> Setting economic policy based on fighting 1970's inflation battles instead of accepting the evidence that the US economy is finally near or at full employment by sustaining a low interest rate environment contrary to evidence and experience. Full employment is good for workers and less-good for asset owners.
You can always point to numbers that are supposedly good (such as questionable government-issued employment statistics) and I can always point to numbers that are bad (the PMI, the Russell 2000, the unprecedented levels of sovereign and individual debt).
If the economy really was that great now for people on main street, why is Trump losing approval among the people that voted for him to fix this exact issue?
> Governments can borrow money to build infrastructure that make people's lives better, I don't know how you can dispute that this policy option exists or say that it "doesn't work that way" when you know, governments do that stuff all the time. When in doubt, and you have low interest rates, build a sewage treatment plant!
I'm not against emergency measures by any means, but the tendency with governments is to make the emergency measure of today the status quo of tomorrow. This idea that you can spend yourself wealthy at the national level is just as flawed as the idea of trickle-down-economics.
Sure, in the short term, debt-financed government programs can stimulate the economy, but that debt has to be paid off. You have moved demand from the future into the present. It will be missing from the future, because money spent on debt service cannot be spent on anything else. That is unless you don't pay off the debt, or you erase it through inflation, in which case that is still money missing from someone's pocket, and it's not just foreign pockets - most US debt is internal. It's also not going to be the rich guys' pockets, because they saw it all coming and bought up all the hard assets already.
