Not necessarily. Keynesian Economics is the government must intervene and micromanage often because people can be stupid. It is not exclusive to creating growth

The term is Keynesian Economics. And it's the same intentionally flawed logic behind daytrading.

Antagonizing the authorities is a classic sign of criminal intent.

I literally didn't. Feeling guilty?

It doesn't bother you that VC and crowdfunding have identical payoffs? I say it's more evidence of the efficient market hypothesis, but for the post's purposes it shows how the system as it is set up incentivizes rockstar CEOs. Mr. Gates and Mr. Jobs were among the first, and Mr. Musk is simply the most recent. But you'll notice all the above keep announcing new R&D projects that require funding regardless if their team has finished the old one. The big bucks are in starting massive projects, not finishing them. Once they are finished their profits can be easily valued with conventional math and the stock price (and executive options/shares) will crash. Furthermore, micro-industries surrounding them will crash. Like Amazon Aggregators that simply buy a portfolio of profitable online stores with VC and borrowed money... Turns out the returns of those were identical to leveraged exposure to Amazon.

You don't need a mastermind creating growth. People will figure that part out even if you don't want them to. I argue no one should try to manipulate markets in any fashion, even if it is done with the best intentions.

If you're in college, I will ask you to lose the hyperbole because we all know you're investing in yourself.

If you ain't, I'll wager you steal things too. I know people who borrow money and refuse to pay it back.

Not necessarily as it depends how many buck sales they can do and how long they take to do it. And you know they usually hold until maturity, right?

At the moment, the Fed's focus is bringing the real inflation rate down to the target. In his announcements, Mr Powell cited the consumer price index MINUS materials affected by the war in Europe.

Or maybe you're just terrible with money.

No one is picking winners and losers here. And if your ideas of getting rich depend that much on borrowed funds, I'd ask you to revise your plans.

If you had a fortune wouldn't you give the bulk of it to your children? And guess what? If you give your kids stocks when you die you don't even have to pay taxes on it!

Same end result. For solar especially, EVERY STAGE of the process has a tax write off up to 30% of the value of panel. Makers, installers, and buyers alike. The profitability of solar went up accordingly the moment these tax breaks went into effect. It's not unreasonable to believe panel cost would rise by 50% if these subsidies were removed.

And BTW, tax breaks on job producing infrastructure is exactly what ecoterrorists are referring to when they lie and say oil giants are heavily subsidized. Not saying you're one of those guys, but you definitely can't have it both ways.

Politics is bad for business. It doesn't matter what your DD is, because even if it's true you'll still lose.

Also, WSB doesn't allow politics.

There's more to it than that.

It is arguable that low interest rates contributed to the housing bubble, as the accessibility of mortgages was a prerequisite.

Lose the political bullshit. This is a capitalism sub.

The goal here isn't to choose winners and losers. Whether tomorrow's elites are the children of the current elites or an all new set of entrepreneurs makes no difference. What we want are stable and efficient markets.

You'd be surprised to the degree they overlap.

Also, literally the last class I finished was doctoral level history of US economics. I did my research paper on Wichita aerospace manufacture.

Don't get me started on the fall of Rome, I could literally go on all day. Suffice it to say that was a symptom, not the cause, and their fiat currency kept prices stable even as the gold content fell. By the time Rome started losing territory, the population size across the empire had already fallen massively and the legions had been cannibalized in a list of ways long before then.

And regardless, that's not the proof you're looking for as deliberate inflation acts like a hidden tax on savings and we're not looking to increase spending, but rather change the manner in which we raise revenue. I.E. We can reduce inflation and raise income taxes for higher brackets, as long as net revenue is the same... Who cares?

I literally am a historian. And the late Roman Empire's pursuit of fiat currency was actually a success and I have written my own arguments for both their rise and fall which are pretty unique. The point here is an inflation target of zero isn't too much to ask for as we do run a developed and profitable country here. We target net positive inflation to deter hoarding rather than because we need the money (we have taxes for that).

The government has a money printer and has been deficit spending for its entire existence. What we should worry about is countries with economies highly correlated to the US, but whose government bank's are working at cross purposes to ours. This is America, it's not hard to turn a profit as parts of the country are still receiving new settlers. And the Fed is full of men smarter and more responsible than you and me.

And as several pointed out, current rates aren't very high in absolute terms.

There are micro-bubbles all the time that depend on ease of equity and cheapness of debt. Ever heard of Amazon Aggregators?

I forget the exact study, but investments with lottery like payoffs tend to be systemically overvalued whether it's micro-cap stocks, short-term options, or innovative startups. People feel better about a chance of extremely high returns than they do about giving that chance up. Until this year, any new business could be given a lottery like payoff (or even be turned into a ponzi scheme).

Yes, but we can do it consistently. In fact, every new marketable invention has produced some kind of bubble in recent decades. There are even single-stock bubbles, and bubbles that form around successful companies. Like how right now college athletes found they can make more on OnlyFans than they ever will make in the real world. That isn't just sad, but will definitely right itself as soon as all the small-scale porn shows move onto the platform and squeeze the true amateurs out (fortunately).

Higher than most people alive today can ever remember. Higher than the ultra-low rates that produce the effect described.

Fiat beats any commodity for currency. However, we shouldn't try to manipulate the markets in any fashion even if we have the sincere intention of creating real-world growth and prosperity for others.

We all know the positives, but the whole point is it helps create bubbles. Either way, we could do as you say and keep interest rates at 3-5% for the same correction.