After I read this post, I ordered 2 garden weasels. Why 2, well, why just buy 1 when you can have 2 for twice the price?
Volcker would, i think, agree with you, but summed up the situation another way. He said in effect: We have have become accustomed to consuming out of proportion to our productivity. When the much vilified Mr. Carter was President we had inflation. Carter appointed Paul Volcker as Fed Chairman. Volcker's medicine was a painful rise in interest rates. Then we had a recession. And it was not fun. But the dollar was protected. When we came out of recession, for which the "Reagan Republicans" were only too happy to claim credit. The economy was strong again. Reagan and the Congress reveled in unbridled deficit spending -- Reagan on military toys, the Congress on domestic programs. Reagan appointed Greenspan, the "anti-Volcker" as his central banker, and "Easy Al" was happy to oblige the new free-wheeling, supply-side spending spree with a free and easy money policy. We were having much more fun with Reagan as President, and it was easy to stick Carter with the "economy fumbler" label, when in reality it was Carter's administration and his central banker's medicine that, in large part, brought us out of the Arab oil crisis and the "Carter Recession." The ensuing, easy-money, free-spending Reagan-Greenspan years brought us our last major bout with weak currency, though not as alarming as today's, and great happiness. Borrowing money was far more fun than the recession we had just experienced. This raises the question: Is a relatively short dose of bitter medicine better or worse than years of false prosperity built on borrowed and cheapened money? To my mind, it is better to take the medicine at the outset and get it over with. But I am old-fashioned and obviously out of step with our buy now, pay later economy.