, people who say "it's Obama's fault!" I write off as complete fucking idiots because it's obvious they have no idea how the government or the economy works

Exactly. The reality is that the stimulus package worked. It wasn't a magic cure-all fix, but the numbers show that it did cause a turn-around from the trend of losing jobs. I think we've seen enough proof in the last three decades to definitively state the obvious, that supply-side stimulus is nowhere NEAR as effective as demand-side.
 
Exactly. The reality is that the stimulus package worked. It wasn't a magic cure-all fix, but the numbers show that it did cause a turn-around from the trend of losing jobs.

It did work. The same way giving an addict more drugs to stop the cravings works. It's not a cure at all, in any way shape or form, It's merely a symptom suppression tactic. The fact is it's a temporarily fix for a much larger problem.
 
It did work. The same way giving an addict more drugs to stop the cravings works. It's not a cure at all, in any way shape or form, It's merely a symptom suppression tactic. The fact is it's a temporarily fix for a much larger problem.
Except in this case, using your analogy, when the addict withdraws because you refuse to supply him you he ends up hurting everyone around him to get his fix or commits suicide, neither of which is what I want for my nation. Extending the analogy further, there's a reason we put substance abuse addicts through AA, methadone/subutex clinics, rehab, etc. etc. In the same sense this is a huge problem that took 30+ years of high living and negligence to create, and it won't be fixed overnight.
 
It did work. The same way giving an addict more drugs to stop the cravings works. It's not a cure at all, in any way shape or form, It's merely a symptom suppression tactic. The fact is it's a temporarily fix for a much larger problem.

Let me guess, you also believe the New Deal made things worse as well, even though ALL of the empirical evidence we have suggests otherwise.
 
Obooboos plan is working bring the us down to the level of a 3rd wotrld country.

No, that would be the tea baggers/Republican's obstructionism that's bringing down the country, not to mention the last decade of Republican tax breaks for "job creators" that don't work (tip for those with very low IQ's: DEMAND for products drives job growth, not tax breaks for the rich), trillions spent on worthless wars that had no reason to happen, $600 BILLION per year for the military....yeah, those things have nothing to do with how the economy has tanked has it?

The President can only do so much, he is not a dictator that can just make things happen. He needs congress to pass the laws in order for him to sign them. If you want to take the president on in relation to the national debt, then you will need to take on Reagan and Bush Sr. and Bush Jr. as well.

Here is a nice tidy sheet to show the facts of the national debt in relation to the congressional makeup and which president was residing in office at the time:

Years Increase debt Increase debt/GPD
(in Billions of $) (in percentage points)

1941–1945 +67.1% -FDR (+203 billion)
1945–1949 -24.4% -Truman (-8 billion)
1949–1953 -21.7% -Truman (+13 billion)
1953–1957 -11.0% -Eisenhower (+6 billion)
1957–1961 -5.2% -Eisenhower (+20 billion)
1961–1965 -8.3% -Kennedy (+30 billion)
1965–1969 -8.3% -LBJ (+43 billion)
1969–1973 -3.0% -Nixon (+101 billion)
1973–1977 +0.2% -Nixon/Ford (+177 billion)
1977–1981 -3.3% -Carter (+288 billion)
1981–1985 +11.3% -Reagan (+823 billion)
1985–1989 +9.3% -Reagan (+1050 billion)
1989–1993 +13.0% -Bush Sr. (+1483 billion)
1993–1997 -0.7% -Clinton (+1018 billion)
1997–2001 -9.0% -Clinton (+401 billion)
2001–2005 +7.1% -Bush Jr. (+2135 billion)
2005–2009 +18.2% -Bush Jr. (+3971 billion)
2009–2011 +10.3% -Obama (+2888 billion)

FDR came out of the Great Depression and the start of WW2. Obama came in at another mini Great Depression and 2 stupid wars of convenience (sorry, Saddam was NOT Hilter or Bin Laden). If you look at the above numbers, it seems the republican's starting with Reagan, have bankrupted our country more than democrats ever have. Bush Jr. took a fiscally responsible government that Clinton had left him, and acted like the whole government was a giant credit card that he could charge everything on. 2 TRILLION dollars alone for the wars that were not needed, tax breaks for "job creators" where there was NO job creation except in the military, led to an enormous amount of debt that we had under control when Clinton left office.

