Thanks for the article.
Here are some of my comments.
Keynes was against
negative interest rates! https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/may/25/negative-interest-rates-the-case-against-john-maynard-keynes.
The Fed is a private
corporation. It has definitely exceeded it founding purposes. http://www.globalresearch.ca/who-owns-the-federal-reserve/10489,
The discussion on GDP
was enlightening.
The author lives in
his own world.
He is right that it is
very complex.
I certainly
agree that negative interest rates are an awful idea as did Keynes. (Who knows,
maybe we should have stayed on the gold standard with some modifications.)
Bernanke was no Keynesian
and neither were his failed policies.
I was born and
raised in the depression and Federal spending did make a huge difference.
I wonder why he
doesn't discuss war and empire which are really throwing money down the rat
hole and unbalancing our economy.
I have to agree with
him that very low interest rates are hurting seniors and bond holders.
"Saving" money in the bank is a joke. After a year or two your money
plus interest is worth less than you put in. This is already negative interest
rates.
He throws in no real
argument about federal spending as he does about the Fed's policies.
I have to agree with
him that a good part of the growth was due to market forces that finally
decided to get down to business.
His number 1 and 3 suggestions
make a lot of sense. He does not understand Social Security.
Infrastructure
building makes sense also and looking for creative ways to pay for it is
definitely a plus. Also his argument that we will have to do it later
anyway is spot on. He could have mentioned that it would be more expensive and
we would lose the benefits of a good infrastructure during that time. We live
in a competitive world.
Sorry time is running
out.
Frank
No comments:
Post a Comment