The system was always working, ZIRP was the market screaming that it had more capital than things to do with the capital. Of course, thinking about this too hard quickly leads to the idea of rolling back some of the enormous tax and policy privileges granted to capital, so it was critical for us to not think about it too hard.

▲

sfblah a day ago | parent | next [-]

I don't actually think this interpretation is correct. ZIRP was the government printing money and buying bonds off the market. I think it had more to do with velocity of money, which ordinarily would have been corrected through a recession, but the government prevented that, which will create a much bigger recession at some point in the future.

	▲	smallmancontrov a day ago \| parent [-]
		No, the fed doesn't set rates. Not by much, not for long, not without inflation taking off. In theory they chase R*, in practice they chase the 2-year. Plot EFFR and US02Y on tradingview and tell me who leads whom, and tell me what happened when the fed tried to fight the market. For the most part, congress decides to spend a certain amount in excess of receipts, congress decides the debt, the private sector bids on the debt, and the marginal bid sets the interest rate. When the federal reserve steps in they can use their magic balance sheet to, at great expense, tug the interest rate around a little bit. However, artificially creating ZIRP in a non-ZIRP economy would not be a little tug, it would require buying most or all of the unattractive bonds. In 2020 it would have required $25T not $4T (GFDEBTN vs WALCL in 2020). Because the sum total of their intervention was small compared to the debt sold to that point, the low-intervention approximation is correct during the 2010 ZIRP era, the "P" in ZIRP is a misnomer, and "capital had more money than they knew what to do with" is the correct read on how ZIRP happened.

▲

logicchains a day ago | parent | prev [-]

"Capital" gets tax privileges to encourage investing, because investing creates things, consumption destroys things. We want more of the former than the latter.

	▲	caconym_ a day ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Sounds like a self-fulfilling prophecy. If you draw a line between capital and consumers, and the latter are so tightly squeezed as a result of the "privilege" imbalance that they can barely afford housing, health care, child care, etc., how do you expect them to engage in entrepreneurship? How do you expect them to efficiently allocate their labor? Meanwhile we see an absurd consolidation of capital that leaves consumers with fewer and fewer choices for basic products and services, allowing capital to make those products and services worse and more extractive. Rinse and repeat. The contempt for consumers and attitude that capital should be "privileged" manifests in our government's total indifference to the former's plight, despite the well known fact that they are the engine of our economy. How do you think it's going?
	▲	lukifer a day ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		> investing creates things Predatory private equity. Unproductive rent-seeking. Anti-competitive "acquihires". > consumption destroys things Health care. Education. Selling/renting unoccupied housing.
	▲	__alexs a day ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		You want supply to exceed demand? That doesn't seem very sustainable.