Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Clown-Free Zone... sorry, no clowns allowed -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: chic_hearne who wrote (81777)	3/16/2001 8:17:33 PM
From: ahhaha	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 436258

Your humble opinion is built on an era that is intrinsically distorted. The distortion is caused by persistent application of Keynesian economics in order to ensure prosperity. The cost is structurally high rates of interest even during deflationary periods like between 1/80 and 8/82 within a regime of rapidly dropping structural rates of interest or even 2/91 to 8/93 when the structural tendencies were exhausted. Before the FED engaged in chronic interventionism an interest rate of 6% was considered disastrous. Without interventionism rates would rarely rise above 2%. The issue though is different when demand is in retreat. FED chases it downward, but is always behind. To suddenly reverse and raise rates at any level of interest without solid justification, is beyond disastrous, it's depressionary. Maybe you can tell me how many economists are calling for higher rates now? What would be the outcome if the FED raised rates now? After all, it would only be a wiggle.