Sure it is. If someone you know to be a shill (for an organization thought to be the source of much of American's economic woes by people you highly respect) believes you are mistaken, you can bet you are on solid ground.
There is truth in what you write. And I know your time frame now. I don't have time to discuss, but i plan to get back to you. Thanks for answering in a substantive way. But let me put you on warning that your going to have a hell of a time rationalizing the Fed should be blown up based on these arguments.
the propaganda is real from piezoe. by the way I had no idea Milton Friedman was going to tell you exactly what I have been telling you late..ly the only think I would ad here is that the fomc has no power to change Fed policy unless everyone agrees... including the 5 bank appointed people. . 2. With respect to Reaganomics.... it was followed by a 20 year or more boom in our economy Democrat policies led to such a bad economy Carter had to give his malaise speech in which he said we should get used to underperformance and the inflation weak economy issues we were suffering We boomed after volker choked off inflation and reagan lowered taxes. Any issues you have brought up about reagan in the past were misguided. 50 percent of our country does not even pay income tax now... So reagan had nothing to do with their problems. The inequality comes about from high taxation and the 40 to 60 million immigrants we have brought in since reagan. Freidman was not a radical. he was a towering intellect.
This is a good take on Friedman, imo. I always liked his saying that we should judge policies on their results rather than their intentions. He would have lost his mind in today’s world of disinformation though and his stance on issues like the minimum wage was just completely wrong. So, yes, I agree he was a mixed bag and you have to be able to differentiate his brilliance and from his not so brilliant ideas.
Hold on a second you two, you’re very focused on housing prices but why should an asset’s affordability be based on price but not income and existing debt? There’s a whole other side to this equation you guys aren’t considering.
Its not that we aren't considering it, but rather we are focused on the problems at the Fed causing this - which is the point of the thread. If you want to argue that housing affordability is also affected by income and existing debt because of income inequality, I'd be inclined to agree with you. But the primary issue at work here is affordability of housing because asset prices have been improperly inflated with cheap money (which also drives an expansion of debt and over leverage, though in the case of Millenials, that is probably more an education payoff than any other debt).
1. I can help you all solve the conundrum. When the fed prints trillions of dollars it creates significant inflation in many assets classes. Frequently real estate is the beneficiary.. stocks too. However when you couple a high inflation environment with high taxes... its very hard to keep your assets. Property taxes go up. Tax bills become due. If you were successful the asset gets taxed out of the countrol of you beneficiaries withing a generation or two. Finally, you have an oddity in the market... that few recognize. By having tax write offs on mortgage interest you allow the same people to drive the asset price higher. By having govt programs which subsidize or back some of the mortgages you allow risky loans to go to more people driving the price of the asset higher By having govt programs which allow for 3% down you drive the price of the asset higher. So everyone has to give more of their income to the bankers who create the money for the loans. 2. Then you do this with student loans. 3. Then you do this with health care and to some degree other insurance products. If you all don't see the evils of central banker cronyism yet... you are drones. Bankers have turned the public into economic surf through the politicians through inflation, taxation and govt interference... Which is not surprising since their biggest asset is the politicians of both parties.