Bottom line:
Reagan added 20.6% (+1.9 trillion)
Bush Sr. added 13% (+1.5 trillion)
Clinton subtracted 9.7% (+1.4 trillion)
Bush Jr, added 25.3% (6 trillion)
Obama has so far added 10.3% (+2.9 trillion)

So how does one blame Obama (who has a tea party-led congress right now that is 100% against everything Obama stands for, even if they agreed with his stances not more than a few years ago) for the shitty economy and our credit downgrade? Show me where Obama did wrong, besides not making the stimulus package even bigger than it should have been. Please, show me with references and facts that Obama has single handily wrecked this country.
Source: History of the United States debt
 
Let me guess, you also believe the New Deal made things worse as well, even though ALL of the empirical evidence we have suggests otherwise.

LOL...just saying that makes me know you have no clue what you're talking about. Have a great night!
 
LOL...just saying that makes me know you have no clue what you're talking about. Have a great night!

Funny, I feel the same way. How many times do we have to prove that the Austrian and Chicago schools of thought are completely wrong?
 
The biggest problem we will face moving forward is that all of the countries above us have virtually no military budget ... with a full quarter of our budget being military, and as the only remaining Super Power we will have military responsibilities around the world that other countries won't have ... one long term solution (but it will never happen due to people's paranoia) is to allow the UN to have a standing military and take over the Super Power role played by the USA ... without that we better get used to countries with small defense budgets passing us by so that we can play our needed role as a Super Power ;)
 
This post is almost a completely perfect representation of what the Republican party has become. It completely fails to address a competing viewpoint, accuses the other side of its own flaws (complaining about name-calling while tossing out insults) while revealing a complete lack of intellectual capacity all at the same time. LOL HAHAHAHA LMAO :rolleyes:



Exactly. The reality is that the stimulus package worked. It wasn't a magic cure-all fix, but the numbers show that it did cause a turn-around from the trend of losing jobs. I think we've seen enough proof in the last three decades to definitively state the obvious, that supply-side stimulus is nowhere NEAR as effective as demand-side.

"the stimulus worked..."....hahahaha
 
The biggest problem we will face moving forward is that all of the countries above us have virtually no military budget ... with a full quarter of our budget being military, and as the only remaining Super Power we will have military responsibilities around the world that other countries won't have ... one long term solution (but it will never happen due to people's paranoia) is to allow the UN to have a standing military and take over the Super Power role played by the USA ... without that we better get used to countries with small defense budgets passing us by so that we can play our needed role as a Super Power ;)

Or we could ignore the rest of the worlds problems and fix our own? We have zero responsibility to anyones interest but our own. We may want to figure that out as it is causing us to go broke.
 
No, that would be the tea baggers/Republican's obstructionism that's bringing down the country, not to mention the last decade of Republican tax breaks for "job creators" that don't work (tip for those with very low IQ's: DEMAND for products drives job growth, not tax breaks for the rich), trillions spent on worthless wars that had no reason to happen, $600 BILLION per year for the military....yeah, those things have nothing to do with how the economy has tanked has it?

The President can only do so much, he is not a dictator that can just make things happen. He needs congress to pass the laws in order for him to sign them. If you want to take the president on in relation to the national debt, then you will need to take on Reagan and Bush Sr. and Bush Jr. as well.

Here is a nice tidy sheet to show the facts of the national debt in relation to the congressional makeup and which president was residing in office at the time:

Years Increase debt Increase debt/GPD
(in Billions of $) (in percentage points)

1941–1945 +67.1% -FDR (+203 billion)
1945–1949 -24.4% -Truman (-8 billion)
1949–1953 -21.7% -Truman (+13 billion)
1953–1957 -11.0% -Eisenhower (+6 billion)
1957–1961 -5.2% -Eisenhower (+20 billion)
1961–1965 -8.3% -Kennedy (+30 billion)
1965–1969 -8.3% -LBJ (+43 billion)
1969–1973 -3.0% -Nixon (+101 billion)
1973–1977 +0.2% -Nixon/Ford (+177 billion)
1977–1981 -3.3% -Carter (+288 billion)
1981–1985 +11.3% -Reagan (+823 billion)
1985–1989 +9.3% -Reagan (+1050 billion)
1989–1993 +13.0% -Bush Sr. (+1483 billion)
1993–1997 -0.7% -Clinton (+1018 billion)
1997–2001 -9.0% -Clinton (+401 billion)
2001–2005 +7.1% -Bush Jr. (+2135 billion)
2005–2009 +18.2% -Bush Jr. (+3971 billion)
2009–2011 +10.3% -Obama (+2888 billion)

FDR came out of the Great Depression and the start of WW2. Obama came in at another mini Great Depression and 2 stupid wars of convenience (sorry, Saddam was NOT Hilter or Bin Laden). If you look at the above numbers, it seems the republican's starting with Reagan, have bankrupted our country more than democrats ever have. Bush Jr. took a fiscally responsible government that Clinton had left him, and acted like the whole government was a giant credit card that he could charge everything on. 2 TRILLION dollars alone for the wars that were not needed, tax breaks for "job creators" where there was NO job creation except in the military, led to an enormous amount of debt that we had under control when Clinton left office.

