>>93551
>but it has nothing to do with the labor force and everything to do with the Fed keeping interest rates at near zero for the last ten years. Artificially low interest rates means easier access to loans, which means more investment and more capital growth occurring (including more hirings) than is sustainable in the market, because there was no corresponding decrease in time preference by savers to match the increase in investment.
That's what I was looking to confirm because the growth doesn't make sense from the lack of consumption.
>The only reason anyone would claim there "aren't enough workers" is to justify useless government spending programs to "create jobs."
I think the main target of their argument was to justify increased immigration against the policy of the Trump administration, their useless government spending program through affirmative action student loans is already in crisis.
>Phillips Curve is a spook. It was thoroughly disproven in the 70s when stagflation hit. Keynesians have tried unsuccessfully to explain this away because their entire process is tied to the Phillips Curve and relations like it existing, because they want to put on their central planner hats and "fine tune" the economy.
That was another thing, the Fed and public finance academics seem to keep using the Philips Curve as a tool for plotting policy when it hasn't worked for decades.
>Again, the crash is going to happen because interest rates were at near zero for the past decade. The earlier the Fed raises rates the less buildup of unproductive capital there will be, and the milder the ultimate crash. High interest rates are good because some of us actually save our money instead of taking out dozens of loans for shit.
From the perspective of some the Fed is raising the rates already too late in the cycle to be effective, but in order to prevent this from happening again shouldn't the Fed try to adopt a natural interest rate policy to keep monetary policy stable? Some detractors in the media argue it would create uncertainty in the marketplace because investors wouldn't have the predictable boom-bust cycles the Fed causes whenever it raises interest rates too high allowing them to pull their money out and buy after the market crashed, but that seems like a justification of the interventionism rather than based on actual sense, since when was the market supposed to have certainty?
High interest rates would be solid in periods of growth and reigning in inflation but since the Fed has been intent on fucking with the markets constantly for the past four decades consistent growth seems doubtful and they've always preferred inflation over stability for fear of a deflation that's never happened. A big reason for fiat's existence at all also seems to be for a currency that's more liquid than a gold backed one and high interest rates would be counterproductive to achieving that goal from the point of a central bank.