By cutting the interest rate of QE they giving people free stuff. It is just different people that get it.
On another note the people who have been lent the money, who have to pay it back, are likely not to be paying much tax. If they are not in receipt of the money that is available through lower tax they cannot pay it back. So in short even if the aggregate money supply is sufficient the ability to distribute it to the people that owe it is not delivered. I mentioned this in the article.
look, its friday and i am leaving early. i dont have time to school you on free market principles so i will leave it up to someone else.
Believe me you lost any credibility to discuss the free market when you said it was designed. All of your posts were one sentence long and made no justification or claim other than, 'you are wrong' or, ' you don't understand'. Mine on the other hand went into 'some' detail as to the reality of what a free market should be and how the current system is not a free market. You seem to think that the benefactors of a centrally planned economy should be able to be the benefactors of a free market startegy when it suits them. Anyway regardless of whether it is free market or not. Or whether free market economics is best or not. What I am trying to address in the article is that the amount of money people have in income is falling but the debt is the same or more. The have to be able to pay that back or there will be defaults. If you are happy with losing your pension and savings through a free market collapse fine. But if you are looking for an alternative way of making good on the debts you have to find a way to pay them. This is merely one suggestion. I don't think any others are viable. You are right though it is Friday have a nice weekend.
one last(i hope) comment. the free market is designed by the laws that govern it. like property rights and contract law. think about it.
No what I address in the article is the intervention of the central bank. That has nothing to do with property or land laws. It is centrally planned intervention that benefits one sector of society over others. The buy to let landlords would not have been able to buy and rent the property if the interest rate was not artificially lowered. Nothing to do with law just central bank policy.
A truly free market would allow people with lots of money (or other resources) to set up their own currency and run it as they wish, for their own benefit. A formalized central bank structure is a close approximation of this. Central banks, formal or otherwise, are in fact, a key feature of "free" markets.
I guess it depends on whether your view of free market is that people who are in a position to do what they want can or whether it is that people are able to puruse free enterprise without regulation or intervention, which is the generally accepted view. In any event it will be the people who own properties, have savings and pensions that will lose everything when the people the central bank and retail banks lent money to default on their investments because their income falls and their debt and rant costs remain the same. This is the important debate here not what is a free market. How can debtors pay back what they owe with fall income. Do you have any other suggestions?
They don't. All systems eventually hit the "reset" button. I see this as a perfectly natural outcome, and it doesn't bother me at all, other than dealing with the fact that we may have to deal with the complexity of living through one.
If that happens then anyone with a pension will lose it and you and everyone else will lose money in the bank. If you think that is better than landlords having a small concession in their income to enable debt repayment then I guess you will get what you want. I on the other hand think it should be avoided if possible.