Bottom line:
Reagan added 20.6% (+1.9 trillion)
Bush Sr. added 13% (+1.5 trillion)
Clinton subtracted 9.7% (+1.4 trillion)
Bush Jr, added 25.3% (6 trillion)
Obama has so far added 10.3% (+2.9 trillion)

So how does one blame Obama (who has a tea party-led congress right now that is 100% against everything Obama stands for, even if they agreed with his stances not more than a few years ago) for the shitty economy and our credit downgrade? Show me where Obama did wrong, besides not making the stimulus package even bigger than it should have been. Please, show me with references and facts that Obama has single handily wrecked this country.
Source: History of the United States debt

You're wasting your time, statistics have a well known liberal bias. :D
 
Or we could ignore the rest of the worlds problems and fix our own? We have zero responsibility to anyones interest but our own. We may want to figure that out as it is causing us to go broke.

The US can't live as an island unless we are prepared to have a significantly smaller economy and much higher prices for everything. We depend on exports and imports. As long as we do, then we have a stake in "other" interests. Keeping the shipping lanes open and running effectively requires an effective navy and air force. Dealing with countries sometimes requires an army. The gap is that other countries don't carry their fair share of the burden. Germany doesn't have to maintain a large military to protect their export and import economy (neither does Japan, the third largest world economy behind the US and China). China should become a Super Power and use their navy to help keep the international seaways open (that they profit from). If the UN had an army of 2-3 million troops to maintain peacekeeping operations internationally then you wouldn't need such a large military in the US. However, until these other entities step up, the US is the only game in town and our own stability and interests require us to maintain the large military budget ... c'est la guerre ;)
 
The biggest problem we will face moving forward is that all of the countries above us have virtually no military budget ... with a full quarter of our budget being military, and as the only remaining Super Power we will have military responsibilities around the world that other countries won't have ... one long term solution (but it will never happen due to people's paranoia) is to allow the UN to have a standing military and take over the Super Power role played by the USA ... without that we better get used to countries with small defense budgets passing us by so that we can play our needed role as a Super Power ;)

Our military can literally take on the rest of the planet combined in a conventional war. Not sure if you noticed, but most of the world hates each others.

So maybe we should scale our military down to a size that one would call sane.

Honestly. At this point. All we really need is a strong Navy, about half the size of our current Navy with a stronger focus on smaller ships in more numerous quantities. We can turn the Army into a training Command, making almost every Unit a Reserve Unit or National Guard. We can cut the Air Force back, because honestly, by the time there is another war, manned aircraft will be taking a secondary role. So we can stop wasting a trillion on aircraft, like the JSF, which will be outdated by the time they are needed. The Marine Corps I would keep just as they are, maybe even increase their funding and use them as our frontline land unit for action in small hotspots around the world.

There. I just cut the defense budget in half. Next up on the cutting block is every single Domestic Spying Program, as they are patently unconstitutional.

Read the Mr. Y article. It was written by two Joint Chiefs staffers who had their names released and faced no trouble whatsoever for their views, which means it had the tacit approval of the Joint Chiefs. These guys have access to the information that we civilians need to make an unbiased view of our foreign policy.

They basically said the terror threat was vastly overblown, and that our most pressing national security requirement is to reinvest in America instead of wasting our money overseas on pointless wars.

Basically they said the W
 
The problem is that it's impossible to know this due to the appearance of World War II.

Would the United States have experiences the golden years it did without the destruction of the other industrialized nations in the world, leaving virtually no competition? Would it have been able to extinguish the debt it accumulated during the preceding years without winning WWII and engaging in a campaign of growth and financial repression?

Let's say the US never entered WWII on the victorious side. Do you really believe things would have ended the way they did?
 
Please, come back when you're actually ready to discuss it rather than laughing it off. :rolleyes:


The stimulus money may have failed to go to the states the president promised, but a clear pattern does emerge. Stimulus dollars were highly correlated to which political party controlled the state: Having an entirely Democrat congressional delegation in 2009, when the bill passed, increases the per capita stimulus dollars that the state receives per person by $460. In addition, the states that Obama won by the largest percentage margin in 2008 got the most money.

