0
0

[–] ForTheUltimate ago 

I already answered before.

Say market set interest rates are at 6%. If you lower them to reach your stupid inflation target, now firms that are only profitable at 5% take and bid up resources used by those at 6%. Translation: ressources are not going from 6% return projects to 5%, and this isn't corrected my natural market forces, because you've artificially suppressed them with lower itnerest rates. The proof is when you idiots raise your interest rates, you get a recession everytime and more surely so, the longer you've fed inefficiency that can't survive without your intervention.

0
0

[–] CanIHazPhD ago 

No, you didn't. This is your supposed explanation on why deflation would lead to a better allocation of resources (and a false one at that).

I'm asking you to explain the historical reality that, save for very particular exceptions (that can be explained by secondary factors), deflation has lead to loss of growth, recessions and crashes throughout modern economical history. But you can't right? That's why you tried that it about intervention at the end, that makes no sense at all.

0
0

[–] ForTheUltimate ago  (edited ago)

can't survive without your intervention.

I just did. The investments you caused into being simply cannot be profitable at the higher interest, thus raising interest rates causes a recession.

I already gave you some good examples on why it's easier to exploit resources at first. I recommend you think on those again. This also explains why modern economies can't make this growths in production.

What good examples? I require a rational explanation. No it does not. Your explanation is sorely lacking.