There is always downside. As you point out, right now the...

First 3668 Last

Share
Profile

Follow
nosirommit

1,995 Posts.

27

25/01/21

15:19

Post #: 50430516
Share

Originally posted by Crom Valen: ↑

Take a look at Perth property, after the investment boom it started to decline significantly, but that doesn't really fit in with your argument does it?

I'd say it would have declined even more significantly without stimulus and low interest rates.

You only ever mention property and property investors. So it was worth pointing out that the stimulus was not put in place to inflate property prices. It was to keep the economy going and put a floor in the stock market.

Yes, I'm mentioning property and property investors in the Property forum. That should not be a surprise.
Say what you like: central banks believe in 'the wealth effect' and sought to increase asset prices - that includes stocks and property. We'll have to agree to disagree.

As for leaving markets to their own devices. I actually agree with this.
However I personally don't think anyone can answer the question of whether new policy is working better or worse than the old way, not yet.

Well if you want money printing, higher national debts, a distorted economy that is now at the mercy of the property market, 'zombie' companies, malinvestment, and the punishing of savers for over a decade now then you would have to say that this new era of central bank control puppeteering of markets is better than the alternative.

The old way. i.e. great depression, the recession we had to have.
Caused incredibly painful periods, not for the wealthy (although some lost out), but for the workers who lost their jobs when unemployment goes through the roof. Small business fail, suicide rates sky rocket. Is that something governments should just "leave to their own devices"?

Sounds like you are in favour of heavy state control of the economy, as the alternative is unpalatable. You'll happily take the 'upsides' of capitalism, but recessions, business failures, the individual consequences of poor investment decisions....you don't like the 'downside' of capitalism so prefer that we operate under a different system. Fair enough I guess, we are all allowed our own opinions and viewpoints. Maybe the system you want is one where the government guarantees that there is no 'downside' for anyone.

Expand

There is always downside. As you point out, right now the downside is for those with a low risk tolerance.

As I said and you underlined. I agree with minimal intervention.
But until this plays out no one can say whether all your hyperbole is correct or not.
Time will tell.

So rather than fight the tide, I'll swim with it, applying prudent levels of leverage.
2 Upvote

Reply