Even within states much of this money went to relatively well-to-do public sector unions and wealthy Democrats worth hundreds of millions of dollars or billions of dollars. Billionaire Democrat donors who received a lot of money from the Obama administration include: Solyndra owner George Kaiser; Tesla Motors owners Leon Musk, Larry Page and Sergey Brin; NRG Energy owners Warren Buffett, Steven Cohen, and Carl Icahn; Abound Solar Manufacturing’s Pat Stryker; and Siga Technologies’ Ronald Perelman. Among other wealthy Democrat winners were former Vice President Al Gore whose investment in Fisker Automotive was rewarded with a $529 million loan guarantee. All together about 75 percent of loans and grants have been given out to companies run by Obama supporters.

The Stimulus didn’t create new jobs. Whether the government has to borrow or impose new taxes or print up money, the money the government gave away wasn’t free. The money had to come from someplace.

For all the concern about Democrats helping the poor, they were merely in it to help themselves. The Stimulus was simply a massive partisan wealth transfer -- the largest single transfer in American history.
 
The stimulus money may have failed to go to the states the president promised, but a clear pattern does emerge. Stimulus dollars were highly correlated to which political party controlled the state: Having an entirely Democrat congressional delegation in 2009, when the bill passed, increases the per capita stimulus dollars that the state receives per person by $460. In addition, the states that Obama won by the largest percentage margin in 2008 got the most money.

Even within states much of this money went to relatively well-to-do public sector unions and wealthy Democrats worth hundreds of millions of dollars or billions of dollars. Billionaire Democrat donors who received a lot of money from the Obama administration include: Solyndra owner George Kaiser; Tesla Motors owners Leon Musk, Larry Page and Sergey Brin; NRG Energy owners Warren Buffett, Steven Cohen, and Carl Icahn; Abound Solar Manufacturing’s Pat Stryker; and Siga Technologies’ Ronald Perelman. Among other wealthy Democrat winners were former Vice President Al Gore whose investment in Fisker Automotive was rewarded with a $529 million loan guarantee. All together about 75 percent of loans and grants have been given out to companies run by Obama supporters.
Because those are the Congress leaders who voted to pass the stimulus package. Why would the Obama administration and its supporters fight tooth and nail with a lot of cry baby Republicans who didn't want any stimulus money passed, then turn around and give them money which they didn't support or want? Besides, I wouldn't put it past them to waste said stimulus money just to hurt the Obama administration. Honestly, you're just not thinking.

The Stimulus didn’t create new jobs. Whether the government has to borrow or impose new taxes or print up money, the money the government gave away wasn’t free. The money had to come from someplace.

For all the concern about Democrats helping the poor, they were merely in it to help themselves. The Stimulus was simply a massive partisan wealth transfer -- the largest single transfer in American history.
I'm not sure you even understand what you're typing. Please, what would you have rather seen done to reverse the recession? The thing is people want a quick fix and a magic band aid but realize the absolute magnitude of what is going on here.

The problem is that it's impossible to know this due to the appearance of World War II.

Would the United States have experiences the golden years it did without the destruction of the other industrialized nations in the world, leaving virtually no competition? Would it have been able to extinguish the debt it accumulated during the preceding years without winning WWII and engaging in a campaign of growth and financial repression?

Let's say the US never entered WWII on the victorious side. Do you really believe things would have ended the way they did?
Exactly, and it's tough to say. WW2 got us out of the Great Depression pretty damn quickly, but we don't want or need another World War to get us out of this one.
 
I'm not sure you even understand what you're typing. Please, what would you have rather seen done to reverse the recession? The thing is people want a quick fix and a magic band aid but realize the absolute magnitude of what is going on here.

The recession is only prolonged by the artificially low interest rates we are employing right now. It prevents liquidating bad debt which is what is needed for recovery.
 
The recession is only prolonged by the artificially low interest rates we are employing right now. It prevents liquidating bad debt which is what is needed for recovery.

What? ... a recession is multiple quarters of low growth ... a low interest rate increases economic activity (growth) while a higher rate reduces economic activity ... a higher interest rate from the Fed would kill growth in this country or even cause a depression ... besides which, a higher rate would savage everyone else's economies (including our own) ... other countries have to charge higher rates to finance their debt since no one wants to borrow from them at lower rates ... we have extraordinarily low rates on our debt because people will buy our debt without needing extra interest ... if we raised the rates on bonds arbitrarily we would be giving money away for no reason ... I am not sure how that makes any sense either :(
 
The low interest rate is giving away money. Less savings /deferred consumption and business investment.
The artificial rate creates malinvestment and misjudgments of consumer preferences.

Its a setup for failure later on.
 
Back
Top